In his editorial in the April issue of QST, David Minster, NA2AA, ARRL CEO pointedly said that we’re in for another ARRL dues increase. This is being followed up by a membership survey on what this dues increase will look like.
Now, personally, I don’t have a problem paying a little more. Costs increase, meaning that prices generally have to be raised. I can pay an extra $5 or $10 per year for my ARRL membership. A lot of hams, however, are going to view this as another reason to quit the ARRL, and the ARRL is going to take another membership hit.
I’ve been writing about ARRL membership issues for years. I may not be an expert in this field, but I can tell you that declining membership is not a good thing. I can also tell you that raising dues—while it may be a good, short-term financial strategy—is not a good, long-term membership strategy.
It seems to me that the ARRL is approaching this all wrong. For example, in the April editorial, Minster writes, “Members agree that $49 is a bargain for all that ARRL does to promote and protect amateur radio.” That statement is certainly debatable, but it misses the mark. I’d say that it’s not current members that the ARRL should worry about, but rather those that aren’t members.
The survey is another indication of this focus on current members. To even take the survey, you have to sign in to your ARRL membership account. I think that’s a mistake. Most—but not all—current members will renew if there’s a modest dues increase. What the ARRL should really be trying to find out is how a dues increase is going to affect their ability to recruit new members.
I’m not sure if it’s possible for the ARRL to break out of this downward membership spiral, but I hope that they can. I think both members and non-members would be more amenable to a dues increase if it was accompanied by a more comprehensive membership strategy. Without this comprehensive strategy, a dues increase is just a delaying tactic.
Mike - KG6ECW says
I tend to agree, I don’t think that a dues increase is going to do anything other than drive current members away. I, for one, am already questioning the value of my membership. So much so, in fact, that I almost didn’t renew this year; having witnessed the debacle that was the site “redesign”, and the downward trend of the quality of the content in the periodicals, coupled with the lack of communication from my section and division leadership. Why should I give them any of my hard-earned money? Without some good evidence of the value of my membership dues, I seriously doubt I will renew again next year, especially if they raise the dues.
Goody K3NG says
IT has been a chronic weakness at ARRL. The big site redesign they did several years ago was a disaster. Today the site is the best it’s ever been, but it still feels stiff and template-based. Everyone uses templates, but if it feels like you’re in a template when navigating the site, it’s not good. I get why they designed LOTW with private/public key QSL authentication, but it’s unwieldy for users. The League is looking to do a redesign of the backend to scale it better in the future, which I think is a good move. I would argue they need to open this architecture and not have it centralized with ARRL. Blockchain technology is a potential way to go..
“Decentralization” is not in ARRL’s DNA, and they seem to lack any comprehension of open source.
Jim says
Do I understand the increase correctly? $10.00 dues increase then $24.00 if you want QST?
Dave says
yup $34 dollar increase.
Goody K3NG says
I have no doubt that from a financial perspective ARRL needs the dues increase. The idiot horde on ‘Zed, like clockwork, will be decrying the dues increase, complaining without any evidence that ARRL leadership is lining their pockets. Inflation alone justifies the dues increase. People typically complain about ARRL for all the wrong reasons. However, membership, as you cite, is the real problem.
Question 10 on the survey asks “Without ARRL, amateur radio might not exist today.” (True/False/Maybe). The answer is clearly is True, however the question they really should be asking is if amateur radio needs ARRL to continue existing. ARRL seems to me to be supporting the amateur radio of the past, not the future. In the past two decades they’ve totally missed opportunities to set the standards (open standards) with technologies like digital voice and messaging. Only in recent years did they actually support clubs. They continue to beat the emcomm drum, which is a relic of 1950’s amateur radio when public safety networks and arguably the national telecom infrastructure was primitive and fragile. They’ve totally blanked on the Maker movement, a veritable gold mine for new members in the hobby and the League. I question their effectiveness with FCC lobbying, but admitted we lack any other organization or entity that has the pull they do, however small this pull may be.
After this dues increase ARRL needs to do some deep soul-searching.
Goody
K3NG
ARRL Life Member
Dan KB6NU says
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say, “ARRL seems to me to be supporting the amateur radio of the past, not the future.” That’s what I was trying to say, but you said it so much better.
Kate P NK4TE says
Well said
KA9P Scott says
I agree ARRL focus is a big issue here. I’ve belonged to many professional and hobby associations, and the ARRL has done less to solicit the thoughts of members and non-members than most of those organizations.
So thanks for surveying about a dues increase, but the ARRL needs to survey members about its direction and performance, if they dare, and survey non-member amateurs as well as potential hams about what is important to them.
The base for amateur radio is one of increasing digital literacy. The ARRL should be much more active in smart, attractive digital communication. An organization anchored to a physical magazine just makes little sense if you want the organization to be relevant, responsive and to evolve, grow and attract new members.
