Waiting many years and then passing on a hefty increase is seldom, if ever, a good idea. Smaller increases closer together inflicts less pain and therefore less complaints. I have been collecting on and off since the 1970s, and given what I enjoy collecting, grading submissions and / or memberships are low on the priority list. The decision is a personal one, bashing one way or another serves no productive purpose.
@erscolo said:
Waiting many years and then passing on a hefty increase is seldom, if ever, a good idea. Smaller increases closer together inflicts less pain and therefore less complaints. I have been collecting on and off since the 1970s, and given what I enjoy collecting, grading submissions and / or memberships are low on the priority list. The decision is a personal one, bashing one way or another serves no productive purpose.
Correct. Not bashing, simply, as someone who cares about the future of the hobby and the organization, opining. It's not just about calibrating increases. It's also about making sure the price aligns with the perceived value, in order to push membership higher up more collectors' priority lists.
With respect to the raising of the age for a discount on the lifetime membership, I am indeed guilty of bashing, albeit with the productive purpose of hopefully inducing the brain trust to revisit that decision.
I joined the ANA in the Spring of 1969. They were going to increase the Life Member rate at the beginning of 1972. I converted to a Life Member in December of 1971 for $150.
Just got off the phone with the ANA and added five more years at the current ANA dues rate. Since my membership wasn't going to expire until December 2025, it's now pushed back to December 2030. As a collector who has already had his Medicare card for a few years, this might as well be a Life Membership.
The truth is life membership has never been a great deal. The organization has to keep the funding in a segregated account, preferably earning some interest, while transferring money to pay the "current" dues each year.
Let's say dues are $20/year and you charge $300 for a life membership. At 6% a year, you are only covering $18. And leaving NOTHING for inflation as the per year costs will go up. The rest is maths.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I just rejoined the ANA a couple weeks ago after I let my membership lapse about 15 years ago. I did it after reading this thread. I joined at the gold level for $30 per year. That level seemed the best for me. I want just the digital version of the Numismatist magazine because it’s easier for me to read on my iPad than a physical magazine is (I have fairly severe vision problems, just one eye and it’s full of floaters from a vitreous detachment that causes me eye strain after about 1/2 hour if I read physical books). I also want to get some insurance from Hugh Wood for my registry set coins and I think it is either a requirement or you get a discount. I also joined because formerly when I was a member I used to borrow reference books from their library and I’d like to be able to do that again. The $30 doesn’t seem high to me, as far as price increases go most things cost more today than they did before the Pandemic.
@BStrauss3 said:
The truth is life membership has never been a great deal. The organization has to keep the funding in a segregated account, preferably earning some interest, while transferring money to pay the "current" dues each year.
Let's say dues are $20/year and you charge $300 for a life membership. At 6% a year, you are only covering $18. And leaving NOTHING for inflation as the per year costs will go up. The rest is maths.
But, it's not $20/year. It's $42, if you pay for multiple years at once. And the lifetime membership is $1,200 if you are under age 55, not $300.
It's a great way for the organization to raise cash, and the bet is that some people buying would have otherwise lost interest and dropped the membership long before they otherwise would have spent the $1,200, inflation included.
Moreover, they are increasing it to $1,500 in September. Why not use real numbers rather than artificial ones? If the ANA did not think there was a benefit to offering the lifetime membership, they would stop, just like they are no longer going to offer a discount to people at age 55, or a meaningful discount to people at age 65.
@Mr_Spud said:
I just rejoined the ANA a couple weeks ago after I let my membership lapse about 15 years ago. I did it after reading this thread. I joined at the gold level for $30 per year. That level seemed the best for me. I want just the digital version of the Numismatist magazine because it’s easier for me to read on my iPad than a physical magazine is (I have fairly severe vision problems, just one eye and it’s full of floaters from a vitreous detachment that causes me eye strain after about 1/2 hour if I read physical books). I also want to get some insurance from Hugh Wood for my registry set coins and I think it is either a requirement or you get a discount. I also joined because formerly when I was a member I used to borrow reference books from their library and I’d like to be able to do that again. The $30 doesn’t seem high to me, as far as price increases go most things cost more today than they did before the Pandemic.
Welcome back!!
American Numismatic Association Governor 2023 to 2025 - My posts reflect my own thoughts and are not those of the ANA.
@NJCoin said:
It's a great way for the organization to raise cash, and the bet is that some people buying would have otherwise lost interest and dropped the membership long before they otherwise would have spent the $1,200, inflation included.
It really is not. They book the cash to a restricted account for the fulfillment of LM subscriptions and they create a liability based on the actuarial estimate of the present value of the future costs. The restricted account is invested to produce an income stream. Between the two, they have to pay for your membership over the years until you die.
Each year, they transfer a year's worth of dues to their membership account, reduce the restricted account balance and recompute the liability.
If they get notified you've died, they can take whatever is left of the restricted account into income for the year as there is no remaining liability.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@NJCoin said:
It's a great way for the organization to raise cash, and the bet is that some people buying would have otherwise lost interest and dropped the membership long before they otherwise would have spent the $1,200, inflation included.
It really is not. They book the cash to a restricted account for the fulfillment of LM subscriptions and they create a liability based on the actuarial estimate of the present value of the future costs. The restricted account is invested to produce an income stream. Between the two, they have to pay for your membership over the years until you die.
Each year, they transfer a year's worth of dues to their membership account, reduce the restricted account balance and recompute the liability.
If they get notified you've died, they can take whatever is left of the restricted account into income for the year as there is no remaining liability.
Whatever. That's just accounting. The fact is that the dues paid are money received, and the annual book entry is just that, a book entry. The money they are moving is going to themselves, so they are not actually "paying" anything to anyone. Just like they are not spending any money if someone outlives the value of the book entry liability.
The only actual cash is the money paid for the membership. They are not going to be better off when that stream is reduced to zero for people 55 and up beginning in September, just because they will no longer be setting up liabilities to fund the annual book entries.
If this is truly such a burden and detriment to the organization, they should eliminate it, just like they are eliminating discounts at age 55. Whatever they are doing with book entries, I am quite sure this money is in the same lock box as my Social Security Trust Fund money (i.e., it's mixed in with their general funds, and invested along with the rest of their cash, just like the US Treasury does with my FICA withholding).
There is no reason to do anything else, since they have no obligation to actually pay anyone anything with respect to their obligation to allow lifetime members to be members for life. All they have to do is print and mail a magazine every month. And the math around that is already quite fuzzy, as @Project Numismatics pointed out in their Form 990 filing, and as further evidenced by the fact that they claim in the magazine that $30 of Platinum dues go towards an annual printed magazine subscription, but the Platinum dues only cost $16 per year more than the Gold, with the only difference between the two being the printed magazine.
I’m 60 and will turn 61 later this year. So I’m currently eligible for the 55+ rate, which won’t exist after 9/1/23 and will be replaced by a 65+ rate, which I won’t be eligible for.
