AmateurRadio.com

Come gather 'round hams
Wherever you roam
And admit that the League
Has far from grown
And accept it that soon
It will be skin and bones

If the League to you is worth savin'
You'd better start engagin'
Or it will sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'

(adapted from Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-changin')

With the publication of the 2023 Annual Report by the ARRL, we now have two more years of membership and amateur license data since I published my Social Circuits column entitled, “Elvis has left the building.” Indeed, the recent kerfuffle over the membership dues increase and subscription benefits reduction by the League is really Calling Elvis. However, Bob Dylan’s famous ballad that the times are a-changin‘ is the tune being sung by amateurs in the U.S. As a Life Member, I wish it weren’t so but the statistician in me says that engagement, rather than abandonment, will be required to keep the ARRL’s membership from further sinking like a stone in these turbulent waters. Here’s why.

Foundational Ideas

To place the results from the data into a meaningful context, I need to note a few ideas that serve as a foundation for this article. We can think of any social movement organized as a volunteer hobby as incorporating at least two elements. One is the market of adherents who practice elements of the hobby. Another is one or more organizing groups who bring hobbyists together through various means by promoting “best practices,” new innovations, and recruiting newcomers. These are hobby associations, most often legally organized as non-profit corporations with or without associated foundations.

Such is the American Radio Relay League as per the IRS Ruling in 1931 and as incorporated in the State of Connecticut. (Note that there are two legal organizations, the ARRL Inc. [EIN: 06-6000004] and the ARRL Foundation [EIN: 23-7325472]). There are other associations, of course, but the ARRL has promoted itself as The National Association for Amteur Radio so it is the dominant organizer in amateur radio in the United States.

I make this simple distinction because it is imperative to not fall victim to the public relations slights-of-hand that are often practiced by some hobby associations. This is done to enhance the image of the association and to diminish their public failings to the dues-paying and donating membership as well as independent donors. The ARRL itself is NOT amateur radio. Licensed amateurs who practice the craft are the factual embodiment of the hobby as a whole. Don’t get that horse and cart reversed.

But that is generally not how the ARRL presents it’s version of what ham radio is, at least in the U.S. Indeed, in its 1965 50th Anniversary book, the League claimed that until then the history of the ARRL was the history of amateur radio! The appropriate quotation in the Forward by League Secretary Huntoon (1965) is “Since that time [1914] the story of amateur radio has been the history of the League, the chronicle of amateurs working together for the public welfare and for their common good.” Since 1965, the League has made similar claims about the hobby essentially being what officials in Newington say it is. In fact, over lunch, I had a now-retired League staff member haughtily say in my presence that, “In ham radio, if we don’t say it happened, it didn’t. If we say it happened, it did.”

“Since that time [1914] the story of amateur radio has been the history of the League, the chronicle of amateurs working together for the public welfare and for their common good.”

John Huntoon, ARRL Secretary, Forward, 50th Anniversary QST Edition

They have, for instance, changed their written history of the League over the years in several ways. It’s fully documented in QST and other historical documents that the League was co-founded by Clarence Tuska and Maxim. Today, the ARRL just states it was founded by Maxim. But, demonstrably with an apt reading of the independent history of U.S. ham radio as I have done, this is far more corporate PR than legitimate social history. From my reading, little has changed in the League’s public relations stance since the 1965 anniversary. Just read, for instance, the Centennial timeline and related documents for how far this version of ham radio history is at variance with historical documents. Note, for instance, that it was Tuska who taught the “novice” Maxim about the wireless of the time. But who now needs Tuska’s legacy since the Maxim family donated to the League after his untimely passing years ago? Finally, see any mention of Hugo Gernsback, who first organized a national group of hams? No, one doesn’t, for this rendition better serves the ARRL’s public relations interests.

These canards can especially be the case for monthly columns in QST in which statements are made without any empirical basis, whether real or simply held at the League offices as “proprietary.” A good example is: CEO Minster writes in his March 2023 Second Century column (p. 9), “We know, and have known for years, that ARRL members represent the lion’s share of active hams. Moves to grow the hobby…have grown the total number of licensees, but not the number of radio-active hams.” No studies are cited, no facts are on the League’s website, no independent research is offered to support this wanton assertion. It is terribly self-serving for the ARRL to say that the only “active” hams are those who hold membership in the League. As we shall see below, this is a common attempt by hobby associations to move the bar for more favorably evaluating their performance in serving the market for members. I’ll present empirical research in a future column that calls this “siloed knowledge” by the current League CEO into serious question.

