How I Would Change the PDGA

[turbosteve]

I just don't have that big a problem with companies getting some free advertising if they're doing something good like this, and everyone I've talked to that actually worked with EDGE had positive things to say.

I've also heard great things about working with Gateway for specific events for kids, and them throwing in extra lightweight discs and things like that, and again I think that's great and would be happy to see them get some free advertising at that event for their contributions. Maybe Gateway should start a similar program and see if the PDGA is willing to contribute like they have for EDGE.

I agree with everything you said and I think every disc manufacturer should start some sort of program to introduce kids to disc golf. Since Innova has the program for PE maybe Gateway can create the disc golf version of Drive, Chip, and Putt.

 

[coupe]

Why would other manufacturers contribute donations so that EDGE could sell more Innova discs to schools?

I think a better question is, if the other manufacturers truly care about promoting disc golf at the public school level but don't want to support EDGE because they think it's a marketing tool for Innova, why haven't they put up the money to start their own educational foundations?

Having been involved as EDGE was formed, Innova made it clear that other manufacturers were welcome to participate and include their discs and baskets in the program IF they made a substantial financial commitment to EDGE to become a significant partner.

I don't have a problem with Innova insisting that other mfgs make a substantial financial contribution to the program in order to reap whatever potential benefit might to accrue from participating in EDGE. Remember the story of the little red hen?

Innova-sponsored players initiated EDGE, invested the time and energy to create the foundation, solicited the funding, recruited the board and the staff, developed the curriculum, contact the schools, promote the program at educational conventions, and hit the road visit schools and do the clinics. If other manufacturers want to reap whatever benefits there are to reap from the exposure EDGE provides, they need to step up and contribute materially (no, Dave Mac, 500 discs is NOT material support; it barely qualifies as chump change) by providing one or more of their sponsored players with the the financial support to join the EDGE staff, instead of just freeloading off of someone else's investment.

 

[onemilemore]

I think a better question is, if the other manufacturers truly care about promoting disc golf at the public school level but don't want to support EDGE because they think it's a marketing tool for Innova, why haven't they put up the money to start their own educational foundations?



I don't have a problem with Innova insisting that other mfgs make a substantial financial contribution to the program in order to reap whatever potential benefit might to accrue from participating in EDGE. Remember the story of the little red hen?

Innova-sponsored players initiated EDGE, invested the time and energy to create the foundation, solicited the funding, recruited the board and the staff, developed the curriculum, contact the schools, promote the program at educational conventions, and hit the road visit schools and do the clinics. If other manufacturers want to reap whatever benefits there are to reap from the exposure EDGE provides, they need to step up and contribute materially (no, Dave Mac, 500 discs is NOT material support; it barely qualifies as chump change) by providing one or more of their sponsored players with the the financial support to join the EDGE staff, instead of just freeloading off of someone else's investment.

Spot on, every word of this post.

 

[shive]

to onemilemore, coupe, Cgkdisc, mashnut, Mr. Anderson:

I never said that EDGE is not a great program, or that Innova should not set any hoops it wants for other manufacturers to jump through. I hope that EDGE thrives. I only said that the PDGA should not have funded it.

 

[onemilemore]

to onemilemore, coupe, Cgkdisc, mashnut, Mr. Anderson:

I never said that EDGE is not a great program, or that Innova should not set any hoops it wants for other manufacturers to jump through. I hope that EDGE thrives. I only said that the PDGA should not have funded it.

Does the PDGA continue to fund it, or was it a one-time expenditure to get it up and running?

Also, if there were not other companies coming to the PDGA for help with a similar program, I am not sure the conflict of interest is so strong. Now, if five companies came to the PDGA to ask for funding with a youth program, and the PDGA board full of Innova sponsored players only pitched in for Innova's idea, then you have a problem. But that doesn't seem like it is the case here.

 

[mashnut]

to onemilemore, coupe, Cgkdisc, mashnut, Mr. Anderson:

I never said that EDGE is not a great program, or that Innova should not set any hoops it wants for other manufacturers to jump through. I hope that EDGE thrives. I only said that the PDGA should not have funded it.

I understand that's what you're saying. You'd rather not see a program like that happen (since nobody else did or has put together a proposal for a comparable program) than see that outreach happen even if it also happens to benefit the manufacturer?

