• working on DNS.. links may break temporarily.

Candidate question 4ish

I'd love to see that - if we can figure out how to do it without shooting ourselves in the foot. As it stands right now we're trying to get more KCBS contests in areas that we don't have a strong presence, such as the Pacific northwest, New England, Texas, etc. If we require that the cooks join KCBS that might be the deciding factor on whether a team cooks our contest or goes somewhere else.

Maybe we can encourage the teams to join by offering a rebate ($10 to $25 ???) to teams that have a KCBS membership number. Maybe we could offer a membership with the entry fee at certain first time comps. These are just "what if" answers and really need to be studied further for legality, practicality, cost effectiveness, etc before any decision is reached.

The ultimate goal would to have all teams as KCBS members and active in the organization.
 
I would like to see membership be encouraged strongly. Maybe have TOY and other award candidates be required to be members before they can be considered for those awards. (Kind of like a contingency)
I think that requiring will be tough to do. Just like any other requirement some people will see it as micromanagement. Ed, I personally wonder why there is a double standard for judges and cooks. Why is membership required to judge and not cook? You can't have a contest without both groups...
Great question Ed!:thumb:
 
ModelMaker said:
I would like to know how the candiates feel about requiring head cooks to be active KCBS members.
Ed
Click to expand...

I think that could be very detrimental to the KCBS. KCBS is selling a service to contest organizers. If I were organizing a contest I would want a sanctioning organization that allows the most people to compete. Limiting my competition to a members only event would limit the number of teams.

Every team pays an entry fee which in turn pays for the sanctioning. Nobody that pays the entry fee is getting a free ride. If you look at the KCBS financials a lot more money comes in via sanctioning fees than membership fees. Sanctioning fees pay for all the reps, slips, plates computer usage etc.

I can certainly understand requiring membership to be eligible for Team of the Year and any other benefit programs that KCBS provides.
 
I would strongly oppose that. KCBS is selling a service to an organizer, we don't need to place additional restrictions on them. They aren't required to use CBJs who get a membership with their class, but many choose to. Beyond that, we would be getting into areas that I don't think we want to venture into. If membership is required it's no longer truly 'Open'.

Whether one is a member or not, they are paying a fee when they enter. I think we need to do a better job of making it worth their $ to join.
 
YankeeBBQ said:
If I were organizing a contest I would want a sanctioning organization that allows the most people to compete.
Click to expand...

I always thought this was more an issue of approach. Instead of "membership required" make it KCBS members get a discount. And non members get a free membership. ex,

230 for non members
200 for members

Organizer sends $30 to kcbs for that teams membership

I personally think if you are going to compete under a sanctioning body you should be a member.
 
ique said:
I always thought this was more an issue of approach. Instead of "membership required" make it KCBS members get a discount. And non members get a free membership. ex,

230 for non members
200 for members

Organizer sends $30 to kcbs for that teams membership

I personally think if you are going to compete under a sanctioning body you should be a member.
Click to expand...
Didn’t KCBS propose something like that a couple of years back? As I recall, there was quite a backlash on it.
 
ique said:
I always thought this was more an issue of approach. Instead of "membership required" make it KCBS members get a discount. And non members get a free membership. ex,

230 for non members
200 for members

Organizer sends $30 to kcbs for that teams membership

I personally think if you are going to compete under a sanctioning body you should be a member.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world I agree with you. I'd prefer that at least the head cook be a member. With your proposal the truth is that nobody would get a discount. Somebody is getting an annual fee tacked on to their entry, and we are making the organizer responsible for collecting it. If the organizer has to charge $200 to hit his target, member teams aren't going to be charged $170.

Divemaster said:
Didn’t KCBS propose something like that a couple of years back? As I recall, there was quite a backlash on it.
Click to expand...

I believe the larger factor was that requiring membership would have raised a question about the contest being 'Open'. That in turn has implications for the larger invitational events. EDIT: and there could be some 501C issues as well.
 
If I recall correctly, it was mostly because of the 501c issue that this didn't happen. That's just the way I remember it though. As an organizer myself, I don't want to be responsible for collecting fees but it really isn't difficult to do if this was something we found legal to do with the 501c thing. Just collect it and when you write the check to KCBS after awards, you just add on the additional amounts for non-KCBS teams who competed and give the reps contact info you collected on the entry form.

I don't think I'd like to see membership required to compete. I think the better angle rather than forcing someone to join is to get new teams involved and show them the benefit of membership while they're at the contest. Reps should speak with all non-member head cooks and welcome them and show a KCBS presence. Give them a Bullsheet (which we need to constantly improve upon - I would love to discuss this issue in another thread), some coupons for BBQ related products and whatever else we can come up with to put our best foot forward in extending a welcome to non-member teams and, if they join, recognize them at awards ceremonies as a new KCBS member. Instead of force, why not persuade and then make them feel like a part of the family?
 
I'll just chine in on this because I had a conversation with Wayne Lohman about this very issue this year. The specific reason he gave me was that the not-for-profit status of the KCBS would be affected by requiring membership to compete. I asked him about discounts for KCBS members, and he said that it was an idea being considered. I've seen a few comps that do this, and The National BBQ Cup this weekend is doing it too. The "Open" nature of requiring membership was not brought up (That doesn't make it untrue) but personally I don't see it as an issue. Non-member teams would not be excluded from competing as KCBS membership itself is open. That's just my take on it. IANAL.

