USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[fdad]

BTW, 92% correct reservations without errors is a really lousy record. That means that one in twelve of your customers is annoyed.

Not good enough for a commitment to use them, by a long shot, IMHO.

If this program were voluntary, it might be a good deal, but forcing it down the members throats is not the right solution to USFA's financial problems.

Note: MEMBERS, not serfs...

I have no idea how they came up with that number. Did someone need to file an official complaint with THS? If so why would you think the official complaint would be treated any more seriously than the reservation that caused it? I know that I've booked with them 3 times in the past year and had problems twice, but I strongly doubt I am included in the 8% dissatisfied number.

[fencerwallet]

For a smaller microcosm of this type of "tying", do you think a local little-league organization which requires all participants buy uniforms from one supplier (who is likely a sponsor) would be illegal?

And one other clarification of one of your examples (adding to flechewounds concise prior post):

One of the applicable Colorado citations provided by flechewounds stated in pertinent part: "...provided and a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce is affected, but mere fact that goods or services are sold in combination does not establish prohibited tying arrangement". People v. Colo. Springs Bd. of Realtors, 692 P.2d 1055 (Colo. 1984).

While I am sure the definition of what constitutes a, "substantial amount" in similar statutes and case law varies from state to state, your little league example falls (and fails as an argument) under this scrutiny. In contrast, the tens of thousands of dollars- which is what we are dealing with- is no doubt universally viewed in all states as applicable to any such "tying" legislation.

[flechewounds]

I have no idea how they came up with that number. Did someone need to file an official complaint with THS? If so why would you think the official complaint would be treated any more seriously than the reservation that caused it? I know that I've booked with them 3 times in the past year and had problems twice, but I strongly doubt I am included in the 8% dissatisfied number.

I'm fairly confident that they are really describing their complaint rate - 8%. But the converse of a complaint rate is not a "satisfaction rate." Instead it is a competition of the satisfied folks and those who didn't bother to complain (the apathy rate, if you will). Thus, what you have in their 92% satisfaction rate is probably (out of 100), 8 people who complained (perhaps complained vociferously), some number who said good things, and a broad number in the middle who didn't bother saying anything.

If they conducted real customer satisfaction surveys after each event (1-very satisfied, 2-somewhat satisfied, 3-neutral, 4-somewhat disatisfied & 5 - very dissatisfied) they may have some better data - and would have been reporting it with appropriate granularity. Those kind of things are obvious.

[Dev]

Many that have posted here are worried about the "particulars" of the plan and the rollout. This frightens me as a sort of slow "buy-in" to the idea.

It's not going to happen!

This whole idea is a lazy way to turn the USFA finances around. The USFA is "making a deal with the Devil", but using our souls. Ceding the hard work that is necessary to bring the finances back into the black, to another “for profit” organization that has an arguably bad track record, well that’s just foolish.

There are several ways this can play out. The best option would be for the "movers" of this plan to scrap the whole idea unless and until the membership is sold on the idea. Conversely, “selling out” the membership will cause a lot of “pain”. Lacking a complete reversal, a move to embed play with stay, will likely cost people their jobs, their status, their friends, and the trust of the membership. My trust is already deeply shaken.

The "movers" have underestimated the resolve of the membership to be free to make their own decisions. Any erosion of that freedom will be met with an avalanche of resistance and cannot work. The thing that upsets me most about this idea is the idea. In my opinion, this whole concept reeks of collusion and shows an abiding disrespect for the membership . I also feel that THS should be banned from any dealings with the USFA (and Volleyball for that matter) and that the USFA should find another vendor.

If the USFA wants to be "in the black", alienating the membership is not the way to do it. Ask yourself the question: Why does the USFA need to have this explained to them? I can't think of a good answer, an answer that does not show contempt for the rights, intelligence and freedoms of the membership.

Hear, hear.

May we plagarize this for our complaint letters?

[SJCFU#2]

Using points is grounds for a waiver -- see page/slide 20 of the overview. Note that the waiver shown is a sample, not the official, final document that will be used if this goes through.

The problem with any slide show/overview like this is that it it tends to gloss over details in order to get its point across. All to often minor details that appear in the slide show are missing from the finished product, especially when they are seen as getting in the way of the main objective.