 

[Three Putt]

I think a better question is, if the other manufacturers truly care about promoting disc golf at the public school level but don't want to support EDGE because they think it's a marketing tool for Innova, why haven't they put up the money to start their own educational foundations?

Not to thread jack, But I'm going to thread jack: Sometimes it is a matter of resources. Some of the smaller companies want to help but the threshold of what they need to contribute to be involved with EDGE is too high.

That is not to say that these companies are doing nothing. When I was looking to start a kids program no one at Innova would talk to me; everyone referred me to EDGE. Problem is, EDGE has "school pricing" i.e. it costs waaayyy too much for somebody like me that doesn't get tax dollars. I also didn't need most of the things that EDGE was pushing because I wasn't a school. The whole thing made working with Innova on my program a no-go.

I called up Gateway and got 70 discs on my porch in a week. Free. With a commitment for 70 more free and a lower per disc price than EDGE after that. We have given away a couple hundred discs to kids now with that deal. Gateway really stepped up when we asked.

So while the smaller companies might not be able to pull off something as ambitious as EDGE, they will help you if you ask. I'd hate for a discussion on EDGE to end up being a "Why won't the other companies help" bash session. They will help. The level to participate in EDGE is just set too high for many of them.

 

[shive]

to onemilemore: It was a three year grant, at $15K per year, to be reviewed after the second year (which is this year).

to mashnut: No, I do support educational initiative. I would prefer that the PDGA have its own program, rather like the Innovation Grants but bigger.

 

[coupe]

I understand that's what you're saying. You'd rather not see a program like that happen (since nobody else did or has put together a proposal for a comparable program) than see that outreach happen even if it also happens to benefit the manufacturer?

Mr. Shive,

I guess I'm confused by your stance as well.

One of the PDGA's stated purposes--and arguably the most important, by virtue of being first in the list of five purposes delineated in the bylaws--is to "promote the development of Disc Golf as a means of healthful recreation and physical fitness." Given that:

a) EDGE was the first--and to this point remains the only--program to attempt to introduce disc golf into public school curricula in a systematic way on a wider-than-local level;

b) the PDGA, as presently constituted and staffed, is incapable of developing and funding a program similar to EDGE; and

c) no similar alternative program existed at the time, or--to the best of my knowledge, currently exists,

what do you propose that the PDGA would have been better use of the money that would fulfill the mandate to promote the development of Disc Golf as a means of healthful recreation and physical fitness?

to mashnut: No, I do support educational initiative. I would prefer that the PDGA have its own program, rather like the Innovation Grants but bigger.

A) given the PDGA's track record of [pronunciation equivalent]half-fast[/pronunciation equivalent] planning and administration of new initiatives, I have little confidence that the PDGA could pull off anything even remotely close to what EDGE is doing for $15k/year;

B) given the strictly parochial, ad hoc nature of all the projects that have been awarded Innovation Grants to date, as well as the one-time nature of the award, what makes you think that more or larger Innovation Grants is a better use of the PDGA's financial resources than funding a systematic, ongoing program?

 

[turbosteve]

Mr. Shive you say that there is a huge conflict of interest between sponsored players and manufacturers but aren't you sponsored by Innova?

 

[shive]

Mr. Shive you say that there is a huge conflict of interest between sponsored players and manufacturers but aren't you sponsored by Innova?

I am, and I disclosed this to the membership when I ran for my current term. It is definitely a conflict of interest, and it certainly has made it personally difficult for me to speak out against the EDGE grant.

Conflicts of interest are inevitable, and there is nothing inherently wrong with them. The tricky part is how to deal with them when they occur. I saw nothing wrong with voting "no", as that vote could in no way be construed as beneficial to my sponsor.

PS: I don't believe I ever used the word "huge". In the EDGE case I am actually as much concerned about fairness as COI. And there are other kinds of COI that I am more concerned about that the ones between sponsored players and manufacturers.

 

[shive]

Disc golf video/TV part 5: Summary

This, slightly edited, is the report I presented to the Board last Fall, when we were considering the 2013 budget.

Overview: TV/Video allocations would increase by over 40% from 2012 to 2013. DGPtv will get well over half of the total allocation.

