ANA Dues Increase
NJCoin
Posts: 1,423 ✭✭✭✭✭
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.
Comments
ANA is the one place I did not do a lifetime membership and now there's too much water under that bridge. Probably could have paid for one several times over over the decades.
What smaller shows? The ANA does two a year, the recently concluded National Money Show (Phoenix) that attracted about 4,000 people, and the end-of-summer Worlds Fair of Money (Pittsburgh this year) that attracts between five and six thousand (we'll see how well it does this year and next year in OKC).
The entire staff is around 30 people including part-timers and many of them wear multiple hats.
There is not much - if any - fat to trim.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
BTW, the average life expectancy of a 63-year-old man is 29 years, 30 for a woman.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
.
Where are you getting that from? I think a pretty reliable source is the Social Security Administration, since a lot of pretty significant national financial projections are made as a result of their numbers, and they are non-partisan. 63 years old means nothing here, since the ANA's two break points are the current 55 years and the new 65 years.
The latest SSA actuarial life table (I'm going to use men, because, let's face it, the vast majority of us, as well as ANA members, are men), shows a 55 year old has a 24.27 year life expectancy, and a 65 year old is 16.94 years. With all due respect, saying that a 63 year old male will on average live until 92 is nonsense. I'd love to see where you are getting that from. According to the CDC, the life expectancy of a male born in 2021 is 73.2. There is no way a 63 year old born in 1960 can expect to live 19 years longer than that.
Bumping that lifetime discount age up by 10 years while increasing the price by $200 is nothing if not obnoxious. They are going to reduce takers down from whatever it is today to pretty close to zero, so why not just eliminate it?
Seriously. I get maybe wanting to contribute $1,000 to the ANA. I don't get a 65 year locking in $50 annual dues by prepaying $1,100 up front, and losing whatever interest that money would generate over the next two decades, in return for freebies beginning at age 87 when the odds are he won't be seeing his 82nd birthday, let alone 87th.
As far as smaller shows goes, they used to have 3. Now they have 2. The spring one is the smaller one. Does it at least break even? If not, they should consider eliminating it before raising dues 20%. Just wait and see what their membership looks like in a few years, given current demographics, and after whoever is interested locks in the next few years at current rates before September 1st.
This looks like what might be a death spiral. Inability to fund operations with current revenue leading to increasing fees leading to reduced interest and diminishing revenue. Rinse, cycle repeat. Whatever other mistakes they made regarding maybe not increasing fees sooner, 20% all at once is going to be difficult to swallow, as is $50+ for a magazine and whatever else they offer that probably a tiny fraction of the membership actually takes advantage of.
ANA dues are a very small portion of my hobby budget. Despite the past issues, I’m still happy to support the ANA.
Coin prices and the price of many items have gone up dramatically since Covid began. It’s no surprise the ANA dues would increase.
It might not be a surprise. The question is whether the market will support it, perhaps due to the past issues, as well as to perceived value and just the demographics of the hobby in general.
The one thing I can promise you is that lifetime memberships are going to fall off a cliff as the price for 55-65 year olds, which is probably their sweet spot, goes from $900 to $1,500. As I stated above, nothing is stopping anyone from making a donation if they are so inclined, but no 65 year old is going to pay $1,100 to lock in a price in the hope or expectation of getting a deal.
ANA dues come out to <$3 / month. I just don’t think a lot of collectors are price sensitive enough that an increase of ~$0.50 month will cause membership to meaningfully decline. This is an expensive hobby and I think ANA members tend to be serious collectors.
Members may take issue with other ANA moves but I just don’t see this as a big deal.
I've been a life member since the early 80's, so the current cost of membership has no direct effect on me. (FWIW, I do pay about $2500 a year in dues to other numismatic organizations.) That said, I want the ANA to set rates however they think is best, with the primary concern being the long term survival of the organization. And if that means pricing out members who don't think membership is worth the cost, so be it.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
You might be right. Especially for people who look at it like that. But, since they don't bill it monthly, I doubt most people do.
I also don't know where <$3/mo. comes from, since, according to their census, only 9,422 out of 26,903 members are on annual plans that don't include the printed magazine. Regardless, the thing I enjoy most, and, in fact, the only thing I really take advantage of, is the printed magazine.