Also, while the waiver shown may be a sample it's probably not that much different from what the finished product will look like. When starting with an existing baseline it generally takes far more effort to add new concepts than it does to change a few works here or there or to deleting something that might already be there but may not be applicable.

[VorpalCat]

Agreed and in spades. I only point back to the presentation to say, 'Here's what USFA's official word is at the moment.' And the two S&P things worse than that presentation are the 'sample' waiver form and the near-hysterical response the 'last call' thread generated. *pleh*

I'm still curious as to who exactly actually wrote said presentation. It's like someone took THS's Kool-Aid commercial and stuck USFA logos on it. (And if I missed that in one of the other threads, my apologies!)

[Philistine]

Probably not. THS is a small company, anti-trust lawyers are very, very expensive. {snip}

They're not that expensive (considering the downside).

Now, as I said, I'm not giving legal advice nor practicing law. However, I do hope (against hope) that USFA counsel has reviewed this program in EACH OF THE 50 STATES AND DC under state restraint of trade law, and has provided the board with a formal opinion that S&P does not violate such laws. THE BOARD MUST DEMAND THIS FROM COUNSEL.

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think it unreasonable though to require THS to provide an opinion letter from outside counsel as to the legality of the program from an antitrust perspective. That's a fairly common requirement in putting together deals.

{snip}before instituting something that is a pretty simple, straightforward legal argument - and a pretty clear violation of a plainly-written statute.
{snip}

Could be. As I said, I know very little about antitrust law. But, again, from what little I know it doesn't seem like a clear violation. YMMV. A fair question to ask, though.

{snip}
In contrast, the tens of thousands of dollars- which is what we are dealing with- is no doubt universally viewed in all states as applicable to any such "tying" legislation.

AIUI (which is not very much ), a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce in the tied product market must be affected by the tying arrangements (for a per se violation).

The US hotel market has revenues in the $100 billion range. I don't think it strange to think a few tens of thousands of dollars could well be seen as insubstantial in that context.

I'm not trying to argue the legality here (partly because I really don't know enough to do it). I'm just saying that I don't think it's as clear as some seem to be making it out.

OTOH, it's certainly an appropriate question to ask if the legality was considered, and if so, how.

--Philistine

[flechewounds]

The Northern Light Volleyball Tournament uses Stay and Play. Here is their web page describing the program.

What I find particularly interesting is this text:

Our room block size in the downtown hotels has steadily been declining in the last 3 years. The hotels have given us fewer and fewer rooms so that they could sell more rooms at a higher rate outside of the block. With this new policy we have now had hotels come back to us and grant us larger room blocks at the lower group rate. This means that more people will be able to get into the "good" hotels at a reasonable rate.

Why were their room blocks declining? Was it because hotels preferred not to join? Or was it because of the success of alternative services like Priceline?

The implication that the hotels choose to keep rooms off the market because they figured they'd do better in the open market is speculative, at best. Why? Because in most downtown environments, weekend hotel occupancy is pretty low - these companies would do a lot to fill their rooms.

Looking at this problem logically, the number of booking alternatives have increased in quantity and quality exponentially over the past few years. Good customer experiences with Priceline, Hotwire, etc. get spread around by word-of-mouth. Customers choose alternatives that are better, cheaper, faster. That's good old competition - and wait, aren't we a competitive sport?

This is analogous to saying to our competitors - Joe Smith, who was on our national team in 1984, is getting a little old and slow - and those young whippersnappers are just to fast for him. But we've got to keep Joe on the team - he has promised to donate a lot of money. So let's make some new rules for Div I team selection.

Rule #1 - Anyone who is more than 2 years younger than Joe has to wear 100lbs of sandbag weights.

Rule #2 - before any touch is awarded to a competitor, it has to be reviewed by the finance committee.

Rule #3 - If it appears as the touch is awarded to the competitor, Joe will have the opportunity to appeal and re-fence the touch. His opponent will not be allowed to have a weapon, however, and will instead be forced to rely upon the distance parry.

Rule #4 - If Joe scores on the appeal, the original touch against Joe is annulled and Joe is awarded the touch.

Rule #5 - if the competitor still insists that the touch was his, he will be disqualified from the tournament.

Of course, history is littered with individuals and organizations that will do anything for an extra buck - including changing the rules so that Joe Smith wins. To paraphrase Mark's criticism of me - has the USFA sunk to this new low?