Objections:
1) Overall expenditures are too much. I feel that we are spending this money because we can, not because we will get good value for it.
2) We are becoming a cash cow for DGPtv. I found their $70,000 pitch to us at the Summit to be absurd, so they may well be overcharging us. And we have no idea how much money they make from subscriptions and advertising.
3) I am not impressed with their work, in terms of both topicality and quality. Their live video and regional TV proposals are boondoggles, for different reasons (see below).
4) There are many independent producers of disc golf video who produce great stuff at no cost to us. Look, for example, at www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZBbSH4n2dU and compare it to anything DGPtv has produced from the 2012 Worlds. This is a powerful resource, and we aren't nurturing it sufficiently.
5) I object to our tacit assumption that the rights to broadcast PDGA events are worse than worthless.
6) I object to the practice of making the whole membership pay for the ones who want to watch.
7) Postproduced programs belong on the internet, not on TV – exposure and convenience are both far better on the net. Some channel surfers may glimpse a postproduced TV show in passing, but anyone who intends to watch disc golf will watch it on the net.
8) Live video, more than any other part of the program, preaches to the choir. It promotes and markets the PDGA to its own membership, which is unnecessary because most PDGA members join to play, not to watch.

 

[Disc Golf Live]

Interesting thread, Peter. Thanks for stepping up and addressing these issues, and serving the membership.

I am just wondering what efforts, if any, you are putting into finding like-minded individuals to also run for the BOD. One lone voice carries so little sway on this BOD, and institutional traditions are hard to derail. Don Quixote had at least Sancho Panza as he tilted at windmills. Do you envision a coalition of folks interested in looking at things your way, or are you setting yourself up for a series of dissenting votes with no capacity to sway the outcome?

Just curious.

Joe

 

[shive]

Interesting thread, Peter. Thanks for stepping up and addressing these issues, and serving the membership.

I am just wondering what efforts, if any, you are putting into finding like-minded individuals to also run for the BOD. One lone voice carries so little sway on this BOD, and institutional traditions are hard to derail. Don Quixote had at least Sancho Panza as he tilted at windmills. Do you envision a coalition of folks interested in looking at things your way, or are you setting yourself up for a series of dissenting votes with no capacity to sway the outcome?

Just curious.

Joe

Damn good questions! I think about this a lot, and could write volumes about it. Frankly, I'm uncertain about my role, and my value, on the Board. I'm not interested in spearheading a coalition unless I believe that the membership is solidly behind me. I don't believe that yet. I almost lost in the last election. Sometimes I characterize myself as "the best known disc golfer to almost lose a Board election". And I wouldn't say that the responses to my ideas here constitute a ringing endorsement of them.

Probably my most useful function to the membership has been communication. I will tell you just about anything you want to know, and I'll give you my opinion even if I think (or even know) you won't like it. On the Board, probably my most useful function is analysis, and I'll skip the 1000 words it would take to flesh out that thought.

So yes, there is frustration because I go down in flames a lot, and I worry about irritating Brian and the other Board members. But still, I'm OK with my role (I sometimes characterize myself as "the heretic"), and comfortable about what I bring to the table, both for the membership and the Board.

 

[turbosteve]

I am, and I disclosed this to the membership when I ran for my current term. It is definitely a conflict of interest, and it certainly has made it personally difficult for me to speak out against the EDGE grant.

Conflicts of interest are inevitable, and there is nothing inherently wrong with them. The tricky part is how to deal with them when they occur. I saw nothing wrong with voting "no", as that vote could in no way be construed as beneficial to my sponsor.

PS: I don't believe I ever used the word "huge". In the EDGE case I am actually as much concerned about fairness as COI. And there are other kinds of COI that I am more concerned about that the ones between sponsored players and manufacturers.

I think the way you handle conflicts of interests is awesome. I also see that you are critical of the DGP tv deal. Did Rebecca Duffy who appeared on the tv program and online coverage disclose this conflict of interest to the members?

 

[Picked_Up]

This, slightly edited, is the report I presented to the Board last Fall, when we were considering the 2013 budget.

Overview: TV/Video allocations would increase by over 40% from 2012 to 2013. DGPtv will get well over half of the total allocation.