I'm not running for the BOD, but my personal opionion for those who are and may get on there, I don't think it would be a bad thing to give a discount to KCBS members for a KCBS sanctioned event. I see all sides of the argument, and have even said that people shouldn't become members "just because." I agree that the sanctioning, as a service, is paid for by entry fees, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be helpful to have more cook members. Years ago I competed in a Chilli cookoff, and they had a similar system in place where members got cheaper entrance fees. I remember thinking it was a mild pain, but it didn't really change our mind. We chose not to join as it was our only event and cheaper that way. Others might do the same with KCBS.

Another option I've been considering: Judges aren't required to be members, but organizers require them to "apply" and often give first priority to members, right? Why not take a similar approach with teams? If your team is not a "member team" and you submit an application, you go on a wait list and are only allowed to compete if the comp doesn't fill up with members by 28 days before the event. Does that sound reasonable? Teams can always pay the $35 to join and be guarenteed if they want, though this may affect the "open" nature as well.

dmp
 
dmprantz said:
I'll just chine in on this because I had a conversation with Wayne Lohman about this very issue this year. The specific reason he gave me was that the not-for-profit status of the KCBS would be affected by requiring membership to compete. I asked him about discounts for KCBS members, and he said that it was an idea being considered. I've seen a few comps that do this, and The National BBQ Cup this weekend is doing it too. The "Open" nature of requiring membership was not brought up (That doesn't make it untrue) but personally I don't see it as an issue. Non-member teams would not be excluded from competing as KCBS membership itself is open. That's just my take on it. IANAL.

I'm not running for the BOD, but my personal opionion for those who are and may get on there, I don't think it would be a bad thing to give a discount to KCBS members for a KCBS sanctioned event. I see all sides of the argument, and have even said that people shouldn't become members "just because." I agree that the sanctioning, as a service, is paid for by entry fees, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be helpful to have more cook members. Years ago I competed in a Chilli cookoff, and they had a similar system in place where members got cheaper entrance fees. I remember thinking it was a mild pain, but it didn't really change our mind. We chose not to join as it was our only event and cheaper that way. Others might do the same with KCBS.

Another option I've been considering: Judges aren't required to be members, but organizers require them to "apply" and often give first priority to members, right? Why not take a similar approach with teams? If your team is not a "member team" and you submit an application, you go on a wait list and are only allowed to compete if the comp doesn't fill up with members by 28 days before the event. Does that sound reasonable? Teams can always pay the $35 to join and be guarenteed if they want, though this may affect the "open" nature as well.

dmp
Click to expand...

I understand you point and think it has some merit. At the end of the day, I think we are imposing too much on the organizer. If KCBS was organizing the contest then I think there is additional merit to your ideas. KCBS is selling a service and a scoring system. We require security, but that is most likely driven by liability issues and concerns. I think our focus should be on helping organizers put on the best contest possible, and not give them an additional burden. It should be our responsibility make the value of a membership attractive enough to potential members. Enough people already view KCBS as the 800 lb. Gorilla. I don't think we need to feed that stereotype.
 
dmprantz said:
... Judges aren't required to be members, but organizers require them to "apply" and often give first priority to members, right? ...
Click to expand...

Actually judges have to show currant membership to be considered as "Certified" BBQ Judges. If you're not paid up then KCBS no longer considers you to be a CBJ.

However, there is nothing stoping the organizer from using non-certified judges if he wants to. They just can't be counted as part of the CBJ per centage that is published in the Bullsheet showing what was the % last year. Most KCBS contest organizers try for as many CBJs as they can get but there are some who would rather have a large % of celebrity judges instead (North Kansas City comes to mind).
 
That was my point. :) KCBS sanctioned contests don't have to use CBJs, or even trained judges, but organizers tend to prefer them. The reasons are irrelevent for this conversation, just that those who aren't certified (i.e. trained and current members) are often lower on the priority list. Would it be the worst thing in the world to do the same with cook teams? I'm not pushing for that idea, but it is an idea which I've not heard discussed. Maybe for good reason.

dmp
 
Jeff_in_KC said:
I don't think I'd like to see membership required to compete. I think the better angle rather than forcing someone to join is to get new teams involved and show them the benefit of membership while they're at the contest. Reps should speak with all non-member head cooks and welcome them and show a KCBS presence. Give them a Bullsheet (which we need to constantly improve upon - I would love to discuss this issue in another thread), some coupons for BBQ related products and whatever else we can come up with to put our best foot forward in extending a welcome to non-member teams and, if they join, recognize them at awards ceremonies as a new KCBS member. Instead of force, why not persuade and then make them feel like a part of the family?
Click to expand...

I really like this idea.:thumb:

Also, I think that if a team believes it will be competing in multiple KCBS events, that it is in their best interest to join. If for nothing more than the voting rights. It is hard to justify complaining about a system if you don't vote.

Ken
 
kihrer said:
I really like this idea.:thumb:

Also, I think that if a team believes it will be competing in multiple KCBS events, that it is in their best interest to join. If for nothing more than the voting rights. It is hard to justify complaining about a system if you don't vote.

Ken
Click to expand...

WINNER!!! ^^^^^ That is one of my biggest complaints - those who beotch but can't be bothered to vote. This also relates to the fact that we can't get 25% of the members to vote even though the ballot comes right to your computer. :mad2:

Oh well, maybe they're happy with the way things are. :crazy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Has the interest in BBQ contests dried up?
Replies
7
Views
324
eap0510
E
ModelMaker
Holy Grail (part deux)
Replies
12
Views
800
Big George's BBQ
Big George's BBQ
ModelMaker
Phil, et al
Replies
10
Views
244
1MoreFord
1MoreFord
ModelMaker
First unread
Replies
1
Views
25
Ron_L
Ron_L
H
Cheap mini kamado (or...?) for cabin weekend?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Maylar
Maylar
Back
Top