“We know, and have known for years, that ARRL members represent the lion’s share of active hams. Moves to grow the hobby…have grown the total number of licensees, but not the number of radio-active hams.”

CEO David Minster NA2AA, QST (March 2023: 9)

This critical distinction leads us to see the clear but diverging paths that the market for U.S. amateur radio and membership in the dominant hobby association have taken. In short, the market is fine. The hobby association incorporated as the American Radio Relay League Inc. is not. Now, let’s turn to the data comparing the market and the organizing hobby association and try to make the best sense of them.

Hobby Market of Licensed Amateurs

How is the market of hobbyists who practice elements of the craft? Holding an FCC license to the Amateur Radio Service is the defining element to be a bona fide hobbyist, as opposed to only having in interest in ham radio. The figure shows that well over a half million licenses have been in force for the past quarter century (1997-2024). Indeed, three-quarters of a million have been held over the past decade (since 2015). If we note the recent drop in total licenses (circa 2021-), compare it to a similar decline back some 20 years ago. In circa 2004, license numbers declined by nearly 30,000 which is about the same as the most recent decline. What then happened? Amateur licensure took off on a bull market for a couple of decades.

But a key question is: what did the National Association for Amateur Radio do to foster that bull market? What is it doing now in similar circumstances? We will see some results shortly in the next section.

Is this market volatile? Do wild, frequent changes in the market prevent the organizing hobbyist association from putting an effective recruitment strategy in place? In this case, not at all! The figure below shows that there has only been a maximum percent and a half change over a six-month period since the late-1990s. Imagine a stock portfolio where the broker shows a client this low level of volatility! It would be a fairly secure position for the investor. Thus, the overall hobbyist market is fairly stable over the past 25 years or so.

But what are the “fundamentals” of the hobbyist market? We know that most hams today enter through the Technician Class license, whereas some years ago it was the Novice ticket. The “career” of the maturing hobbyist is to enter via the Tech license and move upward to the General and, ideally, the Extra classes where a fuller participation on various frequency bands can be experienced. Without individual license data records being linked over time, there is no valid statistical procedure through which we can estimate the progression of licensed hams through this career line. Most all writers about this—including the ARRL staff—make judgements about the fate of the Tech licensee but they are speculative in terms of statistical validity. (This is not a new problem, just ask political scientists who study voting using tabular marginals!)

Note: In future work, I plan to record-link the end-of-year FCC ULS ARS records from 2000-present so as to create observed "career lines" in ham radio licensure in the U.S. This record-linked database is being geocoded so that I can further characterize local geographies where hams reside and the place attributes as well. It is a lot of technical work but something that I've done over my career for many clients and studies, co-founding a peer-reviewed journal on these types of studies. But those data are not available today as this is being written. 

As shown in the graph below, the raw number of Tech licenses has declined since their peak in 2020. But let’s recall some factors that could well be at the root of it. Recognize that these are aggregate numbers. How many Techs moved upward into General or Extra class licenses? We can’t truly tell from these aggregate numbers. But we do know two things from these data. First, General and Extra ticket numbers continue to increase. Second, the obsolete classes of Novice and Advanced continue to decline as their holders do not renew when the license period ends. The fundamentals of the core license-holders of General and Extra appear to be in good shape. They have continued to steadily increase since the beginning of the FCC license restructuring.

This still begs the question of Tech license decline. What has caused it? It is isolated to just this class, ignoring the dormant Advanced and Novice classes. It may have little to do with the League’s actions. Here are my thoughts.

A fee for renewing an amateur radio license was implemented because of some Congressional politics involving “paying for Federal services used” by citizens. I also note that the substantial Homeland Security monies requiring amateur radio to be involved in state emergency management grants has all but gone away. Ten years afterwards, many Techs who acquired a license—such as many I taught in license classes for our state hospital association—no longer see a need for them since they were obtained as a job requirement rather than a hobby activity. Many hospital associations have moved to satellite phones for their emergency communication services to hospitals. In addition, the AT&T First Net funded by Homeland Security has reduced the perceived need by many first responder organizations to having their own in-house licensed amateur radio operators. These are possible drivers of the recent Tech license decline. We cannot fully answer that here but they are logical possibilities to explain this dip in only the Technician class licensees and are independent of League actions or policies.

