My last blog post titled Unintended Consequences probably garnered more comments than any of my previous GCSAA blog posts. I must figure it’s due to the fact that it cuts to the bone and it’s something that we all need to have a conversation about.

The issue is the increasing competition between local chapter events and affiliate-sponsored events. When Steve Randall and I do strategic plans with our local chapter boards, more times than not, the issue is how are we going to increase attendance at our chapter meetings. The fact of the matter is, we are in the midst of a new generation and members priorities have changed, they are simply choosing to focus their attention in other areas. But there is still the competition with outside events when superintendents must choose where to spend their time for education.

In the last post I presented the idea of the “pay-to-play” model. This is when chapter allows distributors to sponsor the meeting and lets them to bring in all the education. As my last blog post, “Unintended Consequences” states, this was one that I overlooked. By allowing the vendor to supply the education, perhaps without chapter approval, many of our university educators can be overlooked. Dr. Mike Richardson from the University of Arkansas messaged me on Twitter and brought this to my attention.  I asked him if I could share his comments on my blog and he agreed. He also brings up a valid point regarding the veteran superintendents. He essentially points out that the mentorship opportunities are not as easy to come these days when attending a meeting in person. (Some may argue that social media has changed that.)

Here is what Mike wrote:

Dave, I really liked your blog post and saw this coming several years ago. I have declined every invitation to be a paid speaker at a Harrell's, Winfield, etc. event, because it was obvious to me that these programs were going to hurt the GCSAA chapter events as well as state turf associations. I also have not been invited to speak at an Arkansas GCSAA chapter meeting in years, as the top-tier sponsors (suppliers) now get one meeting as the “sponsor” where they provide the education. These suppliers obviously provide tremendous value to our industry, but this approach is really hurting the local chapters/associations and is further exasperated by sponsoring their own meetings. One thing that I have seen in Arkansas that has really hurt our GCSAA chapter is that the top supers in the state no longer attend. When I first came to Arkansas, I never missed a chapter meeting because I knew that all the top supers in the state would be there and I could interact with them — and everyone else — in one place. I also believe that lower-level supers and assistants wanted to attend because they valued networking with the industry leaders. That is no longer the case. I think there needs to be a push — including from the field staff — to get the top supers back involved with the chapters. If they do, then I think people will come back to interact with them...

If this is truly the case, what can chapters do to reengage the veteran superintendents? I would love to hear your thoughts either below or on Twitter. If you are a veteran, and I’m talking 20 years plus as a GCSAA member, why are you not attending meetings? I just attended the Western Washington GCSA Turf and Landscape Show and I noticed that a couple stand out veterans were present. Tom Huesgen, CGCS from Sahalee, and Steve Kealy, CGCS from Glendale GC and First Green, were there networking with members, and in particular, the younger members. I could sense the lifted spirits in the room simply by having them there. I know there were others that could have been there but I’m pretty sure they received their pesticide certification points at an “earlier” event.

I also received some notable comments on Twitter that I feel are worth repeating:

Dr. B.I.G.‏  (@BIGTurfTeaching) on December 4:
Replying to @GCSAA_NW @GCSAA and 7 others
Dave -Great food for thought... it’s certainly part of the conversation in this region as well... I don’t think any of us have the perfect answer... I think it’s still great that our turf managers are still showing up IRL to sharpen the saw instead of “online”

Dave Wilber (‏@TurfgrassZealot) on December 11:
Replying to @GCSAA_NW @IEGCSA and 8 others
No question there has been a paradigm shift since the 90s in that asking for affiliate $ means allowing more influence. No longer are there super and asst only meeting events, etc. My status as a small biz keeps me from making the upper tier sponsor. But time is a valuable gift.

Sean A. Hoolehan‏ (@SeanAHoolehan) on December 5:
Replying to @GCSAA_NW @GCSAA and 7 others
Dave, two big changes I’ve seen, 1 Superintendents don’t blend equipment and products like they used to. This makes brand loyalty a important part of a marketing strategy. Perks have always been part of it. 2 information is generally old by the time it’s presented at meetings.

Sean A. Hoolehan‏ (@SeanAHoolehan) on December 5:
Last point, suppliers would rather have us network with their other customers rather than someone else’s customers.

Mel Waldron III  (@3sticksCGCS) on December 4:
Replying to @GCSAA_NW @GCSAA and 7 others
We really aren’t seeing that issue down in our neck of the woods in Southern Missouri, but that could be because of our small chapter size. Our vendors seem to be ok when we do have the occasional presentation from other vendors, which is few and far between. Will follow this.

I feel all of these comments are spot on. Everyone hits on a different aspect which no doubt has an affect on our attendance. I especially like Mel Waldron’s comment. It’s refreshing to see that sort of collaboration among vendors for the greater good. The one way GCSAA has tried to put a curb to some of this and to keep the focus of PDI points at the chapter level, is by charging a fee for non-chapter or university sponsored events. The cost is $500 to the sponsor if they choose to offer GCSAA PDI points. I’m not sure how many are forking over the dollars, but to some, I’m sure that’s a drop in the bucket. Perhaps the price needs to go up or even the dollars could be shared with the nearest local chapter to offset any potential loss of revenue.

The question was also asked if GCSAA would require members to receive a certain amount of their points at the local chapter so I did a quick (non-scientific) Twitter poll and asked this question:

I was pleasantly surprised to see the results that nearly 60 percent were getting their PDI CEUs at local events. It would be fair to say that our chapters are doing a great job meeting this need and I have to also tip my hat to GCSAA’s Diana Kern for being the one responsible for assigning the CEU’s to these events!

I am optimistic that this can all work out. Chapters and affiliate members will continue to be co-dependent and only by bringing this subject out in the open will we ever make progress. Let’s continue to keep this conversation alive. I look forward to hearing more thoughts.