 |
Re: [RC] LD and Placings now awards & expenses? - Diane Trefethen- Long -In my opinion, Kat's dissection of Joe's analogy has inadvertently highlighted the most important feature of the debate on ride pricing. Actually, the most important feature of ANY debate. As long as you try to defend a position based on the value of ANOTHER position, you will fail. You are comparing two, different things and that won't work. In a discussion, you need to highlight the pros and cons of each issue SEPARATELY in order to have any hope of convincing others that your point of view is the correct one (leaving aside the flim-flam bamboozle type of convincing that evaporates in the light of the next day's sun). As long as you persist in trying to justify A by relying on the fact that B is true, the arguing will never end. It is only when you present cogent arguments intrinsic to A that you have a good case. Consider this: Tammy said, "I find with some of my rides like the Git-R-Done rides that I have to have an extra Vet just to be back at base camp in time for the LD...". This argument appears to be predicated on just what is true for LD. But it isn't. Why? Because if it were viewed from the perspective of the LD ride INSTEAD OF FROM THE ENDURANCE RIDE, the comment could just as easily have been, "I find with some of my rides like the Git-R-Done rides that I have to have extra Vets out on the trail just to be there for the 50." Neither statement is valid because they both depend on the other ride for their appearance of objectivity. "I find with some of my rides like the Git-R-Done rides that I have to have 3 Vets for the LD" and "I find with some of my rides like the Git-R-Done rides that I have to have 5 Vets to adequately cover the 50" are both objective statements of fact, neither relying on the other ride for their validity. It could be added, "I can get by with only 6 Vets instead of 8 because both on the trail and at the finish, they can cover for each other." Take the old, never resolved LD vs Endurance debates. Every time an LD rider complains that LD rides deserve something that is currently unique to Endurance rides BECAUSE THEY HAVE IT AND LD DOESN'T AND THAT'S NOT FAIR, emotions are brought to the table, Endurance riders jump in to "defend" their venue against the perceived (real?) attack, emails fly back and forth, and in the end, no one's mind is changed, no one comes away with a sense of satisfaction that an important issue has been decided. In fact, nothing *has* been decided. The original complaint goes into hiding... until next time. Over and over this fruitless exchange occurs and over and over nothing is resolved. Consider what might happen if someone were to say that LD should have A, not "deserves" which is emotional and judgmental, because... and then lists reasons that justify LD having A without any reference to Endurance. 1) Endurance riders would not be in the position of being attacked and could therefore read the reasons without needing to defend anything, 2) The reasons for LD having A could be analyzed objectively, flaws uncovered, valuable points acknowledged, 3) Regardless of the outcome, both sides would have more information and a better understanding of the *whole* issue, not just their own side of it, 4) Even if the issue was not resolved on this go around, there would be the very real possibility that it was simply that both sides needed time to digest the points made by the other side and when the issue arose again, both sides would be in a good position to state fairly where they agreed, where they disagreed and how they might compromise, or not compromise if that was a better resolution. "Should LD rides be priced lower than Endurance rides?" That is the wrong question. The right questions are, "At what price, for each event, can I the RM reasonably expect to cover my costs?" and "Do I need to charge more for one venue than is justified in order to make up for losses on the other venue?" and "Is there a valid reason to charge more on the money-maker to be able to put on the loser?" By proceeding in a logical fashion, covering each cost and including whatever fudging factors have proven successful in the past, an RM can determine first what is a *fair* price to charge each for entry, then determine whether fair pricing will make money or lose money and lastly whether there are good reasons to overprice one ride to cover the other. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|