USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[occasionalfencer]

Well it kind of gets rid of the "USFA is out to steal your wallet", but w/e.

I do not understand this, especially the "w/e". Elucidate?

[edew]

w/e = Whatever?

[telkanuru]

The proposal, as put forward, would not increase the cost of attendance for fencers and would in fact either result in a wash or savings, while saving the USFA a significant amount of money. If you decide not to believe this is true, I don't really know what I can say to reverse that. At some point, you do have to "trust them", no matter what the plan.

As has been documented, I was originally in the "Burn the witch" camp on this subject, but I now believe this is a decent course of action for the USFA to take.

[flechewounds]

Here's the thing, hopefully it will allay several fears which have been raised here.

Let's not let facts get in the way of good fearmongering, though.

Sorry, Tel, but the powerpoint contains precious few "facts."

1) It quotes room rates in Des Moines going from $129 to $109. But on Hotwire, I'm finding plenty of options for $50-55. Charging me only $12 for filet mignon isn't a bargain if I want a $5 cheeseburger. The decrease in room rates are for contracted group rates, not for rates offered by aggregators, spot markets, AAA or other discount programs, etc. (see the US Volleyball policy cited below).

2) "some possible reasons for a waiver" - your quote about staying in a tent misrepresents the printed page. Clearly, THS doesn't provide a tent option or an RV option (maybe grist for another plunge into satire) and doesn't compete with KOAs or Wal-Mart (Bill Gelnaw will be happy to hear that). However, there is nothing in there that says I get a waiver if "I want to stay in a Motel 6" or "I want to use Priceline or Hotwire." Those particular options compete directly with Stay and Pay, and will not likely be adequate reasons for a waiver. Furthermore, Hotwire/Priceline require financial commitments prior to booking - so there is no way for THS to acquire the same room. If they put in an explicit Priceline/Hotwire/other on-line aggregator exception, perhaps they will have some credibility. But I don't think that is their intent.

3) The "monitoring" piece is the same blather that they have on the US Volleyball site. There, the monitoring explicitly excludes AAA, government, AARP, etc. See the US Volleyball policy here.

4) Kurt even has the stones to both acknowledge that the membership doesn't like THS and suggest that we sign over our firstborn to them - am I the only one who finds this peculiar?

5) What if you could get a 20% return on your investment every year, regardless of the economy? Sound impossible? Just ask Bernie Madoff... Plenty of good, smart folks fell for that one. Hyperbole aside, there is no free lunch. The riches that the USFA seeks will come primarily from one group of folks - the fencers and their families.

6) Kurt may wish to get a properly licensed version of PowerPoint. Right now, he's using one from the "YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region" (check the document properties - I was curious if this originated from THS). Hey, using OP software would save money, too

Frankly, nothing in this powerpoint does anything to (a) offer different policies than those published by US Volleyball, or (b) address the underlying issues with this program - put simply, those of us who care about what we pay will be forced to pay more. Therein lies the problem.

As I started this whole thing out with - THS has some hard work to do before they gain the membership's trust. The USFA management has some hard work to do before they gain the membership's trust (remember, we're still working off the cluster f**k from the last quadrennial). Both parties need to do this work before seriously considering a program like this.

G

[qatet]

Mods - could we please merge the duplicate threads? People are posting the same thing on two different threads, which gets confusing.

Ummm... shouldn't this have been posted in the other thread? I think it was much more relevant to those posts.

[telkanuru]

1) It quotes room rates in Des Moines going from $129 to $109. But on Hotwire, I'm finding plenty of options for $50-55. Charging me only $12 for filet mignon isn't a bargain if I want a $5 cheeseburger. The decrease in room rates are for contracted group rates, not for rates offered by aggregators, spot markets, AAA or other discount programs, etc. (see the US Volleyball policy cited below).

This is fairly obviously an example using the mid-range price option.

