Re: [Harp-L] SPAH demographics

[Joseph Leone <3n037@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 15, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Slim Heilpern wrote:

> Hi Folks -
> 
> Just want to chime in on one of the recurring themes in the spah election thread so far, that of the demographics of convention attendees. 
> 
> I think we probably all agree that those of baby boomer age and older represent the biggest contingent, for the obvious reasons: spare time, spare money, fewer obligations.

I agree. 
> 
> But I reject the notion that we must get more younger folks to attend in order to prevent a downward attendance spiral.

I agree

> When I was younger I knew about spah but could not even consider attending on account of both limited time and funds (these so often go hand-in-hand).

I, on the other hand knew nothing about spah. And while I had time, it was never THE time. My vacation pick was one of the last where I worked. And we lived pay to pay. 

> But when I could afford more of both, I started attending. I know there are many who followed this same pattern.

Sort of. I first attended in 1992 (age 49.9). It was a short few hour hop from Pgh to So. Detroit. So transportation wasn't an issue. I used to split a room with Herb Eck, so that cut my costs. For a few hundred, I was good to go. :) NOW, I'm 2 days from ANY where, can't share a room (too risky), but I now have the money. :)
> 
> It is true that people don't live forever, so naturally there is a tendency to think of the current model as unsustainable,  but this is silly, since there are plenty of people to take there place as they too find their circumstances changing in ways that will allow them to start attending. The poor economy will probably skew attendance for a while regardless of any changes we might make, but that is beyond our control. 
> 
> My only point is that the current model is not necessarily doomed to fail as some folks have implied over the last few years. 

I agree. I have seen the faces change over these 20 years, and I'm sure that those whom have been around 30, 40, and yes, almost 50 have seen DRAMATIC changes. 
> 
> I'm all for attracting more younger folks and encouraging them to participate, but no reason to suggest the current model will ultimately fail if we can't bring more youngsters into the fold. 
> 
> - Slim.
> 
Addendum: When I first went to spah, I got the impression that it was started by ex vaudevillians, stage show performers, supper club performers, VFW performers, bar performers, and various other players. I felt that they wanted to do something once a year. Sort of a reunion type thing. Somewhere where they could still gather together, do their thing and be appreciated by their own kind. Almost a religion..so to speak..

Now I'm not saying that the intention was to get a large enough group together so that the expenses could be amortized, but that seems to be what happened. The organization HAS to be a definitive size (membership wise) to be able to function. First of all a small group will not attract sponsors. A small group can't get volume deals. And you need to commit to a minimum number of meals to get a caterer. And a minimum number of rooms to get a host hotel.  

In conclusion, I don't see a real danger in the way things are right at the present. MY big concern is not that the organization grows just for the sake of numbers. MY concern is garnering membership whom are not in the whole enchilada for selfish or spam motives. Spah is a sort of brotherhood atmosphere. It's not nearly as 'cliquey' as it used to be, and everyone seems to interact in an intimate family helping atmosphere. And I like it that way. 

So. IF spah grows, it should grow carefully. And the meager resources should be jealously guarded from scatter brained Ralph Kramden schemes. Spah has already been through turmoil, and nearly wrecked, but with the wonderful guidance of the executive board(s) members, it has come back like the proverbial Fenix. As we say in Sicily "Piano, piano". That means easy easy or easy does it. 

smokey joe     (the man from Mars).