[Inquartata]

1. Who at the USFA will coordinate waivers? What is the anticipated cost and person hours required to do the waiver system? What appeal system will be put in place for a denied waiver? What are the specific benchmarks for approving waivers?

2. Who handles disputes or questions about THS' price matching? For instance: I find the Comfort Inn for $35/night less than the lowest THS hotel, and it's closer to the venue. If THS refuses to book it for me/offers me the RodeWay Inn 10 miles further out/doesn't respond at all...what is the preferred path of appeal by the USFA? Further, who at the USFA is responsible for overseeing lost/unmade/mis-booked reservations by THS?

3. What internal controls are anticipated by the USFA to monitor performance by THS as it administers this new program? Will there be benchmarks or performance penalties built into the contract?

4. Will the THS guarantee "block" bookings? If a club is bringing 20 fencers, can the THS be required to place all the fencers in the same hotel, in reasonable proximity?

5. Will there be a minimum stay requirement? Can any part of the room requirement be handled by THS, and the remainder by the fencer? How will the USFA be able to tell?

Clear specific answers will go a long way to easing fears about this program.

More excellent questions, which one suspects will go unanswered in favor of more glittering generalities from on high...

It seems to me there is a REALLY easy way to accomplish the goals of this program without pissing everyone off:

1) Raise the fee to go to a National event $15 or $20 dollars (yes, I know this alone will annoy lots of people)

2) Offer a rebate of the same amount, if you use THS.


No waivers, no enforcement issues, smooth... If THS (continues to) sucks, even the $15.00 penalty won't entice additional members to use it... and the USFA will learn this fact. If THS becomes price & service competitive, everyone will want to take advantage of the "discount". This approach encourages THS to be better. The current proposal doesn't.

A blindingly simple, reasonable suggestion. Therefore it has no chance of being adopted...

OK, here are our prospects in a nutshell, from Mr. Aichele's blog "In Hopes to Clarify a Bit" on the US Fencing website ( mostly consisting of what Craig got from his interview with him, from what I can tell ):

I do appreciate many of the constructive suggestions we have received as they are helping us shape this program as we roll it out.

That looks like Mr. Aichele speaking for himself. Does it sound to anyone as though there is even the remotest chance that this will be reconsidered? Happy public relations talk, intended to lull the critics until they can be presented with a fait accompli, is what it sounds like to me.

When US Fencing released information on Stay and Play on the official web site (www.usfencing.org), a sample waiver form was included. This waiver form included no options for anything other than the competitor staying with family. According to the USFA, that is a draft waiver form and that since they are doing a soft launch for the first events, the ability to obtain a waiver will be easy.

Promises, promises. Show me a committment, please. ( And even that promise could be interpreted as "waivers will be easy during the soft rollout", with no guarantee that it will be so later on. )

In talking about the attitudes of Fencing.Net members about THS, Kurt responded, "I questioned THS's ability to deliver so that we made sure it was a soft rollout." He went on to state that he wants to see a 95% or higher satisfaction rating and that that rating is determined by taking the number of complaints and dividing that by the total number of customers served by THS at the event(s).

Although a lot of people have said that THS's record is a reason not to do S & P, I myself would not care if it had a 110% customer satisfaction record and was run by God himself. Forcing people to use one option, and a more expensive, restrictive and time-intensive one at that, is the real issue to me. I have made reservations at both the AAA and government employee rates at hotels, and they are often cheaper than THS's. I will resent it deeply if I can no longer do this sort of thing. I mean, I like to stay at the venue hotel when I can, that is, when THS isn't sold out 6 months before the tournament. But I would not care to pay TOO much for that convenience.

Another issue: location. Sometimes I have booked in a particular hotel strictly because it was close to the venue. The whole "comparable hotel" business does not seem to lend itself to making that option a certainty. If their "comparable" hotel is farther away, it makes renting a car or taking a cab necessary in many cases. Still MORE expense.

The plan is to then institute a hard rollout if the satisfaction rates and feedback are good.

The plan, eh? Great. Sounds like it's a done deal.

Here's a news flash: The feedback is already not good. But it sounds like that doesn't matter.


And interestingly, neither the Powerpoint slideshow nor Mr. Aichele's interview/blog mention that your registration for a NAC will be canceled if you are found not to have booked through THS or gotten a waiver. Why not? That's one of the big objections to S & P, but it's left to be assumed instead of being explicitly stated...