I’m very seriously considering signing up for a Life Membership, even though I’m pretty sure I won’t get my money’s worth. I’d be doing it because it would be nice to be able to say I’m a Life Member. In a sense I’m trying to recapture a lost youth because when I was younger, there was no way I could even think about being able to do something like this.
I’m still nowhere near wealthy, but apparently as I get older I seem to be more willing to do this sort of thing.
I have season tickets to my favorite Major League Baseball team, though I don’t go to every game and I can probably get tickets cheaper elsewhere - but, again, I like being able to say I have season tickets, I enjoy some of the perks season ticket holders get, and I also got in on a very good one-time-only deal for which I’m grandfathered. But I still paid almost $3,000 for tickets this year, which is a lot of money for me. Again, I remember going to ballgames as a kid and young adult and thinking about how awesome it would be to be able to afford season tickets and be able to go to any game I wanted, so to me it's worth it.
I’m also a comic book fan. In buying my tickets to this year’s New York Comic Con, I had two options: a 4-day badge, which cost $250, and a VIP badge, which was $550. (I don’t remember the exact prices, but for the purposes of this discussion the proportions are close enough.) VIP gets you a lot of perks, including guaranteed access to panels which may otherwise be sold out - but in my specific case, the only perks that really mattered to me were access to a VIP-only lounge with its own private coat and bag check. Those weren’t enough to make it worth spending an extra $300 above the price of a regular 4-day, and not even the pride in being able to say I had a VIP badge would have helped. I’d had VIP in past years, but the difference between VIP and a 4-day wasn’t anywhere near $300 - it was maybe $100 or so, which was still a lot for the perks I actually wanted, but it wasn’t so bad that I couldn’t swing it.
The upcoming ANA dues increase also played a factor in my decision. I thought about it, thought about it, and kept thinking about it. I knew VIP badges would only be available in VERY limited quantities so if I wanted one I’d have to act fact. But I finally decided I’d be better off putting that extra $300 towards an ANA Life Membership, and just bought a regular 4-day badge. My status as a NYCC VIP would have lasted only the four days of the con - but if nothing else, I’ll be able to say I’m a Life Member of the American Numismatic Association for the rest of my life.
This thread needs a few facts:
1) The ANA’s membership is NOT shrinking. It’s actually increasing moderately.
2) The ANA’s age demographic is NOT aging. It is amazingly stable and unchanged.
3) The reason for the dues increase is MASSIVE increases in BOTH the cost of producing _The Numismatist in printed form and an even larger increase in producing the digital version.
4) Dues are a money losing proposition, even with the new prices. _
@VKurtB said:
This thread needs a few facts:
1) The ANA’s membership is NOT shrinking. It’s actually increasing moderately.
2) The ANA’s age demographic is NOT aging. It is amazingly stable and unchanged.
3) The reason for the dues increase is MASSIVE increases in BOTH the cost of producing _The Numismatist in printed form and an even larger increase in producing the digital version.
4) Dues are a money losing proposition, even with the new prices. _
Money losing proposition? 🤣🤣🤣
What runs at a profit there? The shows? Summer seminar? Headquarters? Museum? Library? Anything, other than fundraising and sponsorships? Why should membership?
If membership should run at break-even, why don't they do themselves a favor and raise dues to at least break-even? Most likely because dues revenue would then decline to a level below their current level. If they know what they are doing, dues are set at a level to maximize revenue, understanding that increases in price will result in decreases in volume, just like with any other discretionary item in the economy.
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
My speculation is that dues are going to be an even greater money losing proposition after the new prices take effect, but I guess that remains to be seen. If I am correct, they can either find money elsewhere, find ways to reduce costs (maybe starting with headquarters expenses?) or continue a death spiral by raising dues even more. Then I guess we'll see how amazingly stable, or increasing moderately, the membership is in a world where so many resources are freely available on the internet, and the percent of collectors who are actually members is already pretty damn close to 0%.
PCGS has over 20K collector members, and that doesn't include dealers. NGC has over 30K registry members, I'm sure with lots of crossover with PCGS. And, of course, millions upon millions of casual collectors do not join any numismatic organization.
Given what @ksammut observed about the low ANA adoption rate among local club members, even with significant financial incentives to join, how great a job is the ANA doing engaging those most likely to engage, and in remaining relevant? I'm not impressed, particularly when compared to the engagement generated by the TPGs, whose offerings are not nearly as diverse. Why aren't we all on an ANA forum? In this context, is justifying 20% dues increases really the way to go? TBD.
@VKurtB said:
This thread needs a few facts:
1) The ANA’s membership is NOT shrinking. It’s actually increasing moderately.
2) The ANA’s age demographic is NOT aging. It is amazingly stable and unchanged.
3) The reason for the dues increase is MASSIVE increases in BOTH the cost of producing _The Numismatist in printed form and an even larger increase in producing the digital version.
4) Dues are a money losing proposition, even with the new prices. _
Money losing proposition? 🤣🤣🤣
What runs at a profit there? The shows? Summer seminar? Headquarters? Museum? Library? Anything, other than fundraising and sponsorships? Why should membership?
If membership should run at break-even, why don't they do themselves a favor and raise dues to at least break-even? Most likely because dues revenue would then decline to a level below their current level. If they know what they are doing, dues are set at a level to maximize revenue, understanding that increases in price will result in decreases in volume, just like with any other discretionary item in the economy.
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
My speculation is that dues are going to be an even greater money losing proposition after the new prices take effect, but I guess that remains to be seen. If I am correct, they can either find money elsewhere, find ways to reduce costs (maybe starting with headquarters expenses?) or continue a death spiral by raising dues even more. Then I guess we'll see how amazingly stable, or increasing moderately, the membership is in a world where so many resources are freely available on the internet, and the percent of collectors who are actually members is already pretty damn close to 0%.
PCGS has over 20K collector members, and that doesn't include dealers. NGC has over 30K registry members, I'm sure with lots of crossover with PCGS. And, of course, millions upon millions of casual collectors do not join any numismatic organization.
Given what @ksammut observed about the low ANA adoption rate among local club members, even with significant financial incentives to join, how great a job is the ANA doing engaging those most likely to engage, and in remaining relevant? I'm not impressed, particularly when compared to the engagement generated by the TPGs, whose offerings are not nearly as diverse. Why aren't we all on an ANA forum? In this context, is justifying 20% dues increases really the way to go? TBD.
It seems that you view and experience ANA as primarily another source of electronic information and online engagement similar to the TPG forums, Coinfacts, YouTube, etc.
I would encourage you to consider experiencing Summer Seminar, the ANA traveling technical seminars and the WFOM show. Those in-person learning experiences in combination with the opportunity to build relationships and network are where the value is.
You can participate in all the guess the grade forums and watch all the YouTube videos available (for free) but it’s nowhere near as valuable as taking the ANA in-person grading courses or even auction lot viewing at a major show such as WFOM (or FUN).