Since the total number of licenses change over time, one frequent question involves the license class composition and its effect on the hobby market. The graph below is simply the percent that each license class is of the total for each six-month period. The oft-read concern that Techs are dominating the hobby (as if that’s a bad thing) is true, at least, in statistical terms. They have been almost one-half of the total licenses over this century. They are a source of license upgrades but we do not have good data on the probability that any particular Tech will do so (my planned work to record-link licenses will address this). Those with greater access to HF bands, Generals and Extras, have each been about one-fifth for a number of years. General class licensees, in particular, have kept pace with growth in Extra Class holders at very similar rates. We can’t conclude that this is because of the “career line” of upgrading per se but logic suggests that some of it seems to be just that. We just can’t estimate how much.

A conclusion is that the composition of the hobby market has been stable for over 25 years with a diversity of license class holders. I take this as a positive aspect of the hobby market.

We can take a peak at the potential change by license class in the volatility graph below. It’s the percent change in each license class every six months from 1997-2024. First, note the significant spikes or declines in the late 1990s are a result of the FCC license restructuring in 1999. Consequently, the obsolete Novice and Advanced tickets meandered along afterwards with some 5 percent or so biannual shrinkage. This should be expected and reveals little about the fundamentals of the hobbyist market. The key elements here are the relatively small change in the total licenses and the increase in Extra Class holders. While not as noticeable, General tickets tended to keep pace with the change in totals. Honestly, this chart reveals a solid set of fundamentals for the amateur radio hobby market itself.

I’ve now led the reader through a set of simple but reassuring data graphs testifying to the positive status of the marketplace of hobbyists. It would be challenging to use these results to make strong counter-factual statements. The state of the amateur radio hobby market is good.

One caveat is the demographic aging factor. I’ve written about this in several articles, including one involving hams in Canada and the UK who follow similar patterns from limited data (e.g., ARRL membership birth dates) in the U.S. The FCC dropped the birth date from license forms years ago so until the national leadership organization, the ARRL, collects professional survey data on licensed hams that can be statistically generalized to the nation, and makes the data public, we simply do not know how this “secret storm” will affect the market for the hobby. I’ve helped the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC) to do this already.

Organizing Association Fundamentals

I now turn from the hobby market to the Amateur Radio Relay League as the dominant organizing association. What are the similar indicators for the ARRL’s fundamentals? How is the National Association for Amateur Radio doing in terms of directly engaging with members?

I shared a quotation above illustrating the perspective of the current CEO David Minster. He feels that it is “known in Newington,” and for a long time, that the vast majority of “active” hams are those holding membership in the League. Mr. Minster does not say what being a “radio-active” ham constitutes. Thus, that leaves it open to serve any purpose chosen by leadership. But shouldn’t the League be concerned with whoever “non-active” hams are? The CEO’s writings do not seem to indicate so, from my reading of all of his monthly columns and many interviews he has given to favorable social media outlets.

To gain some perspective outside the hobby, it is not unusual for a non-profit group to lower the bar in self-serving ways when it comes to setting performance metrics. Over my career, I’ve led evaluations of major national and state programs, such as the 4-H Program as required by Congress, the Smokey Bear media campaign for the U.S. Forest Service, the demand for substance abuse services for a state as required by SAMSHA to allocate many millions of dollars into treatment programs, and how the education reform legislation of the early 1980s reached public schools and the public. These are merely a few high points. I can state that this strategy by program administrators to lower performance expectations happens a lot. But it shouldn’t and program evaluators generally try to set independent standards for reasonable metrics. And, here, there is no public evidence that it is the case that non-members of ARRL are any less “radio-active” than members. Do you know anyone who is “tearing up the pea-patch,” on the air but who is not a League member? I know many. Think of how many you know to make a determination.

The share of licensed amateurs who are members is the bona fide metric for ascertaining how effective the National Association for Amateur Radio is in serving their market (see also Dan KB6NU). With the context of vested interests expressed by ARRL leadership to reduce the market to current members as being “radio-active” having been acknowledged, let’s take a comparative look at how membership trends are doing.”We know, and have known for years, that ARRL members represent the lion’s share of active hams. Moves to grow the hobby…have grown the total number of licensees, but not the number of radio-active hams.”