Even among members you don’t have to look far to see examples of complaints about the content of QST. And as a guy with decades of QST on a shelf, it pains me to say my interest in QST has declined with its current editorial content. I cherish SPRAT, read and keep RadCom, but anymore pitch QST after an hour or two of reading. I’m happy to pay to have an ARRL, but a dues increase at least caused in part by increasing magazine costs…meh.
Jeff n1kdo says
Today’s emailed member bulletin from Mr. Minster states “As I shared previously, this is only the second time in 22 years we are considering a dues increase.”
This is highly misleading. Dues were raised last in 2015, effective 2016, so this is actually the second time in *eight* years that they have considered a dues increase. The last increase was 20%, from $39 to $49.
ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20150905053955/http://www.arrl.org/dues-increase-faq
Kirby says
He is including all the years prior to the 2015 increase in the timeframe that dues did not increase.. That’s not incorrect.
Jim says
your correct. I would pay the $10.00 increase but they added $24.00 for QST. $84.00 for the year, no thank you
Jim says
you’re correct, for me, my wife is also a ham (extra class) and it’s another $12.00 for the family to join ARRL (Total $95.00). You can read the magazine(s) online but if you only have a phone hope you have good eyes.
Bob, W6BP says
A few thoughts:
– I think you make an excellent point about the need to elicit opinions from non-members.
– When responding to the ARRL’s request for comments, I said that I’d be amenable to a small fee increase while at the same time giving up my paper copy of QST. However, I made it clear that I was *not* willing to subsidize the paper habit of other members. It’s 2023; anyone who wants a paper copy should pay the printing costs.
– On The Air, the ARRL’s magazine for newly-minted hams, is very good. But how many new hams have ever read a single issue, much less, say, a year’s worth? What would it cost the ARRL to give every newly-licensed ham a free one-year membership that includes access to electronic versions of QST, On the Air, QEX, and NCJ?
Jake W4LJH says
I like you idea to give new hams a year of digital access. I have to wonder how much it would actually cost them for a digital membership though. What do you really get beyond the magazine, LOTW and the ability to buy insurance for additional cost? Surely they could drop the digital membership to 20-30 dollars and lock it in with current features. Pay extra for new features or print subs. Like you say each print shouldn’t cost non print members. At 20 for a year membership I expect alot more people would sign up.
John - W8RXX says
I at first questioned the need for a dues increase. Like everyone I realize the cost of everything has increased dramatically especially after Covid. Washington D.C. has tried to slow this increase down unsuccessfully.
I did visit ARRL headquarters and was impressed with the many facets of the organization. We know of many of the things ARRL offers. One thing we tend to forget is defending our spectrum. This defense doesn’t come cheap. There are constant attempts of reducing our spectrum. Without spectrum there is no longer amateur radio.
BRIAN says
Slow it down? Washington DC has done everything possible to create and fuel the increases in costs. Shall I post the list of ecumenically destructive things they have done? If you had left the point at -realizing the costs have increased- I wouldn’t have brought it up but you didn’t. Slowing down the rises in costs is definitely not the Washington agenda.
How much influence the ARRL has over the FCC spectrum allocations is debatable. However small their sway is I am not sure anyone else is making the effort. If you believe they are effective at this task, then surely some support is reasonable. In my opinion some increase in dues is appropriate however depending on how you look at this we are seeing either a 71% rise or a 146% rise depending on whether or not you want a hard copy of a magazine. That is pretty obnoxious. I think there much be far less pushback if there were smaller changes over time. Perhaps a smaller change every 3 to 5 years or so rather than this enormous slam would be preferable. I”m not saying anyone is abusively profiting but going up 10% or even 20% every few years would go down a little easier.
I wonder what will become of the 2 years I have remaining on a 3 year payment. If you believe the publishing cost of QST is $25 then will I be getting a $50 credit for not receiving it? Probably not.
Maybe they should consider relocating the headquarters out of CT. Many businesses have picked up and moved on due to salary requirements and other expenses caused by their location alone.
Ernie Barbieri wb2imh says
I understand the need for a dues increase. I also understand the ARRL wanting to charge for a printed QST magazine ( although I don’t agree with it). But I don’t see how it’s ethical to stop a printed QST on Jan 1,, 2024 when some subscribers have paid dues past that date. If I paid my dues in June, 2023, I contracted with the ARRL that I would be a member and receive a printed copy of QST through May 2024. So how is this an honest way to treat members? It’s just not a professional way to treat a member.
Ken Lenz says
I believe everyone should look into the financial picture of the ARRL to make their decision. Examine the IRS from 990 not the Annual Report provided by the ARRL. More detail ensues like the $300K+ each salary and benefits to the CEO and CFO. The bloated expenditures and the fact that QST contributed to the ARRL not a loss! I will not be renewing my subscription. KB9NK