$35 is a small price to pay to be able to access the best numismatic education and minds in the country. Of course in-person education and events aren’t of interest to some collectors and they may not see the value - that’s ok. The goal isn’t necessarily to have a maximized but unengaged membership.
@VKurtB said:
This thread needs a few facts:
1) The ANA’s membership is NOT shrinking. It’s actually increasing moderately.
2) The ANA’s age demographic is NOT aging. It is amazingly stable and unchanged.
3) The reason for the dues increase is MASSIVE increases in BOTH the cost of producing _The Numismatist in printed form and an even larger increase in producing the digital version.
4) Dues are a money losing proposition, even with the new prices. _
Money losing proposition? 🤣🤣🤣
What runs at a profit there? The shows? Summer seminar? Headquarters? Museum? Library? Anything, other than fundraising and sponsorships? Why should membership?
If membership should run at break-even, why don't they do themselves a favor and raise dues to at least break-even? Most likely because dues revenue would then decline to a level below their current level. If they know what they are doing, dues are set at a level to maximize revenue, understanding that increases in price will result in decreases in volume, just like with any other discretionary item in the economy.
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
My speculation is that dues are going to be an even greater money losing proposition after the new prices take effect, but I guess that remains to be seen. If I am correct, they can either find money elsewhere, find ways to reduce costs (maybe starting with headquarters expenses?) or continue a death spiral by raising dues even more. Then I guess we'll see how amazingly stable, or increasing moderately, the membership is in a world where so many resources are freely available on the internet, and the percent of collectors who are actually members is already pretty damn close to 0%.
PCGS has over 20K collector members, and that doesn't include dealers. NGC has over 30K registry members, I'm sure with lots of crossover with PCGS. And, of course, millions upon millions of casual collectors do not join any numismatic organization.
Given what @ksammut observed about the low ANA adoption rate among local club members, even with significant financial incentives to join, how great a job is the ANA doing engaging those most likely to engage, and in remaining relevant? I'm not impressed, particularly when compared to the engagement generated by the TPGs, whose offerings are not nearly as diverse. Why aren't we all on an ANA forum? In this context, is justifying 20% dues increases really the way to go? TBD.
It seems that you view and experience ANA as primarily another source of electronic information and online engagement similar to the TPG forums, Coinfacts, YouTube, etc.
I would encourage you to consider experiencing Summer Seminar, the ANA traveling technical seminars and the WFOM show. Those in-person learning experiences in combination with the opportunity to build relationships and network are where the value is.
You can participate in all the guess the grade forums and watch all the YouTube videos available (for free) but it’s nowhere near as valuable as taking the ANA in-person grading courses or even auction lot viewing at a major show such as WFOM (or FUN).
$35 is a small price to pay to be able to access the best numismatic education and minds in the country. Of course in-person education and events aren’t of interest to some collectors and they may not see the value - that’s ok. The goal isn’t necessarily to have a maximized but unengaged membership.
I get it. You are kind of preaching to the choir. I've been to several WFOMs, and I am a Platinum member because I enjoy the magazine. Everything else is great, but clearly is not enough to attract the masses, even at $30. I'm just saying that a 20% increase is substantial, even if it's "only" $5 or $9.
And this is coming from someone who does not have to be sold on the value of supporting the ANA. If the ANA does not find a way to engage, in a world where sources of electronic information are prized and traveling technical seminars are not, it will price itself right into irrelevance, if it hasn't already.
I'm a fanboy, although I might not be when the $9 increase hits me in a few years. @ksammut better figure out, quick, why 100% of the membership in all of his local coin clubs are not as well. They are the present as well as the future, and they rejecting the ANA, en masse. 20% dues increases are not going to reel them in.
@NJCoin said:
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
Being a non-profit does not mean an organization cannot "make money" from dues. Being a non-profit really just means that there are no distribution of profits to owners or stakeholders and that all profits get reinvested into the organization.
The only reason ANA would be precluded from "making money" from dues is if it's in the charter, which I doubt it is.
That said, setting a price for dues is a balancing act between keeping dues as low as possible so as to maintain or grow a proper membership base and covering costs and hitting revenue targets. I do not have enough information to judge if this increase is inappropriate or will lead to plummeting membership, but I suspect everything will be just fine. Keep in mind also that ANA probably should have been raising dues $1-2/yr for a while now, and this is probably a "catch-up" increase so it may look drastic while people forget about the years it didn't go up.
@NJCoin said:
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
Being a non-profit does not mean an organization cannot "make money" from dues. Being a non-profit really just means that there are no distribution of profits to owners or stakeholders and that all profits get reinvested into the organization.
The only reason ANA would be precluded from "making money" from dues is if it's in the charter, which I doubt it is.
That said, setting a price for dues is a balancing act between keeping dues as low as possible so as to maintain or grow a proper membership base and covering costs and hitting revenue targets. I do not have enough information to judge if this increase is inappropriate or will lead to plummeting membership, but I suspect everything will be just fine. Keep in mind also that ANA probably should have been raising dues $1-2/yr for a while now, and this is probably a "catch-up" increase so it may look drastic while people forget about the years it didn't go up.
True, but that doesn't matter to the person getting smacked with a 20% increase. Many will accept it, some won't. The question is, given the low sign up rate among collectors, is the problem really that dues are not high enough?
No one is suggesting they are precluded from making money from dues. Just that, as a non-profit, they are not supposed to be doing that as an objective.
After all, if they are chartered as a non-profit, and are not subject to income tax because they are a non-profit, what would be the justification of needing to generate a profit from dues, over and above what it costs to run the organization?
To fund summer seminar scholarships? Maybe that program should be self sustaining.
Same for anything else that they are not precluded from using dues to fund. Maybe dues should be expected to run at a loss, in order to attract the maximum number of members possible, and that dues should be subsidized by fundraising, shows, etc.
I guess it depends on whether the idea is for the ANA to be a niche organization that primarily caters to dealers, or a large organization serving as many collectors as humanly possible.
@NJCoin said:
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
Being a non-profit does not mean an organization cannot "make money" from dues. Being a non-profit really just means that there are no distribution of profits to owners or stakeholders and that all profits get reinvested into the organization.
The only reason ANA would be precluded from "making money" from dues is if it's in the charter, which I doubt it is.
That said, setting a price for dues is a balancing act between keeping dues as low as possible so as to maintain or grow a proper membership base and covering costs and hitting revenue targets. I do not have enough information to judge if this increase is inappropriate or will lead to plummeting membership, but I suspect everything will be just fine. Keep in mind also that ANA probably should have been raising dues $1-2/yr for a while now, and this is probably a "catch-up" increase so it may look drastic while people forget about the years it didn't go up.
True, but that doesn't matter to the person getting smacked with a 20% increase. Many will accept it, some won't. The question is, given the low sign up rate among collectors, is the problem really that dues are not high enough?