Finally, from the waiver form:

I understand that the information above will be verified and that this Special Waiver must be received two weeks prior to the National Tournament.

Great. As several people have mentioned, more hoops through which people will have to jump, and with time limits attached to them.

And if the national office staff is "swamped", as they usually are before a NAC? Better make it a month, rather than two weeks. But---will the schedule be out by then?

So instead of: check hotels ( Orbitz, Hotels.com, Priceline, whatever ), book room, it's going to be check THS, check hotels, beseech THS to book the room, if they can't or won't or you can't reach them ask for a waiver, wait for approval, THEN book the room.

Gee, so much easier that way...

PS I too have emailed my opposition---milder than many of yours---to Christine, as requested. No answer yet, but then, I didn't ask for one and don't really expect one.

[fencerll]

Oh, so the whole of Europe is Italy now?

If you guys are universally opposed to this policy, you need to act together. If EVERYBODY refuses to book through THS, what are they going to do - disqualify you all? Similarly, you elected the people who made these decisions. Therefore there is some sort of democracy involved. Does your constitution allow for calling some sort of vote of no confidence, forcing another election mid-term?

I'm as much opposed to this as the next person and my parents won't let me go to as many national tournaments as I went to last year if our hotel fees are doubled (we got the hyatt in the dfw airport for $50 a night on priceline). However, we need a better solution than "lets all just not book through THS." As someone still in high school, I'm fully aware that that never, ever works. There have been "everybody not wear their uniform days" and almost everyone comes in in their uniform. Although some brave people may in fact boycott THS, the fact of the matter is that pretty much everyone will inevitably choose to use THS since they're afraid that they might waste their money on flights, entry fees and then not get to fence. I don't know how, but if this isn't stopped before it gets implemented, a "boycott" is not going to work....

[KidLazy]

I'm as much opposed to this as the next person and my parents won't let me go to as many national tournaments as I went to last year if our hotel fees are doubled (we got the hyatt in the dfw airport for $50 a night on priceline). However, we need a better solution than "lets all just not book through THS." As someone still in high school, I'm fully aware that that never, ever works. There have been "everybody not wear their uniform days" and almost everyone comes in in their uniform. Although some brave people may in fact boycott THS, the fact of the matter is that pretty much everyone will inevitably choose to use THS since they're afraid that they might waste their money on flights, entry fees and then not get to fence. I don't know how, but if this isn't stopped before it gets implemented, a "boycott" is not going to work....

Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King... do they teach history in high school anymore?

[Redblade]

They approached it the wrong way. Should have presented us a bad-news/good-news scenario:

"We're dreadfully sorry, but overall registration expenses will increase dramatically this season. Economy blah blah blah. ... BUT, we've arranged one heck of a deal with THS -- if you book a hotel room through that company, your event registration will be cut by an equally large amount!"

Jack up the initial value and then provide a discount as incentive to pick THS -- which means that, inversely, those who stubbornly hold out effectively choose to take a penalty. The end result is the same. In a carrot-or-stick strategy, it's the sneaky best of both.

[zéphirin]

Moliere, the French playwright and one of the greatest masters of comedy in western literature, is credited with the phrase castigat ridendo mores "criticizes customs through humor," a phrase in fact coined by Jean de Santeuil and often mistaken for classical Latin (as I remember from my theater classes in college).

What follows is my spoof in that spirit, even if this is not a laughing matter.

From the other debate absorbing our country, Obama's health care plan/reform, mutatis mutandis
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-51473502.html

"If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?" -- President Obama
You remember the scene from The Matrix . The main character is offered a choice between a red pill that makes him see reality for what it is, and a blue pill that allows him to continue living in a pleasant world of illusions.


It seems that the Kurt before the powerpoint presentation of the Stay and Play (S&P) Plan and a majority of the USFA Board afterwards did take the blue pill.

How else could he/they convince himself/themselves, our data and personal experience notwithstanding, that this S&P plan will not increase the total costs of the members who compete at national events? How else could he/they ignore the argument that a massive expansion of workload to an already overworked USFA staff will solve rather than exacerbate the existing problems? How can he/they state that such a measure will easily contribute to the USFA and save money for its membership? Why can he/they not at least acknowledge the possibility that it will cost more money to all (the membership for being forced to make a choice they don't want or like--more expensive than Priceline--and the USFA for loss of total revenue because fewer people will compete under these artificial restrictions) as a result of this "stimulus package?"