“The share of licensed amateurs who are members is the bona fide metric for ascertaining how effective the National Association for Amateur Radio is in serving their market (see also Dan KB6NU).“

Frank M. Howell, PhD K4FMH

Using both data requested from ARRL membership staff as well as the most recent two years of Annual Reports, I’ve put together a couple of graphs below. I’ve annotated the years over the 2000-2023 period (latest) with who served as CEO for the League. This gives the reader some sense who on whose watch membership trends are accountable.

As I wrote in a previous Social Circuits column, the long-serving Dave Sumner K1ZZ is the Elvis of CEO leadership with respect to membership trends. He retired and left the building in 2015. This year was the peak of membership numbers during this period. Under Tom Gallagher NY2RF from 2016-2018, membership began a decline of over 15,000. He came from Wall Street in the decidedly for-profit world of finance. Tom was replaced by Howard Michel WB2ITA, from a technology corporate management background. His three-year term seemed to begin righting the ship as membership numbers increased by a couple of thousand. At least they weren’t rapidly declining as was the case under his predecessor or his successor. The current CEO says he came aboard in 2020 but really appeared on the scene for the 2021 membership year. Membership has dropped like a stone thus far under his tenure, plummeting almost 10,000.

It is disconcerting at how poorly the ARRL forecasts membership or other relevant matters. (See also Dan KB6NU’s column.) In the 2023 Annual Report, for example, this graph (page 15) appears, without comment, on the prior year’s monthly membership trends and the ARRL’s forecast for the 2022 year. The forecast itself is optimistic, projecting to increase League membership by several thousand. The observed data shows a decline by over six thousand! There is no inclusion of the previous year’s membership run-up upon which the forecast was likely based, a serious error in presentation.

How can this forecast be done so poorly by a medium-capitalized non-profit corporation with a $14M budget? I’ve seen similar corporate forecasts before, created to please a Board who wants growth outlook in the market. The complete silence in the Annual Report narrative on the graph suggests this may be what happened. But, almost anyone who passed a course with forecasting trends (covering Exponential Smoothing, Moving Average, Holt-Winters, etc.) could produce a better forecast, certainly with accompanying narrative, and would know better about professional presentation of such a forecast. Here’s some insight as to why this may be so.

A few years ago, I asked Bob Interbitzen NQ1R of ARRL’s HQ Staff at a hamfest in Huntsville AL about my providing some statistical analysis to some of their in-house data, offering my work for free as a volunteer staffer in the Delta Division. His blunt response was “we have our own statisticians!” That was news to me from perusing the staff directory biographies. When I asked my Division Director, David Norris K5UZ, who these people are, his said, “The only statisticians at ARRL are those at Survey Monkey! [the online survey data collection company used by ARRL]” This lack of honesty and transparency in some League operations, coupled with very poorly performed analytical products, only further the wedge between the ARRL and the hobby market. Is it so that HQ can maintain the “tone” of the results so that it does not reflect poorly on the League’s operations? The reader will have to make their own judgment on that.

“Bob Interbitzen NQ1R: we have our own statisticians!

David Norris K5UZ: The only statisticians at ARRL are those at Survey Monkey!“

Comments to Frank M. Howell, PhD K4FMH at a hamfest

My ICQ Podcast podcast colleague, Dan Romanchik KB6NU, has argued for some years now that a clear market share benchmark should be used by the ARRL Board to evaluate how the League is doing toward what it says it does: being the National Association for Amateur Radio. That means for all licensed hams, whether they turn on a radio or not. Whether they are members or not. Whether they say nice things about HQ or League officials or not. The current CEO entered the building with a Second Century column in QST that preached inclusion. He’s right: that’s the non-profit business thing that so many have to face if they are to be successful: serve the entire market. I think Dan’s argument that 25 percent of all licensed hams would be a good start on which to evaluate performance.

Let’s see below how the League is doing on that score. From my experience in program evaluation, it’s not too large to be infeasible to reach but enough to push program implementation and delivery. Mimicking Smokey Bear: only the ARRL is the National Association for Amateur Radio!

With the growth in amateur licenses—shown above for this century—the League has simply sunk like a stone in garnering market share. The highest market share was at the beginning of this period under Dave Sumner’s tenure as CEO, some 23.6% of the licensed hams at that time. Once he left the building, the market share has plummeted under each successive CEO that has a corporate management background. (I’ll comment on this notation in the conclusions below.) Due to the decline in licenses from 2022-23, the share actually ticked back up but this was based on about 2,000 fewer members.