2) "some possible reasons for a waiver" - your quote about staying in a tent misrepresents the printed page. Clearly, THS doesn't provide a tent option or an RV option (maybe grist for another plunge into satire) and doesn't compete with KOAs or Wal-Mart (Bill Gelnaw will be happy to hear that). However, there is nothing in there that says I get a waiver if "I want to stay in a Motel 6" or "I want to use Priceline or Hotwire." Those particular options compete directly with Stay and Pay, and will not likely be adequate reasons for a waiver. Furthermore, Hotwire/Priceline require financial commitments prior to booking - so there is no way for THS to acquire the same room. If they put in an explicit Priceline/Hotwire/other on-line aggregator exception, perhaps they will have some credibility. But I don't think that is their intent.

This process does remove choice of location. However, (leaving the priceline question up in the air, as we don't have information either way), it does secure the price option. Read into it what you will, but the sentiment I see is that you'll get a waiver if you ask for one and don't fall into the "stay with THS for the same price" deal.

3) The "monitoring" piece is the same blather that they have on the US Volleyball site. There, the monitoring explicitly excludes AAA, government, AARP, etc. See the US Volleyball policy here.

I have no information on this.

4) Kurt even has the stones to both acknowledge that the membership doesn't like THS and suggest that we sign over our firstborn to them - am I the only one who finds this peculiar?

What he actually proposes is that we have a trial period to see if we can fix the clearly defined problems in a clearly defined way. Horror stories not withstanding, THS currently has a 92% satisfaction rate with the USFA, which must be significantly improved upon for the S&P deal to be finalized. Did you get your rabies shots yet?

5) What if you could get a 20% return on your investment every year, regardless of the economy? Sound impossible? Just ask Bernie Madoff... Plenty of good, smart folks fell for that one. Hyperbole aside, there is no free lunch. The riches that the USFA seeks will come primarily from one group of folks - the fencers and their families.

Now we get in to your real, honest bull****. You have no facts to back up these accusations. In fact, all the rendered information points in the exact opposite direction. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, because you haven't bothered to do any research whatsoever before flying off the handle.

6) Kurt may wish to get a properly licensed version of PowerPoint. Right now, he's using one from the "YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region" (check the document properties - I was curious if this originated from THS). Hey, using OP software would save money, too

What is this ****? Am I supposed to take you seriously when you post this kind of garbage?

Frankly, nothing in this powerpoint does anything to (a) offer different policies than those published by US Volleyball, or (b) address the underlying issues with this program - put simply, those of us who care about what we pay will be forced to pay more. Therein lies the problem.

The purpose of the powerpoint was to present the concept to the BoD, not debate it on Fnet. It also does, in fact, bother to address the cost factor, even if you want to shove your fingers in your ears and shout "I can't hear you" as loudly as you can.

[/quote]
As I started this whole thing out with - THS has some hard work to do before they gain the membership's trust. The USFA management has some hard work to do before they gain the membership's trust (remember, we're still working off the cluster f**k from the last quadrennial). Both parties need to do this work before seriously considering a program like this.
[/QUOTE]

And I, for one, don't visit the sins of the adopted fathers on their children. The current admin has shown nothing that would break my trust, and therefore they still have it. With THS, that is the purpose of the trial period.

But by all means, keep on raving.

[gatun.czone]

[QUOTE=flechewounds;811919]Folks -

It may be instructive to look at the US Volleyball version of Stay & Pay, found here: http://usavolleyball.org/content/index/6005

One of the new fencing moms at our club is heavily involved with the USV. She has been for about 20 yrs. She said she absolutely hates the THS deal they have. They have not had good service. THS refuses to book rooms in a block even though they are traveling with a team of minors. This means the rooms can be spread all over the hotel and not even on one floor. Had to watch the kids that way.

I still think the best thing for the USFA to do is stop, give the membership a good deal of information and allow discussion with the membership.

Nannette

[occasionalfencer]

And I, for one, don't visit the sins of the adopted fathers on their children. The current admin has shown nothing that would break my trust, and therefore they still have it. With THS, that is the purpose of the trial period.

The current administration has done this deal, which breaks my trust. What THS has done is too well known to need repeating. This administration has made a deal which significantly impacts the membership in several different ways, without adequate thought, preparation, input from the membership, or expert advice. Then they are "away from the office" when we want some answers. Then when they come back, we get a very few boilerplate statements which are non-responsive. The administration has lost my trust because of the way they are handling this exact issue. This is the trial period, and they convicted themselves.