$55 a year for that seems like a lot, although I do realize the membership includes more. TBH, it's just the 20% increase that is a little jarring. The ability to avoid it by locking in the next few years in advance does take the sting out of it, but I worry about what happens to membership numbers when that dissipates.
And, as I said before, totally destroying the economic incentive for someone age 50+ to become a lifetime member is going to really hurt them, unless they weren't selling a lot to that group to start with. Life members today are 5,555 out of 26,903. I wonder how many of them are under age 40, because that's the only group a $1,500 membership is going to appeal to starting in September.
I totally agree. The point of this thread is that I am questioning their wisdom and judgment here. Given their demographics, they just might be pricing themselves out of existence if the only way for them to make ends meet is to impose 20% price increases on a declining membership.
If they lose 20% of their membership over the next few years, they will have accomplished nothing, and will need to do it again. And again. Your lifetime membership won't be worth much if they are eventually forced to close their doors because their best judgment was 20% rate increases.
Long term survival should be looking for new revenue streams and cutting costs, rather than testing how much new members will be willing to pay when there are fewer and fewer of them every year, going back forever. Current members can lock in current rates until September, for up to 5 years or for a lifetime, so this isn't about them. It's about how this is going to benefit the organization going forward.
It comes straight from the email I received from the ANA recently. Price is going from $30 to $35 per year.
What’s your source for your numbers?
Same place as yours. Only around 1/3 of their membership is on an annual plan that doesn't include a printed magazine. They are the only ones paying less than $3/mo.
My email only shows the new gold pricing.
How much does it cost the ANA to print and mail the magazine relative to the price differential between membership levels?
I get the printed magazine, so I have access to all the numbers, including the membership census. I posted the relevant numbers above.
I am not an insider, so I have no idea what their costs are. I can tell you that the printed magazine currently adds $16 to the price of a one year membership, and will add $20 in September. They give small discounts for locking in a few years at a time, so the 3 year membership differential will go from $46 to $55, rather than $60.
Again, prices are pretty much going up 20% across the board. That's a lot all at once, regardless of COVID, inflation, whatever. It's discretionary, and people are leaving all the time and not being replaced at the same rate. 20% price increases are not going to reverse that trend.
You are incorrect by a LOT, according to the Office of the Chief Actuary, for the 2020 period life table for the Social Security area population, as used in the 2023 Trustees Report.
For 63 year old males, the average remaining life expectancy is 18.32 years. For 63 year old females, the average remaining life expectancy is 21.24 years.
Note: The period life expectancy at a given age for 2020 is the average remaining number of years expected prior to death for a person at that exact age, born on January 1, using the mortality rates for 2020 over the course of his or her remaining life.
Why did I take the time to look this up? Because in my occupational field, the numbers provided in the earlier post made absolutely NO sense! Looking up the data confirmed and reinforced my understanding of actuarial longevity at an advanced age.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
So an extra $0.75 a month? Does that even buy a can of soda?
Nope. But it's 20%. Might cause some people not to renew. Isn't going to encourage someone on the fence to sign up. Most businesses with declining sales of something that isn't a necessity don't jack up prices by a multiple of the CPI and dare their customers to do without. They look for other ways to raise revenue, cut costs, or eventually close their doors.
$0.75 doesn't buy a can of soda. But $35 or $55 might be enough for someone to decide they don't need the ANA. 26,903 people currently hold a membership. A LOT more people than that somehow manage to collect coins without a membership. Is that number more likely to go up, go down, or stay the same when the cost of a membership increases by 20%, regardless of what that translates to in terms of monthly soda consumption?
When is the last time membership pricing increased? What has CPI been in the interim? My understanding is that membership dues have not increased in a number of years.
Is membership shrinking? If so, over what period? If so, is driven by membership dues? Perceived value? Type of benefits offered?
Are ANA members price sensitive?
I wouldn’t assume anything.
Is the ANA really for the collector or for the dealer.........
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Agreed. I don't know the last time prices increased, but that doesn't matter to the person being hit with 20% now. Is membership shrinking? Absolutely. I don't have the numbers, but someone here with deep ANA history should be able to answer that. Show attendance absolutely is. Forever.
