"Roger Johnson" <rjohnson@friendlynet.com> wrote:
> The real issue, in this "build it and they will come" discussion
> is NOT whether SM, ST et. al. are attracting new members.
> The true question is are they attracting new members in excess
> of the classes/methods that were previously available?
> Frankly, I am not sure how objective proof for either side of this
argument
> might be found. It is clear, however, that claiming credit for
participants
> that would have gotten involved, even under the archaic systems in
> place prior to the Renaissance, is less than honest.
I agree that objective proof for any reasonable standard of "proof" is very
hard to come by. All you really get is trends and feedback from the people
who you retain (you never get feedback from those you lose - they're gone)
But the trends and feedback so far are very good:
1) Increasing turnouts at all levels in SM
2) SM people reporting that SM is what is retaining them in the sport
3) This is a little more nebulous... I'm starting to see more and more SM
"buzz" that I had no hand in creating. I (shamelessly) promote SM at every
opportunity. I exhort my fellow SM competitors to do the same, and a lot of
them do it. So anyone who tries SM because they talked to me, or Karl, or
Kent (or Dale, or Ian, or... you get the picture) is someone I "touched"
(in a manner of speaking). But I'm seeing (on Honda BBSes, mostly) people
planning on building/running an SM car who knows nothing about me, the SM
mailing list, or any of the "first tier" SM competitors on the mailing
list. They heard about SM through other means, and have decided to play
independant of whatever publicity efforts the SM core has made. THAT'S
exciting. THAT'S success. That's also really very subjective, as "proof"
goes - I guess you have to take my word on that.
I'm not about to declare victory, but things look very encouraging from my
side of the fence.
DG
|