No one is suggesting they are precluded from making money from dues. Just that, as a non-profit, they are not supposed to be doing that as an objective.
You said that they "not supposed to" make money from dues, but where is this written or established? Why not? They can raise revenue however they see fit. As I described in my previous post, they have to balance dues with membership levels as needed to fulfill the objectives of the organization. Some non-profits can charge a lot for dues, while others have other revenue sources or operate primarily on donations. There are no rules for where a non-profit "is supposed" to get their money. There are only practical limits.
After all, if they are chartered as a non-profit, and are not subject to income tax because they are a non-profit, what would be the justification of needing to generate a profit from dues, over and above what it costs to run the organization?
An organization such as the ANA would use excess proceeds to save for a rainy day or to fuel expansion and growth (grow membership, grow services, grow promotion). The ANA members elect the board to balance revenue, expenses, and growth initiatives (if any). You should trust that the board has set their budgets and revenue projects and have their plans to meet their budgets and evidently this year they identified higher dues as a source additional revenue.
@NJCoin said:
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
Being a non-profit does not mean an organization cannot "make money" from dues. Being a non-profit really just means that there are no distribution of profits to owners or stakeholders and that all profits get reinvested into the organization.
The only reason ANA would be precluded from "making money" from dues is if it's in the charter, which I doubt it is.
That said, setting a price for dues is a balancing act between keeping dues as low as possible so as to maintain or grow a proper membership base and covering costs and hitting revenue targets. I do not have enough information to judge if this increase is inappropriate or will lead to plummeting membership, but I suspect everything will be just fine. Keep in mind also that ANA probably should have been raising dues $1-2/yr for a while now, and this is probably a "catch-up" increase so it may look drastic while people forget about the years it didn't go up.
True, but that doesn't matter to the person getting smacked with a 20% increase. Many will accept it, some won't. The question is, given the low sign up rate among collectors, is the problem really that dues are not high enough?
No one is suggesting they are precluded from making money from dues. Just that, as a non-profit, they are not supposed to be doing that as an objective.
You said that they "not supposed to" make money from dues, but where is this written or established? Why not? They can raise revenue however they see fit. As I described in my previous post, they have to balance dues with membership levels as needed to fulfill the objectives of the organization. Some non-profits can charge a lot for dues, while others have other revenue sources or operate primarily on donations. There are no rules for where a non-profit "is supposed" to get their money. There are only practical limits.
After all, if they are chartered as a non-profit, and are not subject to income tax because they are a non-profit, what would be the justification of needing to generate a profit from dues, over and above what it costs to run the organization?
An organization such as the ANA would use excess proceeds to save for a rainy day or to fuel expansion and growth (grow membership, grow services, grow promotion). The ANA members elect the board to balance revenue, expenses, and growth initiatives (if any). You should trust that the board has set their budgets and revenue projects and have their plans to meet their budgets and evidently this year they identified higher dues as a source additional revenue.
Where is it written? In their non-profit charter. If they want to run a for-profit membership organization, it should be chartered as such, as it should pay taxes, like all other profit generating enterprises.
As far as the board, in its infinite wisdom, identifying higher dues as a source of additional revenue, I certainly wish them luck with that, after the one-time boost from current members pushing dues payments forward to avoid the increase wears off.
Running a Ponzi scheme, by using dues to grow promotion to raise more dues, rather than plowing dues into things that actually add value to a membership, is sure to end as all Ponzi schemes do. I don't trust a board that holds off on increases for years, and then votes for a 20% increase, but we'll see what happens.
And, no, I don't have a lot of confidence in the only Congressionally chartered national numismatic organization that runs a national, annual show that barely attracts 2/3 as many attendees as a certain large regional show in Florida each year.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of collectors don't feel that the ANA delivers bang for the buck, which is why they don't join, even when offered significant club related discounts. Raising dues, by a lot on a relative basis, will certainly generate more revenue from those who choose to pay it, but will do nothing to draw in new people, and might actually shrink the pie if enough current members join non-member in determining that the ANA does not deliver bang for the buck. TBD.
@NJCoin said:
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
Being a non-profit does not mean an organization cannot "make money" from dues. Being a non-profit really just means that there are no distribution of profits to owners or stakeholders and that all profits get reinvested into the organization.
The only reason ANA would be precluded from "making money" from dues is if it's in the charter, which I doubt it is.
That said, setting a price for dues is a balancing act between keeping dues as low as possible so as to maintain or grow a proper membership base and covering costs and hitting revenue targets. I do not have enough information to judge if this increase is inappropriate or will lead to plummeting membership, but I suspect everything will be just fine. Keep in mind also that ANA probably should have been raising dues $1-2/yr for a while now, and this is probably a "catch-up" increase so it may look drastic while people forget about the years it didn't go up.
True, but that doesn't matter to the person getting smacked with a 20% increase. Many will accept it, some won't. The question is, given the low sign up rate among collectors, is the problem really that dues are not high enough?
No one is suggesting they are precluded from making money from dues. Just that, as a non-profit, they are not supposed to be doing that as an objective.
You said that they "not supposed to" make money from dues, but where is this written or established? Why not? They can raise revenue however they see fit. As I described in my previous post, they have to balance dues with membership levels as needed to fulfill the objectives of the organization. Some non-profits can charge a lot for dues, while others have other revenue sources or operate primarily on donations. There are no rules for where a non-profit "is supposed" to get their money. There are only practical limits.
After all, if they are chartered as a non-profit, and are not subject to income tax because they are a non-profit, what would be the justification of needing to generate a profit from dues, over and above what it costs to run the organization?
An organization such as the ANA would use excess proceeds to save for a rainy day or to fuel expansion and growth (grow membership, grow services, grow promotion). The ANA members elect the board to balance revenue, expenses, and growth initiatives (if any). You should trust that the board has set their budgets and revenue projects and have their plans to meet their budgets and evidently this year they identified higher dues as a source additional revenue.
Where is it written? In their non-profit charter. If they want to run a for-profit membership organization, it should be chartered as such, as it should pay taxes, like all other profit generating enterprises.
@NJCoin said:
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
Being a non-profit does not mean an organization cannot "make money" from dues. Being a non-profit really just means that there are no distribution of profits to owners or stakeholders and that all profits get reinvested into the organization.
The only reason ANA would be precluded from "making money" from dues is if it's in the charter, which I doubt it is.
That said, setting a price for dues is a balancing act between keeping dues as low as possible so as to maintain or grow a proper membership base and covering costs and hitting revenue targets. I do not have enough information to judge if this increase is inappropriate or will lead to plummeting membership, but I suspect everything will be just fine. Keep in mind also that ANA probably should have been raising dues $1-2/yr for a while now, and this is probably a "catch-up" increase so it may look drastic while people forget about the years it didn't go up.
True, but that doesn't matter to the person getting smacked with a 20% increase. Many will accept it, some won't. The question is, given the low sign up rate among collectors, is the problem really that dues are not high enough?
