Another data gathering failure-Runoffs Participation Survey

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Just received the survey today.

If you answer NO to planning on going there are NO other questions.

Don't they want to know why people aren't going?

[Steve Demeter]

Maybe or not

[Garey Guzman]

That has been the result every year. I always answer "possibly" and give input. It may be harder to justify analyzing data of the "not going" over the "possibly" folks.

[Mark_Silverberg]

Just received the survey today.

If you answer NO to planning on going there are NO other questions.

Don't they want to know why people aren't going?

As some one who spent a considerable amount of time in the automotive marketing research world there is a view that there is no reason for collecting information that you will not use or act upon. It could be argued that stating you will not consider participating in the future then the data points would not be important. Particularly if it is a relative small portion of the total sample.

However it is easy to let this non sampling error creep up and not pay attention and soon it may become a significant proportion of respondents - it may then be too late to act.

From a PR standpoint for surveys about a club activity it is really poor optics to not at least collect open ended responses to rejection reasons so at least the members feel they have gotten a say.

[924RACR]

Seemed like even the "Possible" category wasn't all that much of interest; I answered realistically, that I'd have a low but non-zero chance of attending.

That was pretty much all I was asked.

Oh well...

[Steve Davis]

And I said I DO plan to attend.
They said 'Thanks'.
Maybe this has more to do with 'how many' they need to plan for.. rather than 'how can we get more'??
Steve

[problemchild]

The reality is that SCCA management measures success by one data point. Whether it is membership or entries to an event, it is all about revenue. Quantity over quality.! Clearly, they would rather have an oversubscribed sloppy Runoffs with 700 entries than a well-run value-packed event with 400 entries. Certainly it is the same with the SuperTour events which are over-subscribed while non-SuperTour events are left to fend for themselves.

If people don't care enough to lie about their potential Runoff participation, then SCCA does not need their survey input.

[cory mcleod]

For once I did not see any black helicopters.

I think Topeka is just trying to get an idea of car counts for the Runoffs. Why waste our time with more questions if they just need that one data point? I'm sure we'll all receive another survey this year asking opinion questions regarding the current and future Runoffs.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

For once I did not see any black helicopters.

I think Topeka is just trying to get an idea of car counts for the Runoffs. Why waste our time with more questions if they just need that one data point? I'm sure we'll all receive another survey this year asking opinion questions regarding the current and future Runoffs.

But it's not just car counts. If you yes or maybe there is a series of questions.

They complain about class participation and low attendance, but never ask those NOT ATTENDING why they do not attend.

If someone makes the effort to respond, they should take the opportunity to understand the answer.
Unless they really don't want to know - ignorance is blind?

So, I responded and it became a waste of time.

[Peter Olivola]

But it's not just car counts. If you yes or maybe there is a series of questions.

They complain about class participation and low attendance, but never ask those NOT ATTENDING why they do not attend.

If someone makes the effort to respond, they should take the opportunity to understand the answer.
Unless they really don't want to know - ignorance is blind?

So, I responded and it became a waste of time.

You seem to be suggesting that any survey the club conducts for any purpose should always include questions about why you're not attending the Runoffs. I don't get it. This is an event planning survey, not a marketing survey. Its purpose is to get an idea, by class of who is likely to attend this year's Runoffs. It's valuable input into scheduling and, when needed, class groupings for qualifying. Your outrage sounds like a chem trails rant.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

You seem to be suggesting that any survey the club conducts for any purpose should always include questions about why you're not attending the Runoffs. I don't get it. This is an event planning survey, not a marketing survey. Its purpose is to get an idea, by class of who is likely to attend this year's Runoffs. It's valuable input into scheduling and, when needed, class groupings for qualifying. Your outrage sounds like a chem trails rant.

They only send 1 each year. I would think every survey about the runoffs would be valuable in planning current and future events.

My mistake. I thought all members mattered - not just those attending the runoffs.

But it seems to be the same mo whether runoffs or changes in classes.
They don't want to ask because they might have to do something different.

I'll admit I don't know what a chem trails rant is. Is it an insult?

[Peter Olivola]

They only send 1 each year. I would think every survey about the runoffs would be valuable in planning current and future events.

My mistake. I thought all members mattered - not just those attending the runoffs.

But it seems to be the same mo whether runoffs or changes in classes.
They don't want to ask because they might have to do something different.

I'll admit I don't know what a chem trails rant is. Is it an insult?

Is it an insult? Depends how invested you are in conspiracy theories.

[problemchild]

They only send 1 each year. I would think every survey about the runoffs would be valuable in planning current and future events.

It is an internet forum, consisting mostly of vintage racers and/or ex SCCA racers. What better place for a SCCA rant!

Only 1 of 8 responses challenged your comments. Notice all the likes to that challenge.

Feeling disenfranchised, whether real or perceived, is legitimate. I doubt that ridicule and insults would be a recommended response. If this survey was strictly for planning purposes, which we have no reason to accept, or refute, then it is legitimate to ask why there were not other surveys dealing with other concerns.

"Write a letter"

[Rick Kirchner]

in the information age, the data an enterprise owns is often more valuable than its material assets.

20 years ago this was less obvious, but 10 years ago it was evident to anyone following along that the more info you have on your customers the more valuable your enterprise is. Detailed demographic data is gold.

The club has lost out on a lot of value over the years - they issue logbooks but make no effort to track ownership, or status, of the cars, and of course a racecar is the one thing you need to race... They seem to have little knowledge of why the sport is contracting, don't really know why people attend or don't attend. I'll assume they know quite a bit about the top tier of their participants, with that data getting scarcer as you head toward the bottom.

Some of this is evident by the hit and miss nature of trying to improve car counts and increase membership - it's because its not really data driven, or the data is too sparse and non-representative so you get inconsistent results.

[cory mcleod]

But it's not just car counts. If you yes or maybe there is a series of questions.

They complain about class participation and low attendance, but never ask those NOT ATTENDING why they do not attend.

If someone makes the effort to respond, they should take the opportunity to understand the answer.
Unless they really don't want to know - ignorance is blind?

So, I responded and it became a waste of time.

I replied yes and the only follow-up question was which class.

[Terry Hanushek]

I replied yes and the only follow-up question was which class.

See Post 10