I pulled this from a forum post in 2017:
2009, Los Angeles total Attendance: 7727
2010, Boston total Attendance: 10204
2011, Chicago total Attendance: 9113
2012, Pennsylvania total Attendance: 8810
2013, Chicago total Attendance: 9082
2014, Chicago total Attendance: 12,642
2015, Chicago total Attendance: 8,635
2016, Anaheim total Attendance: 8,192
2017, Denver total Attendance: 8638
Attendance last year: ???? I can't find a single article online with the number. One would think if the ANA had something to crow about that it would be easily searchable. Best estimates are 5-6K. The spring show drew a whopping 3288 in 2022 and 4306 in 2023, including nearly 1900 who decided to keep their $30 and not invest in a membership.
If people aren't price sensitive, they should probably shore up their finances and jack up dues, show tickets, table fees, etc. to the extent possible. I'm going to assume they already have, because they always seem to need money, so it's probably fair to assume they haven't been leaving piles of it on the table. Time will tell.
Supposed to be for all, but, if they drive collectors away, then it will be for dealers.
To @MrEureka's point, if collectors are not willing to pay what it costs to support the organization, and dealers are, then that will be the answer. And, if that's the case, as a collector I think they should try to price it attractively for collectors, since their money will be gravy on top of what the dealer community is paying to support their organization.
Here are some more numbers that I found
2018 Philadelphia: 9,939
2019 Chicago: 8,184
2020 (none)
2021 Chicago: 7,255
https://www.money.org/uploads/pdfs/WFM Recap (1).pdf
https://coinsweekly.com/collectors-converge-on-chicago-worlds-fair-of-money/
https://www.numismaticnews.net/events/ana-show-makes-successful-comeback#gid=ci028bbaa3a0002426&pid=tyrant2
Based on the 2023 budget, it appears dues are an important but not critical revenue source at ~11%. Admittedly, this is revenue and they may be a more sizable chunk of cash flow - I didn’t dive that deep.
It's a HUGE chunk, and you don't need to dive deeply at all. It's the 3rd largest line item. A dazzling 45.5% is UNREALIZED gains on investments, which is not cash at all.
Back that out, which you have to, because it's an increase in investment value that might or might not be there if and when they choose to liquidate, and Dues and Applications represent 20% of their budgeted cash flow.
It's unclear whether they budgeted the flood of money they are sure to receive between now and 8/31 as people lock in current rates for a few years. Let's see what their budget vs. actual looks like next year as dues fall off a cliff due to people pushing dues forward to this year and lifetime memberships drying up entirely for the reasons I set forth previously.
I got a free issue of it and noticed they providing CPG prices - so a super deal for you then?
No. Nobody who knows what they are doing uses outdated CPG prices for anything. Certainly not dealers, although I'm sure dealers hope naive collectors will use the inflated values as a baseline to make buying decisions.
Don't get me wrong -- I am happy to support the ANA, and very much enjoy the magazine for my $46. While the ANA only allocates $16 to the magazine, I don't really get a lot of value from the rest of the membership, so I consider it a $46 magazine subscription with free show admissions thrown in if I happen to be within a few hundred miles of wherever they happen to be. I'm just concerned that a 20% increase is going to drive people away.
Oh really lol
I get my CPG data from my online phone subscr real-time. CPG is a FMV retail price based on CDN bid. Hardly inflated values lol / rofl. It shows MV for both CAC and non CAC. A pricing advancement.
It is updated constantly. People who do pay the money do buy at CPG.
I have been an ANA member since 1969 and a Life Member since 1971. I have attended every summer convention since 1970. I have been a donor to the summer convention for decades except for the term of office of one ANA President. I have enjoyed the entire time of my membership.
And I get mine from HA, GC and eBay.
Need the cash flow statement. You should probably also take a look at the 990s.
It appears the ANA would be better off without members such as yourself who subscribe to the print magazine since the cost of publishing The Numismatist is higher than revenue. Per the 2021 990:
But regardless, the impact of any change to membership or dues is blunted given that it’s not the primary source of cash. And if dues are raised 20% and 10% of members leave, it would be net positive.
As have I, although I have never made it out to a convention. I don't remember ever seeing a 20% increase in dues, although I wasn't around in the high inflation late 1970s-early 1980s. Do you remember if they did that back then? If not, doing it now really is inexcusable.
I do not remember how much the dues increases were in the 70's and 80's. You really need to make it to a show. I went in 1970 because I thought the location was the closest it would ever be to my home. I was hooked.
