Membership fees and value for money

There will, no doubt, be much moaning and groaning in the coming weeks as letters from the treasurer drop through members' letter boxes encouraging them to shift over to Direct Debit.
The new subscription service comes into play next year and realises a longstanding ambition of council. It is certainly one issue that I have been pushing for action on.
But I can already hear the howls of protest that will emerge over council's decision to put up membership fees for those members who fail to make the switch to Direct Debit.
Those who continue to pay by old-fashioned means (cheques and other means) will see their subs from next year rising to £60 for full members and £30 for those who have been granted retired status.
The good news for making the switch is that subs will stay the same at £52 for full and £26 for those who have been granted retired status. Some may see the new rate as a penalty, I would view it as reflecting the true cost of gathering the subscription fee. The incentive to switch is therefore considerable.
In recent months Guild council has spent an inordinate amount of time chasing members who failed to update their standing orders earlier this year. We shall be saying farewell and terminating the membership of all those who remain in default within the next fortnight so if you still haven't paid you sub you need to do so to avoid us incurring further unnecessary costs.
One of the most regular complaints from those we spoke to over the summer was that they got nothing out of the Guild.
I would beg to differ in that you get out of organisation what you put into it. It's only natural therefore that if you put nothing in you get nothing out.
I've seen lethargy on a national basis on the setting up of regional groups. Members want them, but then don't want to play their part in getting them up and running. Council can only do so much; we can provide the encouragement to get the regional operations going, but what we can't – and most definitely – will not do is lead any group by the hand. That's not our purpose; the aim of the regions, in my mind at least, is for those within that specific area to take charge and to take ownership rather than view their group as having been foisted on them by council.
Let me also at this point put on the record the amount that British members pay in subscriptions is a pittance compared to our colleagues overseas.
That there are complaints our sub is extortionate is laughable when you consider the Germans pay more than 300 euros (£204) and the annual fee for the American Agri Editors Association is $195 (£97.50).
What British members forget is that their £52 not only gives them membership of the Guild in Great Britain, but access also to the far wider family that is the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists. If you want to see what it does then look at its website ... www.ifaj.org .... or go to its world congress.
So how would I sell membership of the GAJ? Well that's simple: it gives fellowship with those of kindred spirits, the opportunity to socialise, the chance to be judged against your peers in the communications industry through various competitions, but more importantly it provides the channel through which we can all collectively continue the professional development of agricultural journalists and communicators.
I'm now look forward to a debate with anyone who thinks differently. You can post your response by clicking on the word COMMENT which appears in blue below.
It would make a welcome change if someone wrote a comment!