With this proposal and the way it is presented by the USFA to its membership, Kurt and those who are willing to go along with it (even in a soft roll mode, with waiver) are an example of the real problem. Here is a well-meaning ED and BoD who so fails to grasp the problems in our world of fencing (looking at other different sports instead of different fencing federations) that he/they can present such absurd oversimplification and suggest that this is a problem--fencers and their families lack common sense to make obvious choices concerning how they spend their money when they go to national fencing competitions. The USFA want us to solve this problem by putting itself and THS in charge of reducing our costs by deciding what is good for us and for them. If families and fencers who have been at this for many years cannot distinguish what is cheaper and better in terms of hotels (today) and travel (tomorrow) to NAC events, then we are really lucky that the good folks of the USFA and THS combined can.

Kurt thus frames the issue as a false choice between leaving the status quo (which in his mind does not help the USFA) and us handling over to the decision making process to the USFA/THS complicated case-by-case decisions cum waiver that cannot possibly be dictated or imposed in a free society.

This transfer of decision making to the USFA/THS bureaucracy is intended to curb costs. Unfortunately, there is exactly one thing that the USFA/THS cannot do is to reduce costs in a free market environment. The USFA may incur some "savings" on the total hotel expenses for referees, tournament officials, and staff because they are not capable to do what every tom dick or harry can do on his own using Priceline or other such widely used services. Therefore, the USFA can do so only by forcing the rest of us to pay more through this THS system which in turn may give the USFA some kickbacks (our money).

One thing Kurt/USFA EC/BoD or the USFA-THS combined have not done is to address directly any of the concerns that we have about this proposal other than requesting through Christine documented proof of past poor performance or lack of performance by THS. With this sort of rhetorical detachment form reality, it is not surprising that public support for his vision and the USFA current administration and leadership is rapidly eroding.

Kurt and the USFA should understand that the correct choice is to take the red pill , even if they think it costs twice as much: that's reality, the rest is a world of illusions.

[TooLoftheDeviL]

I've merged the appropriate threads on this topic. There is no reason to continue creating a new thread for every "new" rant and rave over this topic.

[dekko]

Don't bring locig into this...there is no place for that here.

[fencerll]

Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King... do they teach history in high school anymore?

Well as soon as you find a great motivational speaker who is willing to risk their lives/go to jail/go on a hunger strike to convince everyone to boycott this let me know.

And the answer is yes, but not very well.

[Joe biebel]

Hear, hear.

May we plagarize this for our complaint letters?

Anyone may. I probably plagiarized most of it anyway.

[Redblade]

"I drive to all events, arriving in the morning and leaving immediately afterward. I never rent hotel rooms." <-- Can't wait to see them try to disprove this.

[fencerwallet]

"I drive to all events, arriving in the morning and leaving immediately afterward. I never rent hotel rooms." <-- Can't wait to see them try to disprove this.

As compared to your having to affirmatively prove it?

[dberke]

It seems that the Kurt before the powerpoint presentation of the Stay and Play (S&P) Plan and a majority of the USFA Board afterwards did take the blue pill.

I keep seeing people make the same mistake/accusation over and over, so let's clear something up.

The Board of Directors, to the best of my knowledge, has not been involved in any aspect of creating the Stay & Play program. The Board (as a whole) has not had the opportunity to weigh in on how it feels about the program (yet).

How do I know this? Well, for one, I am on the Board. I learned of the S&P program a couple days before the Board meeting at Summer Nationals, and all I saw at that time was the PowerPoint deck.

At the Board meeting, Kurt did a brief presentation using that deck and answered some questions. To the best of my knowledge, that was the first time it was announced publically that S&P was being considered.

The Board, to date, has not had a vote or say in the matter whatsoever. So to say that the Board is complacent here is flat out wrong. I'm sure there are numerous emails and conversations going on between Board members about this very topic.

The Executive Committee (the elected officers plust a few others) are also Board members. I believe they had more awareness of S&P than the rest of the Board, but I don't know to what level their involvement was. Brad or Mark may be able to answer that better than I.

So, please don't paint all parts of the USFA governance with the same brush. And don't think all of the people in those parts agree with each other on this, either.

Dan