Sure, but that might be because they are only allocating $16 of the $46 to the publication, since that's the difference between the gold and platinum membership. But that's a fiction, because I don't use anything other than the publication, so they should really allocate my entire $46 to it. No publication, no $46 from me, and then they are losing even more, even though that statement would show their loss going down.
And if dues go up 20% but Dues revenue goes down 40%, because some dues get pushed forward, some people don't renew, some new people never sign up, and other dues, like lifetime memberships disappear, would that also be a net positive?
I've been to quite a few shows, and hope to go to Pittsburgh in August. It was the 2012 Philly show that hooked me. Sorry it can't go back due to the unions and the convention center requirements, because it really does attract more people than Rosemont or any alternative, but it is what it is.
I went to Rosemont for a few years, but the circus with the homeless, crime, COVID, etc. have been a turn off, and I don't think I'll be going back. TBH, FUN does a really nice job, so I really haven't missed the WFOM. I love the ANA, and am concerned that a 20% dues increase was not well thought out and will backfire. A 25% increase on the lifetime membership, with an increase in the discount break point to 65 from 55, while increasing that price by "only" 22%, is nuts, and will absolutely kill that revenue stream from anyone over age 40.
But you're missing one very big point. Your male born in 2021 has a nonzero chance of dying in 2021, and a nonzero chance of dying in 2022, … , and a nonzero chance of dying in 2083. Regardless of anything else, a 63 year old male born in 1960 has a zero probability of dying between 1960 and 2022.
This isn't to say that the correct expectancy is age 92, but it's perfectly reasonable, and in some periods almost certain, for a 63 year old to have a longer life expectancy than a 2 year old.
Of course! I'm not missing anything. This is why the correct number for a 65 year old is 16.94 and not 8.2.
The fact is that 92 is pretty damn rare. According to the SSA table, a male doesn't actually hit that life expectancy until they defy the odds and make it to age 88!
Anyone who says you are there at age 63 is pulling the number out of their behind. HUGE difference between 63 and 88. Lots of dying in those 25 years, in addition to the non-zero chance of a baby dying in its first 2 years of life.
After decades of not being a member, I finally joined the ANA, and only out of some kind of obligation to support the organization after attending the Phoenix ANA Money show rather than for any member benefits. The membership fee I feel is so minimal I don't mind paying the old or the new amount.
Excellent. The hobby needs more people like you. Unfortunately, it is more common for people to resent being asked to pay $10 to attend the show than to feel an obligation to join the organization.
I don't feel obligations, get involved in politics, etc. I just want to see the organization and the hobby thrive, and I'm afraid large dues increases while membership is aging and declining is not a recipe for success. Hopefully I am wrong.
Interestingly in the current election for governors, more candidates are NOT dealers than are dealers.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
If a $5 - $9 increase per year causes a 40% dropoff in membership, there are other issues at play. I maintain that coin collectors who are serious enough to consider ANA membership are not particularly price sensitive to $5 - $9 per year.
I also take issue with your comment that Rosemont has an issue with crime, particularly relative to center city Philly. I lived within walking distance of the convention center in Philly during the first half of the 2010s (when Philly was safer than it is today) and it has its share of big city problems.
If safety is the top priority for a show, then a suburban convention center with physically connected hotels and a close airport is likely the most statistically safe option.
I like Philly and it’s a fun convention city, but I would never claim it’s the best option for safety.
Fair points. I sure didn't mean to derail my own thread into a discussion of the most dangerous, or safest, cities in America. Philly is in my backyard, and is an actual city. Rosemont is an outpost adjacent to an airport halfway across the country for me, and for anyone not located in the midwest.
Rosemont was great until it wasn't. I'm probably not going back. Philly has issues with its convention business that makes it incompatible with what the ANA has to offer a host city. The ANA is probably not going back.
You know who runs a nice little show in a fun convention city? FUN. You might want to check it out. They don't do nearly as much for the hobby as the ANA, but they have a nice organization, they don't raise dues by 20%, and they don't charge admission for collectors to attend their shows, members and nonmembers alike. Maybe the ANA should take a look at how they manage to make ends meet.
