A BASIS FOR A POSSIBLE MEMBERSHIP MODEL.

Given that the WIA is made up of seven separate state members, but that these individual members represent a widely divergent asset and membership base, it follows that any new membership model should:

1.     take note of these variable state-owned assets, and ensure their protection, and

2.     make some form of adjustment to the representation base so as to more accurately reflect   the demographics of Australia. 

Any proposed model which doesn’t do something to address these two anomalies won’t succeed.

Current membership figures for the various divisions as at February 28^th are as follows:

Total membership nationally is 4381, about 25% of licenses issued.

Brief Analysis of these figures shows some interesting scenarios:

Ø     It is easy to see that the combined memberships of VK2 and VK3 still total around the 55% which Bill Roper alluded to in the mid-eighties.  This indicates that membership losses in the past fifteen years or so have been relatively even over time, even though at any one stage local influences may have a specific impact, resulting in a larger or smaller loss that particular year.

Ø     VK4 and VK7 are interesting, in that as a percentage of total divisional membership, full      membership is almost exactly half, the balance being made up in X and G, whereas the remaining divisions show a minimum of 60% (VK6) up to the mid 70%’s, mainly around the 70% mark.  What do VK’s 4 and 7 do ?

 Ø     Analysis of the X Grade to total provides another insight.  VK4 (with its provision of the newsletter/insert QTC to all members) is almost 20% X grade, VK7 with its branch structure shows almost 28%, whereas most other divisions show a percentage between 7 and 13 of total.  This might suggest that the members want communication and information, but don’t see AR as providing it.  If there is a viable cheaper, local alternative, they will settle for that.

Most divisions also report that membership figures appear to have stabilised in the last few years … no great gains, no great losses.  This suggests that even though the two largest divisions have more members to sell products and services to, and more income from subscriptions, thereby having a much larger asset base from which to provide a better or wider range of services, their individual and collective positions in the percentage stakes have remained relatively untouched over many years, in spite of all the efforts of individuals.

This suggests that having a large asset base plus having the capacity to provide a better range of services does not lead to greater membership percentages.  Acceptance of this may lead us to consider that membership figures (and their percentages) are not so much a function of existing membership nor a function of asset strength nor of service features of membership such as AR magazine, QSL, News, TAC etc.  Rather, they are a function of some intangible benefit.