Free* Trial Cub Scout Membership (* must sell $570 in popcorn) (Michigan Crossroads Council)

[RememberSchiff]

From Michigan Crossroads Council:

Want to test drive Scouting before a full-year’s commitment?  Want a way to offset the membership fee associated with the application?  We have options that will allow you and your youth the ability to learn how amazing the Cub Scout program can be.

The 2025 membership fee is $170, which for some families is a large commitment, especially if there are multiple Scouts involved.  Here is how the Trial Membership works.

Step 1:  Once you know the Cub Scout Pack that you would like to join, fill out the form below requesting the Trial Membership.
Step 2: You will receive an email with a coupon code that can be then used in the Youth Application process.
Step 3: Complete the online Youth Application, entering the provided coupon code. Your Cub Scout Pack should provide you a QR Code or link to their Application page.  If not, you can go to https://beascout.org, enter in your zip, find your Pack, and click APPLY NOW.  NOTE: The coupon does not cover the Scout Life subscription.  If you optionally want to subscribe to that, it will be a $15 fee.
Step 4: Enjoy the fun of Cub Scouts until December 1, 2025!  You will be asked to sell popcorn to offset the balance of the $170 membership fee, if any, to continue your Cub Scout journey beyond December 1.  Check your email for details on the Trails End sale.

How it works:

Upon completing the Online Application (with the discount coupon code), you will be asked to sell $570 in popcorn per registered child ($170 commission).  If your Pack sells popcorn, you will be immediately included in their fall sale.  If your unit does not sell popcorn, you will be contacted by a district popcorn lead about the options for selling.  It’s easy!  On average in Michigan, a Scout that sets up a table at approved stores will sell $48 in commission ($158 retail) in one hour!  Set up for two 2-hour storefront sales, and you should exceed your required amount.

Scouts not selling the full amount will be expired on December 1 unless the membership fee balance is paid.

You must agree that your family will sell $570 in popcorn for each Cub Scout taking part in this trial membership. You will need to agree that you will sell the popcorn or return it as directed prior to the dates specified based on your application date. You agree that if you do not sell your allotted amount, your memberships will be expired on or around December 1, 2025 unless you pay the balance of your application fee for $170/Scout.  You are responsible for returning popcorn product in a timely fashion.

Have questions?  Contact us at info@discoverscouting.org

 

Sources:

https://michiganscouting.org/trial-membership/

https://www.uppermichiganssource.com/2025/09/09/scouting-america-offers-trial-membership-program/

 

[Eagle94-A1]

$170 membership fee?!?!?!?!?!

Only 1 of my Scouts could afford that.

[Tron]

$170 sounds cheap compared to several other councils. District staff actually helping to set up a show and sell sounds awesome, my council could get way more sales if they did that. 

[mrjohns2]

2 hours ago, Tron said:

 

$170 sounds cheap compared to several other councils.

 

There are councils charging more than that for the council fee? 

[DuctTape]

National HQ needs to fund the councils. 

[Tron]

18 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

There are councils charging more than that for the council fee? 

There are several charging over 200 just for the council fee. 

[Tron]

16 hours ago, DuctTape said:

National HQ needs to fund the councils. 

What we need is fewer councils. There's a lot of executive staff that can be eliminated and their salaries can be used to fund program. In this age of telecommuting and cloud computing I am not sure if we even need council HQ buildings anymore; just shift that maintenance line item to camps and let everyone work from home in the communities they are supposed to serve. 

[skeptic]

1 hour ago, Tron said:

What we need is fewer councils. There's a lot of executive staff that can be eliminated and their salaries can be used to fund program. In this age of telecommuting and cloud computing I am not sure if we even need council HQ buildings anymore; just shift that maintenance line item to camps and let everyone work from home in the communities they are supposed to serve. 

While I tend to agree that much of the bureaucracy in local councils can be reduced, certain parts that include real people with real voices are critical, especially with confusion or disappointment.  We are fortunate to have a couple of office people that can carry that torch well, probably better than the few remaining actual executive types of which we have none that fit the traditional role.  

But every council has issues, and money seems to be at the top for most.  Sadly, that affects the actual programming on council levels, but it also is forcing units to do more on their own which seems to often be better in the long run.  We will never be back to the original structures of even twenty years ago, but we can continue to work on putting our best feet forward and become again recognized positively in communities.  Chaallenges will continue, some totally un expected.  Having people work from home with local councils can be positive, but the big barrier continues to be aging gacilities and too much "top down" interference.  JMHO of course.  

[DuctTape]

3 hours ago, Tron said:

What we need is fewer councils. There's a lot of executive staff that can be eliminated and their salaries can be used to fund program. In this age of telecommuting and cloud computing I am not sure if we even need council HQ buildings anymore; just shift that maintenance line item to camps and let everyone work from home in the communities they are supposed to serve. 

I do not disagree, there are certainly savings to be found. However we can say that even louder for National HQ. 

[Tron]

On 9/11/2025 at 12:25 PM, skeptic said:

While I tend to agree that much of the bureaucracy in local councils can be reduced, certain parts that include real people with real voices are critical, especially with confusion or disappointment.  We are fortunate to have a couple of office people that can carry that torch well, probably better than the few remaining actual executive types of which we have none that fit the traditional role.  

But every council has issues, and money seems to be at the top for most.  Sadly, that affects the actual programming on council levels, but it also is forcing units to do more on their own which seems to often be better in the long run.  We will never be back to the original structures of even twenty years ago, but we can continue to work on putting our best feet forward and become again recognized positively in communities.  Chaallenges will continue, some totally un expected.  Having people work from home with local councils can be positive, but the big barrier continues to be aging gacilities and too much "top down" interference.  JMHO of course.  

If we went way way way back to the original structure we'd be better off. Back in the beginning councils only provided support in training leaders and starting new units. When you start reading historical documents about scouting in America, the pre-war scouting was one or two adults taking a whole troop to random places for weeks on end in the summer, and meetings the rest of the year preparing for that summer adventure. I am not sure if our culture can handle that today; in the era of digital record keeping and zoom meetings I think we have too many councils and too many council level leaders. The district is the heart of scouting and the money hustle and need to be seen in the office is keeping district executives from building up the movement in the communities. 

We don't have to screw good paid scouters out of jobs; if we could get on the same page we could just eliminate non-district executive positions as people retire/move on. It could be as easy as every time a scout executive quits/retires national should just force a merger if it makes sense/doesn't make a council TOO big. And then let natural attrition work the other duplicate positions out. 

On 9/11/2025 at 1:26 PM, DuctTape said:

I do not disagree, there are certainly savings to be found. However we can say that even louder for National HQ. 

National is hearing it. It's the councils that don't hear it.