Yes, there are always other issues at play. That's the point. If an organization needs a 20% dues increase, representing only $5-9 per year, to make its nut, it needs to figure out other ways to make money. Because, as I said, I think going for such a large increase is going to turn off a lot of people.
They are not going to be signing up a bunch of 65 year olds for lifetime memberships at $1,100 a pop, but they are going to lose all the 55 year olds who would have signed up at $900 and won't at $1,500. It's going to take 100 people at $9 to make up for each 55 year old they lose.
It's everything, not "just" the $5-9. It's the 20%. It's the aging demographics and increasing irrelevance of the organization to most new collectors. And then it's their killing the incentive for all but the relatively young to commit to a lifetime membership. Throw all that into the hopper, and I'm afraid, after whatever boost they get from people like us pushing dues forward to beat the increase, that dues revenue is actually going to decline as a result of this increase, which isn't going to help them at all.
But the real damage isn't going to be from the rounding error in their annual budget. It's going to be from the members they lose, and those they never sign up in the first place.
I’m not a FUN member and don’t know much about FUN as an organization or much about their cost structure.
I think any commentary on how the ANA could do better is fair game including convention location - particularly given that they just sent out a survey asking about convention location preferences.
I enjoy the debates on these topics and I hear your point, particularly with respect to life memberships.
Rosemont was great until it wasn't. I'm probably not going back.
I don't understand the comments about Rosemont. I've gone to the last couple of ANA shows there and had a ball - easy direct flight for me, free shuttle from O'Hare to my hotel which is right across the street from the Convention Center, plenty of security on the streets all day long, and I've certainly never felt unsafe walking around the Convention neighborhood.
Member ANA, SPMC, SCNA, FUN, CONECA
.
Last year's show:
"On Aug. 15, during setup of the American Numismatic Association’s (ANA) World’s Fair of Money in the Chicago suburb of Rosemont, a dealer had a display case of Rolex watches and coins stolen."
The Kennedy gold coin fiasco in 2014:
" I was staying at the Rosemont Hilton during this five day period, (this hotel is located directly across the street from the Stephen’s Convention Center), where the American Numismatic Association (ANA) was holding its numismatic convention. The morning of August 5, I was able to see the buyer’s line (which began forming at 2am) with over 800 people already in line. Many of the buyers in this line were bused in by large retail dealers who had been offered up to $500 to stand in this line and buy the one coin. The line was then moved into the convention center at 9am and the Mint began to sell one coin to each customer beginning at 11am.
...
On the morning of Wednesday, August 6, the line began forming at midnight. By 9am, there were approximately 1,000 buyers waiting in line. I was awakened from my sleep at 2am as 6 police cars with loud sirens arrived at the convention center to help control the people in line. I saw two men fighting in the middle of the street and watched the police arrest them and take them away. There were some people in line that were asked to leave because of their vulgar language and behavior during registration. Many of these buyers had been hired by retail coin dealers to wait in line and bring the Kennedy Coin directly to them on the floor of the convention center."
Just "been there, done that." It was fine, then it was a PITA to get to and just doesn't feel as safe as it used to. If I lived in Chicago, I'd go. As it is, I'd rather fly to Orlando in January than Rosemont in August. I'm not trying to suggest that you shouldn't continue to enjoy.
Sorry for your problems - I was there last year from Tuesday to Saturday (I had an Exhibit as well as running a Club Table) and had no issues all during the show. Walked to restaurants each evening (sometimes a good mile) with no problems. I stayed at the Crowne Plaza across the street from the Convention Center for the four nights and it was nice and quiet.
Member ANA, SPMC, SCNA, FUN, CONECA
In the grand scheme of this hobby, ANA membership is nothing. If I didn't get the Numismatist for free, I would definitely join for that alone. Ordering one year of Rolling Stone Magazine will cost you $44.95, and you get nothing else.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
My assumption is that the majority of collector budgets are $500 or less annually (in total, not per coin). This is by my definition of "collector", anyone "actively" collecting, even if at FV. If this is ballpark accurate, annual dues are a noticeable percentage of these (and somewhat higher collector) budgets.
For a noticeable percentage of others like me, the ANA isn't really relevant to their collecting. I could get some benefit out of the grading and counterfeit detection course, but not much else. If I wanted to support a numismatic organization, I'd support the ANS.
I let mine lapse, and have not noticed any negative affect.