No one is suggesting they are precluded from making money from dues. Just that, as a non-profit, they are not supposed to be doing that as an objective.
You said that they "not supposed to" make money from dues, but where is this written or established? Why not? They can raise revenue however they see fit. As I described in my previous post, they have to balance dues with membership levels as needed to fulfill the objectives of the organization. Some non-profits can charge a lot for dues, while others have other revenue sources or operate primarily on donations. There are no rules for where a non-profit "is supposed" to get their money. There are only practical limits.
After all, if they are chartered as a non-profit, and are not subject to income tax because they are a non-profit, what would be the justification of needing to generate a profit from dues, over and above what it costs to run the organization?
An organization such as the ANA would use excess proceeds to save for a rainy day or to fuel expansion and growth (grow membership, grow services, grow promotion). The ANA members elect the board to balance revenue, expenses, and growth initiatives (if any). You should trust that the board has set their budgets and revenue projects and have their plans to meet their budgets and evidently this year they identified higher dues as a source additional revenue.
Where is it written? In their non-profit charter. If they want to run a for-profit membership organization, it should be chartered as such, as it should pay taxes, like all other profit generating enterprises.
I'm sure it doesn't. So maybe they should raise Gold level dues to $500 per year in order to pay for a free Summer Seminar for any member that wants one?
What's your point? Mine is that they are a non-profit, and dues should be set at a level to attain maximum engagement, not maximum revenue. If they want to use dues to subsidize things beyond that which enhances the value of a membership, they risk turning off the very people they need to thrive and survive. The fact that they are not legally restricted from making money off of dues does not mean that they should.
OTOH, the TPGs charge more for their memberships, turn a nice profit from their business, AND have far more engagement than the ANA. Why do you think that is? Maybe because they provide perceived value to their constituents while the ANA does not. It's worth noting that the constituents are the very same people.
@NJCoin said:
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
Being a non-profit does not mean an organization cannot "make money" from dues. Being a non-profit really just means that there are no distribution of profits to owners or stakeholders and that all profits get reinvested into the organization.
The only reason ANA would be precluded from "making money" from dues is if it's in the charter, which I doubt it is.
That said, setting a price for dues is a balancing act between keeping dues as low as possible so as to maintain or grow a proper membership base and covering costs and hitting revenue targets. I do not have enough information to judge if this increase is inappropriate or will lead to plummeting membership, but I suspect everything will be just fine. Keep in mind also that ANA probably should have been raising dues $1-2/yr for a while now, and this is probably a "catch-up" increase so it may look drastic while people forget about the years it didn't go up.
True, but that doesn't matter to the person getting smacked with a 20% increase. Many will accept it, some won't. The question is, given the low sign up rate among collectors, is the problem really that dues are not high enough?
No one is suggesting they are precluded from making money from dues. Just that, as a non-profit, they are not supposed to be doing that as an objective.
You said that they "not supposed to" make money from dues, but where is this written or established? Why not? They can raise revenue however they see fit. As I described in my previous post, they have to balance dues with membership levels as needed to fulfill the objectives of the organization. Some non-profits can charge a lot for dues, while others have other revenue sources or operate primarily on donations. There are no rules for where a non-profit "is supposed" to get their money. There are only practical limits.
After all, if they are chartered as a non-profit, and are not subject to income tax because they are a non-profit, what would be the justification of needing to generate a profit from dues, over and above what it costs to run the organization?
An organization such as the ANA would use excess proceeds to save for a rainy day or to fuel expansion and growth (grow membership, grow services, grow promotion). The ANA members elect the board to balance revenue, expenses, and growth initiatives (if any). You should trust that the board has set their budgets and revenue projects and have their plans to meet their budgets and evidently this year they identified higher dues as a source additional revenue.
Where is it written? In their non-profit charter. If they want to run a for-profit membership organization, it should be chartered as such, as it should pay taxes, like all other profit generating enterprises.
I'm sure it doesn't. So maybe they should raise Gold level dues to $500 per year in order to pay for a free Summer Seminar for any member that wants one?
What's your point? Mine is that they are a non-profit, and dues should be set at a level to attain maximum engagement, not maximum revenue. If they want to use dues to subsidize things beyond that which enhances the value of a membership, they risk turning off the very people they need to thrive and survive. The fact that they are not legally restricted from making money off of dues does not mean that they should.
My point is that just because they are non-profit does not mean they can't decide the best way to generate revenue to fund the operation which could be 100% through very high dues or a mix of sponsorship and dues and fundraisers. Being non-profit means nothing except they don't distribute profits to shareholders, members, or leadership. You seem to be hung up on an idea that being non-profit means more than that.
OTOH, the TPGs charge more for their memberships, turn a nice profit from their business, AND have far more engagement than the ANA. Why do you think that is? Maybe because they provide perceived value to their constituents while the ANA does not. It's worth noting that the constituents are the very same people.
I think it's because the TPGs provide a service that collectors want/demand and that the ANA cannot provide.
FWIW, The TPG's (at least PCGS) have basically a free (or cheaper than free) membership if you deduct the value of the vouchers you get with the gold and platinum levels.
@NJCoin said:
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
Being a non-profit does not mean an organization cannot "make money" from dues. Being a non-profit really just means that there are no distribution of profits to owners or stakeholders and that all profits get reinvested into the organization.
The only reason ANA would be precluded from "making money" from dues is if it's in the charter, which I doubt it is.
That said, setting a price for dues is a balancing act between keeping dues as low as possible so as to maintain or grow a proper membership base and covering costs and hitting revenue targets. I do not have enough information to judge if this increase is inappropriate or will lead to plummeting membership, but I suspect everything will be just fine. Keep in mind also that ANA probably should have been raising dues $1-2/yr for a while now, and this is probably a "catch-up" increase so it may look drastic while people forget about the years it didn't go up.
True, but that doesn't matter to the person getting smacked with a 20% increase. Many will accept it, some won't. The question is, given the low sign up rate among collectors, is the problem really that dues are not high enough?
No one is suggesting they are precluded from making money from dues. Just that, as a non-profit, they are not supposed to be doing that as an objective.
You said that they "not supposed to" make money from dues, but where is this written or established? Why not? They can raise revenue however they see fit. As I described in my previous post, they have to balance dues with membership levels as needed to fulfill the objectives of the organization. Some non-profits can charge a lot for dues, while others have other revenue sources or operate primarily on donations. There are no rules for where a non-profit "is supposed" to get their money. There are only practical limits.
After all, if they are chartered as a non-profit, and are not subject to income tax because they are a non-profit, what would be the justification of needing to generate a profit from dues, over and above what it costs to run the organization?
An organization such as the ANA would use excess proceeds to save for a rainy day or to fuel expansion and growth (grow membership, grow services, grow promotion). The ANA members elect the board to balance revenue, expenses, and growth initiatives (if any). You should trust that the board has set their budgets and revenue projects and have their plans to meet their budgets and evidently this year they identified higher dues as a source additional revenue.