But is the ARRL alone in this lack of membership? Dan KB6NU’s column comparing the ARRL to, for instance, Germany shows how far the situation has declined in the U.S. The DARC has about 50 percent of all licensed hams as members. Dan noted that the former membership director at ARRL left to take a similar position in an professional academic, membership-focused, non-profit. The Gerontological Society of America is a group of which I’m familiar as a former Professor of Sociology. Out of the 7,500 licensed geriatricians in the U.S., there are over 5,500 members in the GSA. This is at least 73 percent of their market. Their professional members must get licensed and maintain it, not too dissimilar to amateur radio where hams take exams and undergo periodic license renewal. The GSA serves the membership and lobbies to support policies that favor the conditions of their professionals and their clients. Both DARC in amateur radio and the GSA in the field of gerontology are clearly more valued by the market base to which they address.

Do the dramatic declines in market share by the League associated with each successor CEO to the long-term David Sumner K1ZZ suggest that these executives were to blame? Well, the buck does stop on that desk.

But I do not think that the root problem per se lies with the individual residing in that office. All three post-Sumner CEOs were hired from for-profit corporate management candidates. The ARRL is a non-profit, tax-exempt membership-driven corporation. Is this an optimal candidate pool for a Chief Executive Officer position at the ARRL? There is the related organizational structure issue of governance authority lines for the position as it is only answerable to the Board after a contract period is nearing an end (although these actions are not made publicly available). There is an insular barrier around the CEO with regard to the operational staff as Board members are instructed to not give directions to staff members. Moreover, lower level elected representatives like Section Managers have NO authority over HQ staff, as they all report TO the Field Services Manager and CEO. The President of the League is not elected by the membership but the Board of Directors for a specified term, with possible succession. No wonder so many former members took a hike from paying dues to an organization where they have no say in how the services they are supposed to receive from being a dues-paying member are managed!

But let’s leave the organizational chart to a future column for now. It’s already being drafted.

Some Thoughts on the National Association for Amateur Radio

There are few alternate conclusions to draw upon here. From a statistical viewpoint alone, the ARRL is NOT the National Association for Amateur Radio if the hobby market is the focus. As the 2023 Annual Report describes, the League does engage many hams into their activities: 7,000 volunteer staff (I am one); 26,000 Volunteer Examiners; about 200 Volunteer Monitors (I am also one who helped Riley Hollingsworth organized it); and various others totaling some 57,000 volunteers within its membership. Some, like me, are duplicates. But this engagement is very small compared to the hobbyist market to which the League claims to organize, lead and protect. There is no ignoring that fact.

Unfortunately, one of the key leaders, Division Director Fred Kemmerer AB1OC, was recently not re-elected to his Board position. I tried contacting him for some related information for this article, as directed by CEO Minster but he has not replied after two tries. I can’t actually blame Fred AB1OC per se but this is not a good footing for internal operations for the CEO to refuse to answer a question about a factual statement in the Annual Report, a fiduciary document. The extant conditions surrounding the ARRL do not lead me to think that there will be a bull-market turnaround in membership. There is a dire need to rethink how the HQ operates to serve members and the hobby market. The latter is strong, the not very well-known aging problem notwithstanding, but the organizing association is not doing well.

“There is a dire need to rethink how the HQ operates to serve members and the hobby market. … A wonderful drill bit make make the wrong hole if the hole in question requires a different geometry to be a good fit. Ask any homebrewer who builds things. A CEO from a for-profit career line just may not have the membership-focused, non-profit fit to be effective.“

Frank M. Howell, PhD K4FMH

The League’s standing among licensed hams, the current CEO’s attempt to paint only within the lines of an unknown “radio-active” segment to the contrary, is very poor. There is ample online media commentary to elaborate on this as well as an outsider group that provides critique to League actions, largely over governance issues. The Board of Directors has recently assigned a group to develop a strategic plan for the future. It is an insider-driven committee which is a an all-too-frequent and major mistake in program evaluation. Insiders already have vested-interest solutions whereas knowledgeable outsiders can more likely see the forests over the trees. Engaging non-member hams as well as member hams who do not hold office to give insights is key in this situation. But this tends to frighten the extant power structure so there are many fool-hardy reasons to not include this type of free and unfettered input.