[telkanuru]

Where as I see them making a well-considered decision that is to the benefit of the community at large...

[flechewounds]

This is fairly obviously an example using the mid-range price option.

The lowest price every proffered by THS for this program for USV was $79. That is still substantially higher that the Motel 6 option.

This process does remove choice of location. However, (leaving the priceline question up in the air, as we don't have information either way), it does secure the price option. Read into it what you will, but the sentiment I see is that you'll get a waiver if you ask for one and don't fall into the "stay with THS for the same price" deal.

The Priceline option is pretty critical, no? That is where a lot of people find deals.

What he actually proposes is that we have a trial period to see if we can fix the clearly defined problems in a clearly defined way. Horror stories not withstanding, THS currently has a 92% satisfaction rate with the USFA, which must be significantly improved upon for the S&P deal to be finalized. Did you get your rabies shots yet?

This is where you're being blind-sided. The problem is simply this. Once they start negotiating for the 2010-11 season with the assumption that this program will be in place, there will be no turning back. Why? Because the USFA will have to fill rooms for that season because it will be committed to do so. We may wind up kicking THS out of the mix, but the underlying effect of the program will last until all of those commitments are satisfied. That's the way these deals work.

Now we get in to your real, honest bull****. You have no facts to back up these accusations. In fact, all the rendered information points in the exact opposite direction. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, because you haven't bothered to do any research whatsoever before flying off the handle.

Actually, the facts can be found in the Stay and Pay program on US Volleyball's web site. I can't help it if the program isn't on the USFA site yet, but do you really believe it will be markedly different? The simple fact is that the price is based upon group rates. Volleyball teams reserve in groups of about 5-12 rooms (ergo, they always need group rates). Fencers don't (our schedules are different and we're primarily an individual sport. The rates that we need to compare against are best available discounted individual rates (AAA, AARP, Government, Employee, etc.), not best available group rates.

What is this ****? Am I supposed to take you seriously when you post this kind of garbage?

It is a simple fact, not garbage. Open the document in powerpoint and look at the document properties. I did it because I suspected that the document originated from THS - it looked like sales blather and I've learned to always check the document source.

The purpose of the powerpoint was to present the concept to the BoD, not debate it on Fnet. It also does, in fact, bother to address the cost factor, even if you want to shove your fingers in your ears and shout "I can't hear you" as loudly as you can.

OK, so we're criticized for talking without "facts," then criticized for using US Volleyball's THS program as the basis for "facts," then criticized for using the USFA EDs own sales pitch to our board as "facts." When the facts that you're seeking do finally arrive, it will be too late.

And I, for one, don't visit the sins of the adopted fathers on their children. The current admin has shown nothing that would break my trust, and therefore they still have it. With THS, that is the purpose of the trial period.

Alas, have a board of directors election and hire a new ED and forget the past... (oh, but continue to pay for it). This isn't visiting the sins of the fathers on the children, but instead recognizing that we have a disfunctional management team - and that can't be completely changed overnight. These people need to earn our trust - every day. As soon as they assume that they simply have it, we're screwed.

By the way, we've already washed clean those guilty of somehow loosing over a million of our dollars - now lets march headlong into another turkey of a deal without adult supervision. C'mon... the best way to repeat the past is to forget it - you know that.

But by all means, keep on raving.

Thanks for your permission.

[gladius]

...What he [Kurt] actually proposes is that we have a trial period to see if we can fix the clearly defined problems in a clearly defined way. Horror stories not withstanding, THS currently has a 92% satisfaction rate with the USFA, which must be significantly improved upon for the S&P deal to be finalized. Did you get your rabies shots yet?

If I may, there are "clearly defined problems" and "horror stories" but THS has a 92% satisfaction rate with the USFA which must be significatly improved upon???

You sure about all this? Is 92% satisfaction rate that miserable? Or conversely how could anyone have a 92% satisfaction and yet have horror stories?

What does 92% satisfaction mean for the USFA? Are we exposing a severe case of masochism? How is this satisfaction calculated or is this a misprint and you meant 29% satisfaction, in which case I still would like to know the formula used to calculate such percentage?