Objections:
1) Overall expenditures are too much. I feel that we are spending this money because we can, not because we will get good value for it.
2) We are becoming a cash cow for DGPtv. I found their $70,000 pitch to us at the Summit to be absurd, so they may well be overcharging us. And we have no idea how much money they make from subscriptions and advertising.
3) I am not impressed with their work, in terms of both topicality and quality. Their live video and regional TV proposals are boondoggles, for different reasons (see below).
4) There are many independent producers of disc golf video who produce great stuff at no cost to us. Look, for example, at www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZBbSH4n2dU and compare it to anything DGPtv has produced from the 2012 Worlds. This is a powerful resource, and we aren't nurturing it sufficiently.
5) I object to our tacit assumption that the rights to broadcast PDGA events are worse than worthless.
6) I object to the practice of making the whole membership pay for the ones who want to watch.
7) Postproduced programs belong on the internet, not on TV – exposure and convenience are both far better on the net. Some channel surfers may glimpse a postproduced TV show in passing, but anyone who intends to watch disc golf will watch it on the net.
8) Live video, more than any other part of the program, preaches to the choir. It promotes and markets the PDGA to its own membership, which is unnecessary because most PDGA members join to play, not to watch.

In an instance like this where you are being asked to donate a large sum of money, wouldnt it be worth it to find out where that money is spent? I am sure that you have voted to allocate funds to DGP.TV in the past. Where did that money go?

You made an awful lot of objections to the proposal based on the quality of work produced. Maybe it is time for someone to grab the reigns and ensure that the work being produced is worth the investment.

You also made mention of the majority of post-produced content being consumed online. In those instances where you know how your customers are consuming a product, why not bend your own business model (or strongly encourage your partners to bend theirs) to match?

One quarter of every product's basic marketing model is "placement." You have the luxury of knowing where to place your product, and yet it seems like everyone is simply choosing to ignore it while chasing that ever elusive TV deal.

 

[shive]

to turbosteve:

You say, "I think the way you handle conflicts of interests is awesome. I also see that you are critical of the DGP tv deal. Did Rebecca Duffy who appeared on the tv program and online coverage disclose this conflict of interest to the members?"

I'm sure you understand that I would prefer not to discuss other Board members by name. I will answer your question only because not to answer it might lead to unwarranted prejudice. The answer to your question is, "Yes, she did. My resistance to DGPtv has nothing to do with Rebecca's relationship with them".

 

[shive]

to Picked Up:

You make several good points (post#276). The most important to me is this one ("You made an awful lot of objections to the proposal based on the quality of work produced. Maybe it is time for someone to grab the reigns and ensure that the work being produced is worth the investment.")

Mine is not the only important opinion. Obviously the strong consensus of the Board and the Office is that I am wrong -- that the video/TV portion of the budget is allocated wisely and that DGPtv is a most worthy recipient of the money we pay them. So, in the sense you introduced, they have grabbed the reins.

And that's just why I am here (on the Forum). I want to know what the membership thinks. I need to know what the members think, and to let them know what I think, because they elected me and because I'm asking them to do it again.

 

[shive]

response mostly to coupe (post #269):

I'll try to unconfuse you. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough, or blunt enough, about EDGE and educational initiative. I'll make two key points, and then probably move on to other things.

1) I can't imagine that I could ever vote for the PDGA to fund an educational initiative unless its participants were free to buy their equipment from any manufacturer.
2) The PDGA is absolutely capable of staffing and funding a fabulous educational program. We are spending over $300,000 on a few top-end events, and we have a small army of staff people spending man-months of time running around helping to run them.

My argument here, as it often is, is that our priorities are very badly out of whack. We need to reallocate.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The issue with a membership org is that members should dictate where money should be spent, first to provide services of direct benefit to members and a distant second to peripheral activities should any money remain. While there's lip service supporting education as a good thing, the historical momentum and actions taken by the PDGA have been focusing on competition and related services members need and want which has been creating a future career path to the professional sports world or at least more money flowing into it. Potential new players, especially kids are currently not members and helping them falls into one of those distant second peripheral activities.

Now if the PDGA were a for profit corporation like our manufacturers, then looking at developing wider demographic of customers becomes a higher priority, thus we see programs like EDGE. I think it's going to be tough for a non-profit member org like the PDGA to raise the priority and allocate enough funding for peripheral growth activities to any extent unless perhaps it was privatized. Interestingly, I've never heard this mentioned as a possible future for the PDGA where it would be sold to stockholders, probably since this idea mostly comes up when an org is struggling financially.