My take as a volunteer “flunky” in a single Division under the two previous Directors is that it is not necessarily personal but positional in terms of leadership failure at HQ. A wonderful drill bit make make the wrong hole if the hole in question requires a different geometry to be a good fit. Ask any homebrewer who builds things. A CEO from a for-profit career line just may not have the membership-focused, non-profit fit to be effective. From the management literature (obtained from a simple Google search for “management in corporate versus non-profit organizations”), a brief reminder of the different emphases might be useful. As a side note, I learned much of this information back in the 1990s while in the US Department of Agriculture’s Administration School, the large one in the world. This stuff is far from new.

• Primary Goal: Corporate management aims to maximize profits for shareholders, while non-profit management aims to fulfill the organization’s social mission and serve the community.
• Decision-Making Focus: Corporate decisions are often driven by financial returns and market competition, while non-profit decisions prioritize the impact on beneficiaries and alignment with the mission.
• Funding Sources: Corporations generate revenue through sales and services, while non-profits rely on donations, grants, and fundraising activities.
• Board Composition: Corporate boards typically consist of shareholders and business leaders with a focus on financial performance, whereas non-profit boards often include community members, volunteers, and individuals passionate about the cause.
• Performance Metrics: Corporate performance is measured by profit margins, return on investment, and stock price, while non-profit performance is often assessed based on program impact, beneficiary satisfaction, and fundraising success.
• Resource Allocation: Corporate management may allocate resources more readily to high-profit initiatives, while non-profits may prioritize programs with significant social impact even if they are less financially lucrative.
• Compensation Structure: Corporate executives often receive large salaries and bonuses tied to financial performance, while non-profit leadership may have lower salaries with a greater emphasis on benefits to the community.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Corporations primarily engage with shareholders and customers, while non-profits need to actively engage with donors, volunteers, beneficiaries, and the broader community.

Does the reader see the difference in how a CEO candidate, as currently situated in the non-profit corporation of the ARRL, might operate very differently if s/he comes from a corporate vs a non-profit career background? Does that help us in understanding the membership data? I think so.

These data results show demonstrably that, with a possible token exception of Howard Michel, this for-profit corporate management CEO pool for hiring ARRL top management has not lead to a greater share of the hobbyist market. Indeed, this share has been dropping like a stone under this hiring pool model for CEO leadership.

Would hiring top management from the non-profit sector yield a more effective outcome? Would not having a Chief Executive Officer at all but replacing it with a Chief Operating Officer from a membership-service non-profit background be a better fit for the ARRL? This would remove the unelected “executive” authority element from the position that has been a core element in the clash with Board members, HQ staff, and the membership. How about doing what other membership-service non-profits do and elect the President directly from membership votes?

My conclusion? It’s not a personal failure of each CEO. It’s an organizational failure of hiring from a poorly fitting pool of candidates into an organization formed over a century ago to relay wireless messages across the country. Should part of the pending strategic plan being developed by the National Association for Amateur Radio consider a substantial restructuring of the organizational chart, authority lines, and governance driven through elections of the President, Board, and Section Managers by the membership? For the amateur radio hobbyist, this might seem dire. But from an objective organizational viewpoint, it is also an opportunity emerging from a crisis. That crisis is a pending organization that is heading toward skin-and-bones to quote Bob Dylan.

What would an entrepreneur see and opportunity in a marketplace where the long-time leader is not reaching 80 percent of the known market? Especially with follow-on fringes of potential market growth (i.e., non-licensed but interested persons) that might be reached by new approaches? There is ample room in this market for another hobby organizing group, perhaps one that is driven by online technology that reduces costs, is decentralized to reach the evolving post-Boomer generations, and more grass-roots oriented in terms of authority structure. Would such a group make a credible foray into being a competitive organizing hobby association? What about a competitor to QST that is only in PDF format costing, say, $10 a year to subscribe? One that is not the “Better Homes & Gardenias” style of magazine editorially but one that has technical material many former ARRL members say they miss from the previous editorial style of QST some 13 years ago now? If lobbying were left to the League, a new organizing group could supplant LoTW, QST et al., contest management (think of what POTA has done in five years), emergency communication without tears, and so forth. Is this a possibility? Should it be?

That’s up to the ARRL’s actions to reclaim the market. I am doubtful. But there is a large segment of the hobbyist market that is there not being served by membership services in the American Radio Relay League of today. Hmm. Australia has for years had two organizing associations…

11 Responses to “The Decline in ARRL Membership and Market Share, 2001-2023”