Where is it written? In their non-profit charter. If they want to run a for-profit membership organization, it should be chartered as such, as it should pay taxes, like all other profit generating enterprises.
I'm sure it doesn't. So maybe they should raise Gold level dues to $500 per year in order to pay for a free Summer Seminar for any member that wants one?
What's your point? Mine is that they are a non-profit, and dues should be set at a level to attain maximum engagement, not maximum revenue. If they want to use dues to subsidize things beyond that which enhances the value of a membership, they risk turning off the very people they need to thrive and survive. The fact that they are not legally restricted from making money off of dues does not mean that they should.
My point is that just because they are non-profit does not mean they can't decide the best way to generate revenue to fund the operation which could be 100% through very high dues or a mix of sponsorship and dues and fundraisers. Being non-profit means nothing except they don't distribute profits to shareholders, members, or leadership. You seem to be hung up on an idea that being non-profit means more than that.
OTOH, the TPGs charge more for their memberships, turn a nice profit from their business, AND have far more engagement than the ANA. Why do you think that is? Maybe because they provide perceived value to their constituents while the ANA does not. It's worth noting that the constituents are the very same people.
I think it's because the TPGs provide a service that collectors want/demand and that the ANA cannot provide.
FWIW, The TPG's (at least PCGS) have basically a free (or cheaper than free) membership if you deduct the value of the vouchers you get with the gold and platinum levels.
And ... this is the crux of the issue. If the ANA cannot provide services that collectors want/demand, it really has no business deciding that it needs to generate more revenue on the backs of the type of people it is failing to attract. Yes, of course, the board and management have a right to do whatever they see fit. Including mismanaging themselves right out of existence.
Once upon a time the ANA was able to offer a free basic NGC membership that was valued at around the price of a Platinum membership, making it basically free. No more. Now it will soon cost 20% more, and comes with a nominal, one-time NGC discount.
You're actually making my point. The for-profit TPGs somehow find a way to be relevant to more collectors, and turn a significant profit. The ANA, on the other hand, and in spite of significant fund raising made possible by its non-profit status, struggles to make ends meet.
Why? Bloated staff? Maybe. Spending too much to deliver things that are not highly valued by the vast majority of collectors? Probably. If they did not have the ability to raise significant funding from dealers who derive value from having them around, they'd have probably been gone a long time ago.
The question is, if they price themselves out of a typical collector's budget, what's their future? As a dealer lobbying organization that sponsors one or two shows a year? At that point, who even needs that? There are other organizations, both for profit and not, who already fill that demand.
I'm not hung up on anything. I am a current member, but fully understand, like the 99.99% of US collectors who are not ANA members, that an ANA membership is not necessary to fully participate in and enjoy the hobby.
When I no longer feel like I'm getting good value, I'll drop the membership. Losing my NGC submission privileges was a good first step. In September, I'll be 20% closer to that call than I am now. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Comments
Waiting many years and then passing on a hefty increase is seldom, if ever, a good idea. Smaller increases closer together inflicts less pain and therefore less complaints. I have been collecting on and off since the 1970s, and given what I enjoy collecting, grading submissions and / or memberships are low on the priority list. The decision is a personal one, bashing one way or another serves no productive purpose.
Correct. Not bashing, simply, as someone who cares about the future of the hobby and the organization, opining. It's not just about calibrating increases. It's also about making sure the price aligns with the perceived value, in order to push membership higher up more collectors' priority lists.
With respect to the raising of the age for a discount on the lifetime membership, I am indeed guilty of bashing, albeit with the productive purpose of hopefully inducing the brain trust to revisit that decision.
I joined the ANA in the Spring of 1969. They were going to increase the Life Member rate at the beginning of 1972. I converted to a Life Member in December of 1971 for $150.
Which brings up the question, when was the last time the ANA raised dues?
Just got off the phone with the ANA and added five more years at the current ANA dues rate. Since my membership wasn't going to expire until December 2025, it's now pushed back to December 2030. As a collector who has already had his Medicare card for a few years, this might as well be a Life Membership.
Member ANA, SPMC, SCNA, FUN, CONECA
@ksammut Congrats on winning your seat!
Thanks so much!
My Numismatics with Kenny eBay Store Over 6000 listings and growing with more than 39,000 items sold
My Numismatics with Kenny Twitter Page Instagram - numismatistkenny
My Numismatics with Kenny Blog Page Best viewed on a laptop or monitor.
ANA Life Member & Volunteer District Representative
2019 ANA Young Numismatist of the Year
Doing my best to introduce Young Numismatists and Young Adults into the hobby.
Being a life member is getting old 😳
The truth is life membership has never been a great deal. The organization has to keep the funding in a segregated account, preferably earning some interest, while transferring money to pay the "current" dues each year.
Let's say dues are $20/year and you charge $300 for a life membership. At 6% a year, you are only covering $18. And leaving NOTHING for inflation as the per year costs will go up. The rest is maths.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I just rejoined the ANA a couple weeks ago after I let my membership lapse about 15 years ago. I did it after reading this thread. I joined at the gold level for $30 per year. That level seemed the best for me. I want just the digital version of the Numismatist magazine because it’s easier for me to read on my iPad than a physical magazine is (I have fairly severe vision problems, just one eye and it’s full of floaters from a vitreous detachment that causes me eye strain after about 1/2 hour if I read physical books). I also want to get some insurance from Hugh Wood for my registry set coins and I think it is either a requirement or you get a discount. I also joined because formerly when I was a member I used to borrow reference books from their library and I’d like to be able to do that again. The $30 doesn’t seem high to me, as far as price increases go most things cost more today than they did before the Pandemic.
Mr_Spud
But, it's not $20/year. It's $42, if you pay for multiple years at once. And the lifetime membership is $1,200 if you are under age 55, not $300.
It's a great way for the organization to raise cash, and the bet is that some people buying would have otherwise lost interest and dropped the membership long before they otherwise would have spent the $1,200, inflation included.
Moreover, they are increasing it to $1,500 in September. Why not use real numbers rather than artificial ones? If the ANA did not think there was a benefit to offering the lifetime membership, they would stop, just like they are no longer going to offer a discount to people at age 55, or a meaningful discount to people at age 65.
Welcome back!!
My Numismatics with Kenny eBay Store Over 6000 listings and growing with more than 39,000 items sold
My Numismatics with Kenny Twitter Page Instagram - numismatistkenny
My Numismatics with Kenny Blog Page Best viewed on a laptop or monitor.
ANA Life Member & Volunteer District Representative
2019 ANA Young Numismatist of the Year
Doing my best to introduce Young Numismatists and Young Adults into the hobby.
Dues going up from $30 per year to $35 is an increase of 16.67%.
It really is not. They book the cash to a restricted account for the fulfillment of LM subscriptions and they create a liability based on the actuarial estimate of the present value of the future costs. The restricted account is invested to produce an income stream. Between the two, they have to pay for your membership over the years until you die.
