This is How We Will Grow Scouting

[perdidochas 658]

I would add:

 

4) Encourage the boys to use social media, youtube snapchat, etc... to show off their outdoor adventures.

That's #3 restated.  :-)

[qwazse 4342]

Asked, answered, but maybe not heard?

Looking in as an outsider the glaring thing that stands out, beyond the management speak nonsense, is that nobody seems to have spoken to the scouts themselves.

 

It is the scouts that go to school and mix with the non scouts. They are the best people to explain why so many kids don't want to join. They know why their friends are doing *insert other youth activity of your choice here* instead of scouts. So they will be the best people to ask how to get more of them through the door. 

 

And nobody seems to have asked them.

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/mission/pdf/VOS_Spring_2014_Exec_Summary.pdf

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I think part of the weakness of Mr. Surbaugh's approach is that while it talks about targeting specific potential sources of members, and about attracting people to "non-traditional programs", i.e. Exploring and STEM Scouts, I see nothing here about marketing and promotion of the "traditional programs" (Cubs, Boy Scouts and Venturing) to the GENERAL audience. You would almost think that BSA is happy with the numbers of middle-class-and-higher "white" people who join and remain in Scouting, and the only shortfall is in the numbers of minority and economically disadvantaged who join. But I am pretty sure that is NOT the case - I think we would all agree that the numbers of kids who join Scouting should be higher in ALL demographic groups. But where in this plan is the general promotion and "marketing" (a term I hate to use, but you can't avoid it these days) of Scouting to "everybody"? I remember when I was a kid seeing ads for the BSA on tv. ("Follow the rugged road!") Some mentions have been made on this forum about National having ads available for councils to get placed on tv (not sure whether they would be paid ads or public service announcements) but that these are usually on at 3:30 a.m. on the gardening channel or wherever. To me, that is not an advertising campaign. That is just lip service to a promotional campaign. I am not necessarily saying the BSA needs to have ads on the Super Bowl, but they should be running some ads where and when people will actually see them, as they used to years ago. To sum this all up in one sentence, I doubt I have ever seen an organization's or business's "growth plan" that did not include some kind of general marketing or advertising campaign, but there seems to be none here.

[Krampus 696]

@@NJCubScouter here's your problem: What media outlet reaches these target audiences? You just don't have broadcast TV like we had when we were young. Now you have social media, cable, satellite, on-demand, etc. The good news is that these other outlets don't cost what broadcast or cable ads do. The bad news is that BSA is not very good at utilizing new contact channels.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Krampus

[Stosh 3452]

If one is in the market to provide a service to the public, the #1 job would be to actually provide that service.  Nope we have people in an ivory tower promising grandiose programs of adventure and fun and do nothing to service the promise.  Everyone knows that repeat business in the car market is not based on car sales, but on car service after the sale.  BSA needs to learn this. 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

@@NJCubScouter here's your problem: What media outlet reaches these target audiences? You just don't have broadcast TV like we had when we were young. Now you have social media, cable, satellite, on-demand, etc. The good news is that these other outlets don't cost what broadcast or cable ads do. The bad news is that BSA is not very good at utilizing new contact channels.

The BSA doesn't have to be good at it. They just have to hire a marketing/advertising agency that is good at it, and there are a lot of those around. In fact I would be surprised if the BSA is not already paying one or more marketing/advertising agencies, but I don't know what the tangible results are of what they are doing. So much of the BSA's public relations over the past 15 years or so has been devoted to damage control, I think they need to shift focus to "spreading the word." I think the BSA has the benefit of having a lot of volunteers out here who "spread the word" as much as we can (including me), but I think it would also help to have some sort of centralized, organized effort backing us up.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

If one is in the market to provide a service to the public, the #1 job would be to actually provide that service.  Nope we have people in an ivory tower promising grandiose programs of adventure and fun and do nothing to service the promise.

I will, perhaps somewhat uncharacteristically, defend National a bit on this. The fact is that the organization is not designed for them to directly deliver the program or provide direct local support for the program. We do that, you and me, and all the other members of this forum and all the other volunteers who are Scoutmasters, Cubmasters, Committee Members etc. etc. etc., and in supporting roles the volunteers at district and council levels. National is there, or should be there, to provide support, program materials, some nationwide standards for things (such as advancement), etc. I think there is a general agreement that National could and should do better at communicating with the "field." And some of the things they do seem counterproductive, and I won't even mention any of them because they have already been discussed to death in this forum. I think we can all agree that whatever National does do, it should do those things correctly and not get in the way of the program. Sometimes people in this forum (and sometimes including me) seem to want National to do less in certain areas. Now, Stosh, you seem to want National to do things they aren't doing. What would those be?

[Stosh 3452]

How is BSA any different than any other non-profit organization out there.  Churches provide services done by volunteers.  Red Cross provides services done by volunteers.  Salvation Army provides service done by volunteers.  How many do I need to identify to let one know that BSA is providing a program of service to our youth and they are setting policies right and left dictating what can and can't be done, directing everything along the way and somehow they aren't responsible for the content and quality of the program?  Surely you jest.... 

[T2Eagle 902]

Finally got around to reading this.  It is mostly platitudes and bromides.  

 

I don't know whether National doesn't have or just doesn't share meaningful data, but I never seem to see anything that looks driven by real numbers.  As an example, the underserved markets he references, recent immigrants and inner cities, I think we should try to serve those youth better.  If we believe that our organization provides a meaningful benefit to our commonwealth by developing character and skills in our country's youth than those underserved youth are as important a part of our mission as the non-minority middle class youth that make up most of our organization today.

