----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchelltx@earthlink.net>
To: autox@autox.team.net
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Way to finance our Solo2.....
> Rocky Entriken wrote:
>
>> To regard Solo as nothing but a sales tool would be a huge mistake. To
>> fail to appreciate its possibilities as one is equally a mistake.
>
> As I pointed out earlier, EVERY SCCA-sanctioned event has the same PR
> possibilities as Solo. As a spectator, I think wheel-to-wheel racing is
> much more fun to watch myself.
No, they have different possibilities, and you thus point out the
difference. Wheel to wheel racing is more fun to watch, Solo is boring
unless you really can see the fine points. But the racing attracts people
who watch, passive voyeurs who maybe think "I could do that" but don't. Solo
attracts those who think "I could do that" and then do, the active
participant. Some discover racing in their transit through Solo, some
discover Solo as an end unto itself. But they are different in their appeal
and we do best by exploiting both.
>> But its facility to attract .... must also be exploited.
>
> To what end? Should Solo competitors not have a say in the nature and
> extent of this exploitation? Or are we just supposed to be club racing's
> bitches and be glad they let us tag along?
> ;<)
No, we are SCCA's bitches. So is racing. So is rally. And we all of us are
SCCA. We are trying to attract people to MOTORSPORT, SCCA style. If, through
solo, they discover rallycross, so what? If, through road rally they
discover World Challenge, so what? If by watching a Trans-Am on TV they are
told about www.scca.com, dial it up and find Solo, so what? Ultimately it is
less important what we attract them to, than that we attract them. If we
bring them in, they'll find their own way to that part of SCCA that will
eventually be their preference (quite often it will be that which attracted
in the first place, and Solo is often that).
>> To do so grows us.
>
> I just don't see that we aren't growing. If event quality is good - and
> there are clearly some issues of late with what National has been serving
> up at Tours - then it will continue to sell. Autocross _clearly_ does not
> need road racing in order to be a viable competitive activity. If it did,
> the independent autox-only clubs all around the country could not have
> survived all these years.
> I'll leave it to others to say if they think club racing needs autox. If
> it's a viable activity long-term, it really shouldn't. To the extent that a
> symbiotic (as opposed to parasitic) relationship can be forged between the
> two activities, that's fine. I just get tired of hearing allegations that
> autocross loses money.
> If it does, then it's being badly managed. Very badly.
Of course we are growing. Do you think only one faction of the club is
responsible for that? Creating antagonistic relationships -- which is
exactly what "Autocross _clearly_ does not need road racing" and "are we
just supposed to be club racing's bitches" does -- does nothing to benefit
the club as a whole but is a selfish and provincial attitude that shuts out
the majority of the club which is not autocrossers (and lest you miss my
meaning, a majority of the club also is not road racers -- we have enough
diversity none has a 51% stake and I'm preaching embrace the diversity).
>> It is not utterly independent.
>
> Organizationally, and strictly within SCCA, it is not. Practically speaking,
> it is. Otherwise, how do the non-SCCA clubs continue to operate year after
> year, then?
Individual autocross clubs do. So do individual solo-oriented Regions, as
mine is and we are financially sound on an autocross-only basis. But just
because my region only does Solo events does not mean we should ignore or
demonstrate antagonism to other SCCA activities -- racing, roadrally,
rallycross, etc. We are not independent of the rest of SCCA, but a part of
SCCA. And for what it's worth, when we had an independent club in my small
town, it folded. As an SCCA Region, we thrive. SCCA gives our members
opportunities a private club could not. We should expose our memberhip to
those possibilities on the chance some, if they know about them, may want to
try them. That is part of being part of SCCA, not just being an autocross
club. We're bigger than just an autocross club.
>> However, defining "profit" is IMHO broader than simply how much money it
>> generates in sanction fees. It's overall value to the club in generating
>> public awareness is also part.
>
> That sounds as if you're making excuses for Solo2 not bringing in enough
> money to pay for itself. Given fair, common-sense accounting practices,
> Solo2 has to be operating in the black. If Pro Solo is dragging it down,
> then it's time to make it go away (or pass it along to another entity).
> Same thing with Tours. I see large local events with fewer administration/
> operation problems than some Tours in recent memory. The argument that we
> have to have National staff present in order to have a quality event just
> doesn't hold water.
I am doing nothing of the kind. I am saying it has value other than -- in
addition to -- cash flow. As I said, the cash flow in my region is sound. As
a result we are better able to expose to our guests and potential members as
well as current members the other values our Region and SCCA offers. I'll
not comment on Tours. I don't run them. I do run our Divisional series --
events done by individual Regions, series done by Divisional volunteer
staff. One won SCCA Divisional of the Year last year = quality events.
I'm not a member of the SOLO car club of America, but the SPORTS car club of
America. And I enjoy as much of it as I can (and there is more than I have
time/money for, or I'd be rallying and rallycrossing too. But if someone
else would like to try I'm able to point him the way. It's all fun).
--Rocky Entriken
|