Each year, they transfer a year's worth of dues to their membership account, reduce the restricted account balance and recompute the liability.
If they get notified you've died, they can take whatever is left of the restricted account into income for the year as there is no remaining liability.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Whatever. That's just accounting. The fact is that the dues paid are money received, and the annual book entry is just that, a book entry. The money they are moving is going to themselves, so they are not actually "paying" anything to anyone. Just like they are not spending any money if someone outlives the value of the book entry liability.
The only actual cash is the money paid for the membership. They are not going to be better off when that stream is reduced to zero for people 55 and up beginning in September, just because they will no longer be setting up liabilities to fund the annual book entries.
If this is truly such a burden and detriment to the organization, they should eliminate it, just like they are eliminating discounts at age 55. Whatever they are doing with book entries, I am quite sure this money is in the same lock box as my Social Security Trust Fund money (i.e., it's mixed in with their general funds, and invested along with the rest of their cash, just like the US Treasury does with my FICA withholding).
There is no reason to do anything else, since they have no obligation to actually pay anyone anything with respect to their obligation to allow lifetime members to be members for life. All they have to do is print and mail a magazine every month. And the math around that is already quite fuzzy, as @Project Numismatics pointed out in their Form 990 filing, and as further evidenced by the fact that they claim in the magazine that $30 of Platinum dues go towards an annual printed magazine subscription, but the Platinum dues only cost $16 per year more than the Gold, with the only difference between the two being the printed magazine.
Interesting thread.
I’m 60 and will turn 61 later this year. So I’m currently eligible for the 55+ rate, which won’t exist after 9/1/23 and will be replaced by a 65+ rate, which I won’t be eligible for.
I’m very seriously considering signing up for a Life Membership, even though I’m pretty sure I won’t get my money’s worth. I’d be doing it because it would be nice to be able to say I’m a Life Member. In a sense I’m trying to recapture a lost youth because when I was younger, there was no way I could even think about being able to do something like this.
I’m still nowhere near wealthy, but apparently as I get older I seem to be more willing to do this sort of thing.
I have season tickets to my favorite Major League Baseball team, though I don’t go to every game and I can probably get tickets cheaper elsewhere - but, again, I like being able to say I have season tickets, I enjoy some of the perks season ticket holders get, and I also got in on a very good one-time-only deal for which I’m grandfathered. But I still paid almost $3,000 for tickets this year, which is a lot of money for me. Again, I remember going to ballgames as a kid and young adult and thinking about how awesome it would be to be able to afford season tickets and be able to go to any game I wanted, so to me it's worth it.
I’m also a comic book fan. In buying my tickets to this year’s New York Comic Con, I had two options: a 4-day badge, which cost $250, and a VIP badge, which was $550. (I don’t remember the exact prices, but for the purposes of this discussion the proportions are close enough.) VIP gets you a lot of perks, including guaranteed access to panels which may otherwise be sold out - but in my specific case, the only perks that really mattered to me were access to a VIP-only lounge with its own private coat and bag check. Those weren’t enough to make it worth spending an extra $300 above the price of a regular 4-day, and not even the pride in being able to say I had a VIP badge would have helped. I’d had VIP in past years, but the difference between VIP and a 4-day wasn’t anywhere near $300 - it was maybe $100 or so, which was still a lot for the perks I actually wanted, but it wasn’t so bad that I couldn’t swing it.
The upcoming ANA dues increase also played a factor in my decision. I thought about it, thought about it, and kept thinking about it. I knew VIP badges would only be available in VERY limited quantities so if I wanted one I’d have to act fact. But I finally decided I’d be better off putting that extra $300 towards an ANA Life Membership, and just bought a regular 4-day badge. My status as a NYCC VIP would have lasted only the four days of the con - but if nothing else, I’ll be able to say I’m a Life Member of the American Numismatic Association for the rest of my life.
This thread needs a few facts:
1) The ANA’s membership is NOT shrinking. It’s actually increasing moderately.
2) The ANA’s age demographic is NOT aging. It is amazingly stable and unchanged.
3) The reason for the dues increase is MASSIVE increases in BOTH the cost of producing _The Numismatist in printed form and an even larger increase in producing the digital version.
4) Dues are a money losing proposition, even with the new prices. _
Money losing proposition? 🤣🤣🤣
What runs at a profit there? The shows? Summer seminar? Headquarters? Museum? Library? Anything, other than fundraising and sponsorships? Why should membership?
If membership should run at break-even, why don't they do themselves a favor and raise dues to at least break-even? Most likely because dues revenue would then decline to a level below their current level. If they know what they are doing, dues are set at a level to maximize revenue, understanding that increases in price will result in decreases in volume, just like with any other discretionary item in the economy.
The organization is a non-profit, so it's not supposed to make money from dues. The fact that revenue generated elsewhere is subsidizing dues is exactly what is supposed to happen at a non-profit that solicits tax-deductible donations.
My speculation is that dues are going to be an even greater money losing proposition after the new prices take effect, but I guess that remains to be seen. If I am correct, they can either find money elsewhere, find ways to reduce costs (maybe starting with headquarters expenses?) or continue a death spiral by raising dues even more. Then I guess we'll see how amazingly stable, or increasing moderately, the membership is in a world where so many resources are freely available on the internet, and the percent of collectors who are actually members is already pretty damn close to 0%.
PCGS has over 20K collector members, and that doesn't include dealers. NGC has over 30K registry members, I'm sure with lots of crossover with PCGS. And, of course, millions upon millions of casual collectors do not join any numismatic organization.
Given what @ksammut observed about the low ANA adoption rate among local club members, even with significant financial incentives to join, how great a job is the ANA doing engaging those most likely to engage, and in remaining relevant? I'm not impressed, particularly when compared to the engagement generated by the TPGs, whose offerings are not nearly as diverse. Why aren't we all on an ANA forum? In this context, is justifying 20% dues increases really the way to go? TBD.
It seems that you view and experience ANA as primarily another source of electronic information and online engagement similar to the TPG forums, Coinfacts, YouTube, etc.
I would encourage you to consider experiencing Summer Seminar, the ANA traveling technical seminars and the WFOM show. Those in-person learning experiences in combination with the opportunity to build relationships and network are where the value is.
You can participate in all the guess the grade forums and watch all the YouTube videos available (for free) but it’s nowhere near as valuable as taking the ANA in-person grading courses or even auction lot viewing at a major show such as WFOM (or FUN).
$35 is a small price to pay to be able to access the best numismatic education and minds in the country. Of course in-person education and events aren’t of interest to some collectors and they may not see the value - that’s ok. The goal isn’t necessarily to have a maximized but unengaged membership.
I get it. You are kind of preaching to the choir. I've been to several WFOMs, and I am a Platinum member because I enjoy the magazine. Everything else is great, but clearly is not enough to attract the masses, even at $30. I'm just saying that a 20% increase is substantial, even if it's "only" $5 or $9.