 

But I have no way of knowing whether that's where we need to go to really increase our membership, or if it is realistic to think that even serving those groups better would significantly boost our numbers.  Let's say we wanted to increase our membership by half a million; would it be more cost effective to target the underserved markets or would we be more successful recruiting a higher percentage of the demographic we currently serve.  I don't know the answer to that, but there should be data available, and it should be shared with us, to properly evaluate the question.

 

We all assert here that if we just emphasized our outdoor program and made it better that that would attract more boys to our program.  Does anyone have any actual data, numbers bigger and more reproducible than our individual anecdotes and experience, that actually show or prove that?  I know I don't.  We don't head off into the backcountry without a map and expect to end up at a desired specific location.  Why do we insist that we just know that if we walk this direction because we've always walked a direction that felt like this before that we'll end up where we want to be?  We, as an organization need some good data, and then we need the good sense and courage to base our behavior on it if we really want to achieve our goal of serving America's youth.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

How is BSA any different than any other non-profit organization out there.  Churches provide services done by volunteers.  Red Cross provides services done by volunteers.  Salvation Army provides service done by volunteers.

And I'll bet you a dollar (my standard maximum rhetorical bet) that if I look around the Internet long enough, I can find forums or Facebook pages or something where volunteers in one or both of those organizations are complaining (probably anonymously) about their "national".

 

How many do I need to identify to let one know that BSA is providing a program of service to our youth and they are setting policies right and left dictating what can and can't be done, directing everything along the way and somehow they aren't responsible for the content and quality of the program?  Surely you jest....

But who is directly providing the program? Other than publications meant to be read by the youth themselves (mainly the Handbook, the requirements book and merit badge pamphlets), National provides the program to us and we deliver it to the youth. And as any reader of this forum can attest, we do it in all different ways, some better than others, and some a matter of opinion and personal preference. Sure National has a responsibility, but their responsibility is defined by their involvement, and our responsibility is defined by ours.

 

And let's not exaggerate. You sayNational promises adventure and fun and does "nothing to service the promise". Nothing at all? Really? There's no Philmont, Seabase, hundreds of council camps, other programs? There's no value in the advancement program? There's no value in the training materials? It used to be in this forum that there were a couple of people who went around trying to stamp out any dissent against anything National was doing. Now it seems like people are ridiculed for suggesting that there is any value at all coming out of National. As usual, I am in the middle. National gives us something... well actually, they sell it to us, not give it to us, and it could be better, but it's not nothing.

 

And you didn't answer my question.

[Stosh 3452]

, Stosh, you seem to want National to do things they aren't doing. What would those be?

 

Do what they do best, provide an outdoor leadership program for young boys as they develop into men.  The more they try to please everyone in the world the more watered down their program becomes.  Now finding vestiges of outdoors and leadership and boys is getting harder and harder to find. Co-ed, family STEM management seems to be the buzz du jour.

 

And I'll bet you a dollar (my standard maximum rhetorical bet) that if I look around the Internet long enough, I can find forums or Facebook pages or something where volunteers in one or both of those organizations are complaining (probably anonymously) about their "national".

 

 

But who is directly providing the program? Other than publications meant to be read by the youth themselves (mainly the Handbook, the requirements book and merit badge pamphlets), National provides the program to us and we deliver it to the youth. And as any reader of this forum can attest, we do it in all different ways, some better than others, and some a matter of opinion and personal preference. Sure National has a responsibility, but their responsibility is defined by their involvement, and our responsibility is defined by ours.

 

And let's not exaggerate. You sayNational promises adventure and fun and does "nothing to service the promise". Nothing at all? Really? There's no Philmont, Seabase, hundreds of council camps, other programs? There's no value in the advancement program? There's no value in the training materials? It used to be in this forum that there were a couple of people who went around trying to stamp out any dissent against anything National was doing. Now it seems like people are ridiculed for suggesting that there is any value at all coming out of National. As usual, I am in the middle. National gives us something... well actually, they sell it to us, not give it to us, and it could be better, but it's not nothing.

 

And you didn't answer my question.

 

And compare the current media and social reputation for American Red Cross, Salvation Army, and Boy Scouts of America rank from good to bad.....   People are always going to whine about something, some organizations deserve it.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Well Stosh, as I've said before, if you choose to believe the sky is falling, go right ahead.

[Stosh 3452]

Or I can just stick my head in the sand and pretend everything is running along smoothly like it was before we lost half the membership.

[cyclops 55]

Or I can just stick my head in the sand and pretend everything is running along smoothly like it was before we lost half the membership.

You seem to presume two things:

1) that the decline would not have happened anyway for any reasons, and

2) that you seem to 'know' what the problem is and how to solve it.

[meyerc13 85]

I was in Boy Scouts back in the 80's, and until my son joined Cub Scouts 4 years ago I had no idea how much Scouting's outdoor program had changed.  Mountain Biking, ATVs, Shotgun and pistol ranges... these are all things that weren't offered locally at Summer Camp when I was a Scout.  I don't think the BSA does enough to get the word out that Scouting isn't about basket weaving any more... it's about adventure that you won't find anywhere else.  Yeah, some kids who live out in the country probably do these things in their backyard all the time, but for the kids living in cities, the only chance they'll get to do all of these things in one place is Scout Camp.  If that doesn't sell Boy Scouting to high school age kids, I don't know what will.

 

I also wonder if some of our problem is the attrition rate in Cub Scouting.  How many of the kids who join for a year into a Cub Scout Pack with a sub-standard program, and then quit, will ever come back as Boy Scouts?  Hopefully the new program will help somewhat in that regard, but I fear there is still too much difference in quality between units.