And I, for one, don't visit the sins of the adopted fathers on their children.

Neither do I visit the sins of the adopted fathers on their children, but when the children keep on bringing it up over and over again, then I have my doubts.

[oso97]

One thing I do want to take exception to is the statement that the BOD is going along quietly with this idea. There was a significant minority (and I'd include myself in that) who were asking VERY pointed questions, including a lot of the same ones that were posted on here, when this was presented. And many of us remain skeptics.

The biggest unanswered question for me is this whole "92% satisfaction rate." That number to me seems made up out of nowhere. I'd love to see some hard numbers on how that was calculated.

[flechewounds]

If I may, there are "clearly defined problems" and "horror stories" but THS has a 92% satisfaction rate with the USFA which must be significatly improved upon???

You sure about all this? Is 92% satisfaction rate that miserable? Or conversely how could anyone have a 92% satisfaction and yet have horror stories?

What does 92% satisfaction mean for the USFA? Are we exposing a severe case of masochism? How is this satisfaction calculated or is this a misprint and you meant 29% satisfaction, in which case I still would like to know the formula used to calculate such percentage?

Gladius -

In most customer service outsourcing deals (I draft a lot of them), customer satisfaction is measured by customer satisfaction surveys, generally provided at the end of each encounter (they are actually pretty easy to do online these days). Results from those vary, depending on how the program is set up.

The primary variance comes from whether the person filling out the survey has an incentive to do so (which is why so many of them come attached to contests/lotteries of some form). Without an incentive, out of about 100 surveys, you'll have about 5 that say wonderful things, 10 that say not to much at all, and a percentage that lambast the program (depending upon how troublesome the service is). Without an incentive, the folks in the middle pretty much ignore them.

Without regard to the structure, remediation actions generally are required for any complaints (the percentage that lambasted them). But ask yourself this - if I send out 100 surveys, with 15 coming back happy and 10 coming back unhappy, do I have a 90% satisfaction rate? No... I have a 10% dissatisfaction rate, a 15% satisfaction rate and a 75% apathy rate - the important thing is getting that apathy rate down to properly measure customer satisfaction. That is why it is important to properly structure and account for customer satisfaction surveys (both satisfaction rates and survey completion rates) in these kind of deals.

Oh, and 92% satisfaction basically sucks. Customer satisfaction in this kind of deal should be somewhere north of 97%.

[flechewounds]

One place that we could look for "objective" criteria is the American Customer Service Institute: http://www.theacsi.org

Note that their index isn't a percentage (e.g. 90% happy), but instead more like a CPI measure (a baseline score of X - this year's score is Y). In any case, we could use their standards to measure customer service by a relatively objective means.

Just a thought...

[Philistine]

To me, there are two issues here.

The first is the "procedural" issue of how this was happening. The more substantive issue is whether it's a good idea.

On the first issue, I'm cautiously optimistic. It seems no deal has been signed, and the board was in the loop. I'd still think there should be some more disclosure to the membership (which is apparently going to be forthcoming), and it's still unclear to me exactly how the process is expected to unfold (e.g. does the trial program come with any obligation to the USFA? Assuming management is happy with the trial program, at what point would a contract be signed w/ THS, and how will that decision be made?, etc.). But, overall, it seems to be progressing more or less the way it's supposed to--ED makes proposal to Board, board members present it to the membership, and a dialogue takes place. (A little remiss in that 2nd stage, but at the end of the day we got there).

Personally, in a system like we have in the USFA, what offends me most isn't necessarily bad decisions--it's when decisions are made without effective disclosure to, or input from, the membership and board.

On the substance, again, I'm cautiously optimistic. Assuming the waiver system is sufficient (either in explicitly granting waivers or in allowing those sufficiently motivated to game the system), it could actually be a win-win. Just hooking the system up to registration (even with a waiver condition of "not thanks, I'll use priceline") is likely to greatly increase those going with THS out of inertia.

Anyway, it seems like we can put the pitchforks down, for now. Not away, mind you....

--Philistine

[occasionalfencer]

To me, there are two issues here.

The first is the "procedural" issue of how this was happening. The more substantive issue is whether it's a good idea.