And this is coming from someone who does not have to be sold on the value of supporting the ANA. If the ANA does not find a way to engage, in a world where sources of electronic information are prized and traveling technical seminars are not, it will price itself right into irrelevance, if it hasn't already.
I'm a fanboy, although I might not be when the $9 increase hits me in a few years. @ksammut better figure out, quick, why 100% of the membership in all of his local coin clubs are not as well. They are the present as well as the future, and they rejecting the ANA, en masse. 20% dues increases are not going to reel them in.
Being a non-profit does not mean an organization cannot "make money" from dues. Being a non-profit really just means that there are no distribution of profits to owners or stakeholders and that all profits get reinvested into the organization.
The only reason ANA would be precluded from "making money" from dues is if it's in the charter, which I doubt it is.
That said, setting a price for dues is a balancing act between keeping dues as low as possible so as to maintain or grow a proper membership base and covering costs and hitting revenue targets. I do not have enough information to judge if this increase is inappropriate or will lead to plummeting membership, but I suspect everything will be just fine. Keep in mind also that ANA probably should have been raising dues $1-2/yr for a while now, and this is probably a "catch-up" increase so it may look drastic while people forget about the years it didn't go up.
True, but that doesn't matter to the person getting smacked with a 20% increase. Many will accept it, some won't. The question is, given the low sign up rate among collectors, is the problem really that dues are not high enough?
No one is suggesting they are precluded from making money from dues. Just that, as a non-profit, they are not supposed to be doing that as an objective.
After all, if they are chartered as a non-profit, and are not subject to income tax because they are a non-profit, what would be the justification of needing to generate a profit from dues, over and above what it costs to run the organization?
To fund summer seminar scholarships? Maybe that program should be self sustaining.
Same for anything else that they are not precluded from using dues to fund. Maybe dues should be expected to run at a loss, in order to attract the maximum number of members possible, and that dues should be subsidized by fundraising, shows, etc.
I guess it depends on whether the idea is for the ANA to be a niche organization that primarily caters to dealers, or a large organization serving as many collectors as humanly possible.
You said that they "not supposed to" make money from dues, but where is this written or established? Why not? They can raise revenue however they see fit. As I described in my previous post, they have to balance dues with membership levels as needed to fulfill the objectives of the organization. Some non-profits can charge a lot for dues, while others have other revenue sources or operate primarily on donations. There are no rules for where a non-profit "is supposed" to get their money. There are only practical limits.
An organization such as the ANA would use excess proceeds to save for a rainy day or to fuel expansion and growth (grow membership, grow services, grow promotion). The ANA members elect the board to balance revenue, expenses, and growth initiatives (if any). You should trust that the board has set their budgets and revenue projects and have their plans to meet their budgets and evidently this year they identified higher dues as a source additional revenue.
Where is it written? In their non-profit charter. If they want to run a for-profit membership organization, it should be chartered as such, as it should pay taxes, like all other profit generating enterprises.
As far as the board, in its infinite wisdom, identifying higher dues as a source of additional revenue, I certainly wish them luck with that, after the one-time boost from current members pushing dues payments forward to avoid the increase wears off.
Running a Ponzi scheme, by using dues to grow promotion to raise more dues, rather than plowing dues into things that actually add value to a membership, is sure to end as all Ponzi schemes do. I don't trust a board that holds off on increases for years, and then votes for a 20% increase, but we'll see what happens.
And, no, I don't have a lot of confidence in the only Congressionally chartered national numismatic organization that runs a national, annual show that barely attracts 2/3 as many attendees as a certain large regional show in Florida each year.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of collectors don't feel that the ANA delivers bang for the buck, which is why they don't join, even when offered significant club related discounts. Raising dues, by a lot on a relative basis, will certainly generate more revenue from those who choose to pay it, but will do nothing to draw in new people, and might actually shrink the pie if enough current members join non-member in determining that the ANA does not deliver bang for the buck. TBD.
Their charter says nothing about whether they can generate revenue or charge more for memberships than their annual operating expenses:
https://www.money.org/uploads/pdfs/ANA Federal Charter and Constitution.pdf
I'm sure it doesn't. So maybe they should raise Gold level dues to $500 per year in order to pay for a free Summer Seminar for any member that wants one?
What's your point? Mine is that they are a non-profit, and dues should be set at a level to attain maximum engagement, not maximum revenue. If they want to use dues to subsidize things beyond that which enhances the value of a membership, they risk turning off the very people they need to thrive and survive. The fact that they are not legally restricted from making money off of dues does not mean that they should.
OTOH, the TPGs charge more for their memberships, turn a nice profit from their business, AND have far more engagement than the ANA. Why do you think that is? Maybe because they provide perceived value to their constituents while the ANA does not. It's worth noting that the constituents are the very same people.
My point is that just because they are non-profit does not mean they can't decide the best way to generate revenue to fund the operation which could be 100% through very high dues or a mix of sponsorship and dues and fundraisers. Being non-profit means nothing except they don't distribute profits to shareholders, members, or leadership. You seem to be hung up on an idea that being non-profit means more than that.
I think it's because the TPGs provide a service that collectors want/demand and that the ANA cannot provide.
FWIW, The TPG's (at least PCGS) have basically a free (or cheaper than free) membership if you deduct the value of the vouchers you get with the gold and platinum levels.
And ... this is the crux of the issue. If the ANA cannot provide services that collectors want/demand, it really has no business deciding that it needs to generate more revenue on the backs of the type of people it is failing to attract. Yes, of course, the board and management have a right to do whatever they see fit. Including mismanaging themselves right out of existence.
Once upon a time the ANA was able to offer a free basic NGC membership that was valued at around the price of a Platinum membership, making it basically free. No more. Now it will soon cost 20% more, and comes with a nominal, one-time NGC discount.
You're actually making my point. The for-profit TPGs somehow find a way to be relevant to more collectors, and turn a significant profit. The ANA, on the other hand, and in spite of significant fund raising made possible by its non-profit status, struggles to make ends meet.
Why? Bloated staff? Maybe. Spending too much to deliver things that are not highly valued by the vast majority of collectors? Probably. If they did not have the ability to raise significant funding from dealers who derive value from having them around, they'd have probably been gone a long time ago.
The question is, if they price themselves out of a typical collector's budget, what's their future? As a dealer lobbying organization that sponsors one or two shows a year? At that point, who even needs that? There are other organizations, both for profit and not, who already fill that demand.
I'm not hung up on anything. I am a current member, but fully understand, like the 99.99% of US collectors who are not ANA members, that an ANA membership is not necessary to fully participate in and enjoy the hobby.
When I no longer feel like I'm getting good value, I'll drop the membership. Losing my NGC submission privileges was a good first step. In September, I'll be 20% closer to that call than I am now. I'm sure I'm not alone.