ANA Dues Increase
Did anyone happen to catch details in the new issue of The Numismatist? Is there anyone left besides me who even cares?
I appreciate the fact that they held the line for a while, but an across the board 20% increase at a time of declining membership is not going to do anything to turn things around, no matter how much costs are going up. Maybe senior staff should consider pay cuts, or they should consider other ways to cut costs or reduce or eliminate certain services, like the smaller shows if they don't at least break even?
Is the Board really this insular, or do they just not care about the risk of pushing the organization further into irrelevance? I don't know what the situation is with raising money from the industry that benefits most from its existence, but asking an aging, shrinking membership to stomach a 20% fee increase doesn't seem like a winner to me. Most significantly, increasing the lifetime membership break points for discounts from age 55 to 65 seems like a total non-starter.
I totally understand people making charitable contributions to whatever non-profit they choose, but asking a 65+ year old to prepay 20 years worth of dues to avoid future price increases, while ignoring the time value of money, is insulting to the intelligence of anyone looking for value for their money while also wanting to support the organization.
Who on the Board thought this was a good idea? I can only assume they raise little to no money from this subset of lifetime membership, in which case they should have just eliminated it rather than offering a lifetime membership for ages 65+ at $1,100 when current annual memberships cost $50. A 20 year breakeven for a 55 year old is not a crazy proposition for someone with the means who wants to support the ANA. But raising the age to 65 after increasing the price from $900 to $1,100 just seems stupid.