On the first issue, I'm cautiously optimistic. It seems no deal has been signed, and the board was in the loop. I'd still think there should be some more disclosure to the membership (which is apparently going to be forthcoming), and it's still unclear to me exactly how the process is expected to unfold (e.g. does the trial program come with any obligation to the USFA? Assuming management is happy with the trial program, at what point would a contract be signed w/ THS, and how will that decision be made?, etc.). But, overall, it seems to be progressing more or less the way it's supposed to--ED makes proposal to Board, board members present it to the membership, and a dialogue takes place. (A little remiss in that 2nd stage, but at the end of the day we got there).

Personally, in a system like we have in the USFA, what offends me most isn't necessarily bad decisions--it's when decisions are made without effective disclosure to, or input from, the membership and board.

On the substance, again, I'm cautiously optimistic. Assuming the waiver system is sufficient (either in explicitly granting waivers or in allowing those sufficiently motivated to game the system), it could actually be a win-win. Just hooking the system up to registration (even with a waiver condition of "not thanks, I'll use priceline") is likely to greatly increase those going with THS out of inertia.

Anyway, it seems like we can put the pitchforks down, for now. Not away, mind you....

--Philistine

First, on the procedural issue: It seems that some sort of deal has already been made with THS. No contract has been signed, yet, we are told, but something is in place if it is already built into the budget. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe at this point that any information would have been presented to the members before the final contract was nailed down, if it weren't for that (fortunate? unfortunate?) leak on this unofficial forum.

Secondly, many of us see the waiver system as part of the problem. To repeat: It adds another layer of paperwork, another complication, another thing that could go wrong. If there are truly enough waivers allowed, every one diminishes the profit of the whole system, while at the same time requiring staff time and effort. If the waivers require verification, that requires more staff time, has more opportunities for things that could go wrong, and presents issues of privacy invasion (do I have to prove to you that my friend in town whom I am staying with is really that good a friend?). If the waivers do not require verification, that invites a wider use of them, and is a temptation in some cases to untruthfulness. Now, we would not want to set up a system that tempts people to be untruthful, really, would we?

[fdad]

Its been said above that during the "trial period" booking with THS will not be mandatory. Does that mean waivers will not be required? Since the waiver process is (to me anyway) the most likely source of real problems when the system goes live, does anyone think a meaningful trial can take place without a test of the waiver system?

[occasionalfencer]

Its been said above that during the "trial period" booking with THS will not be mandatory. Does that mean waivers will not be required? Since the waiver process is (to me anyway) the most likely source of real problems when the system goes live, does anyone think a meaningful trial can take place without a test of the waiver system?

No. The real purpose of such a trial period is spin.

[Allen Evans]

First, on the procedural issue: It seems that some sort of deal has already been made with THS. No contract has been signed, yet, we are told, but something is in place if it is already built into the budget.

The USFA has an existing agreement (I understand) with THS that provides a certain amount of rebate money already. It's not unusual to build new, projected numbers into a budget based on some assumptions about potential agreements and then be forced to change those numbers if an agreement isn't reached, cost savings or revenue aren't realized, or other factors. Since the USFA is negotiating with THS for an agreement, it would be irresponsible not to "build" projected numbers into a budget to see how it effects the organization. Would it be as suspicous if the USFA included projected (but as yet unrealised) costs into a budget? Or would that just be good planning?

Don't panic.

[keith]

..... it could actually be a win-win......

Only if you already book through THS. If you do not and secure lower rates through a source that is not price matched (pretty much any travel site, or loyalty program) you lose.

Have a look at the volleyball FAQ for stay and play, in particular the booking system for events that require qualifiers. Could end up pricey if your division runs a late qualifier.


Couple of final obeservations;

The point of these deals is to provide revenue, which seems to have been lost in the question of whether Stay and Play is a good idea.

Given the lead time for block bookings (whether a conference or a sports event) the idea that there is a trial period is dubious. It might be interesting to know if USFA is on the hook for any termination payments should the trial be unsuccessful (which in this context means what?).

The USFAs budget issues are supposedly temporary why exactly are they solving a temporary problem with the instigation of a permanent revenue stream?