Dear Colleagues, 

In the words of the musical group The Grateful Dead, “What a long, strange trip it’s been.”  But like any trip, you eventually must reach the end.  And so it is with the Life Member/Lapsed Member Committee.  After many months of survey writing, photocopying, envelope stuffing, mailings, and tabulations, the results are finally in. 

Below I have divided the two surveys into their separate units and attempted to explain, in as much detail as possible, the make up and execution of the surveys.  It is my hope that the information provided gives the members of the AMC enough of a background to make reasonable and logical conclusions from the results. 
 

In 1993, then-Treasurer Mr. T. Warren Hardy, conducted a survey of our life members, using prepaid postcards, for the purposes of correcting any misinformation in AML’s database, and verifying the status of those members (still with us or passed away).  This survey met with great success in terms of surveys returned, and many records were updated.  However, as with any survey, not all were returned completed, and many were returned by the post office as being undeliverable as addressed.  It was to these specific life members (the no-shows and undeliverables) that the current life member survey was directed. 

Before any survey could be mailed, we first needed to determine two things:  1) what, exactly, did we want to find out, and 2) to whom should we mail the surveys. 

To determine the content of the life member survey, this committee consulted with AML Chairman--Dave Remine, Assistant Executive Director--Angela Luecht, and AML Actuary--William Lumsden.  We also received valuable input from various members of the AMC.  The final draft of the survey resembled the original 1993 version with slight modifications (copy attached).  One difference was, instead of a prepaid postcard, this survey was comprised of a one-sheet letter with a self-addressed stamped return envelope.  It was our belief that it would be a little harder to misplace a letter than a postcard, and our return rate might be slightly higher. 

To determine the recipients of this survey I first obtained all the original postcards that were returned from the 1993 mailings (as well as the undeliverables returned by the post office), and compared the names with the most current life member list.  All those life members who had not responded to the first mailing and whose join date was 1993 and earlier, and the undeliverables, were this committee’s target group. 

(Side note:  Some may question the rationality of mailing to members whose addresses were deemed undeliverable, but it was these members specifically that were our primary target.  The AMC must make every effort possible to contact our “lost” life members before actually considering them lost.  Actuary Bill Lumsden advises us that we should attempt at least 2-3 contacts before removing any life member from our lists.  This survey would be considered our second try.) 

Once the list of life members had been determined, the next step was to label the envelopes and mail the surveys.  Since we could not easily print categories of names from AML’s database it was simpler to request a printout of labels for the entire life member listing.  Two copies were requested:  one for addressing the outside envelope, and one for the return address envelope.  The national office was invaluable in this regard.  The staff provided all the envelopes AND labeled all 3000 of the return envelopes.  (They could not label the life members envelopes since I was the only one who had the list of names which were only check marks on the life member printouts.) 

I typed the survey at work in my off-time since my computer had taken a nose-dive at the time (this accounts for any and all misspellings on the survey), and made 500 copies on my office machine.  This saved Mensa the expense of copying. 

With assistance from Susan Ramsdell and Kim Jackowski, all envelopes were stuffed and mailed in record time.  Due date for returning the survey was 7/31/96.  The majority of surveys were returned by this date, however, to this day I am still receiving some stragglers.  For the purpose of our analysis, and to be as accurate as possible, I have included the findings from all surveys received to date regardless of the cut-off point. 

As with all surveys of this type there is a margin of error involved in the tabulations.  While all due care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the statistics, being only human, it is possible that I may have miscounted and/or miscalculated some of the numbers.  It is my hope that this margin of error is small and will not affect the overall outcome of the surveys. 

The results of the Life Member survey are attached. 
 

In an effort to reach out to our lapsed members and attempt to persuade them to rejoin our family of Mensa, the AMC approved a one-time survey or 1000 randomly selected lapsed members.  This survey had two primary functions:  1) to give AML a fairly good idea of the reasons why members lapse, and what they like and dislike about Mensa, and 2) to extend a personal invitation from AML Chairman, Dave Remine, to rejoin. 

In order to get this survey presentable, I first enlisted the assistance of Membership Officer, LeAnne Porter, and Susan Harmon (a member of Central Alabama Mensa with experience in these types of surveys).  Between the three of us, we developed what we considered a workable format.  At about this time AML hired Virginia Aquilar as the new Marketing Director of Mensa.  Virginia immediately became an integral part of this committee by taking what we had designed and developing a slightly different layout.  This new survey is the one that was eventually used, although no small credit is due LeAnne and Susan for the work they did. 

The national office had one helluva time getting the computer to cough up a random sampling of our lapsed members, but the nimble fingers of Russ Washburne coaxed the database and massaged the search functions until he hit upon the right formula to produce the sampling.  Ideally, we would have preferred to have a sampling of each of the individual years for which we keep files, but the computer system would not allow this and we had to settle for a random sample of 1000 lapsed members who had not renewed within the past three years combined. 

Due to the time delay from when the lists and labels were provided, and the actual mailing of the surveys, some members who had recently rejoined received this lapsed survey letter.  Needless to say, this caused some confusion and a few angry protests.  These were few and far between, but they did occur.  An apology by way of explanation is being offered in an article to be printed in the October Bulletin. 

As with the Life Member Survey a deadline was stated for return of the surveys but some stragglers are still being received.  In order to have the results as meaningful as possible, all surveys that have been received to date have been tabulated and counted.  Any surveys received after this report has been completed will not be included in the figures, but all surveys received will be sent to Virginia for her statistical analysis. 

An explanation is required in regard to the percentages shown in this survey.  Since many of the questions were multiple choice, and many responders circled more than one answer, the percentages shown are for each individual question rather than as a number of the surveys returned.  This makes understanding the surveys a little easier, in my opinion. 

The results of the Lapsed Member Surveys are attached. 
 

Many past members offered a multitude of reasons why they did not renew their memberships.  Too many to list them all here.  To do so would take many pages and be of little worth to the AMC as a whole.  All surveys have been given to Virginia Aquilar for her studies in Marketing.  If any member of the AMC wished to see any of the completed forms, I am sure Virginia would be more than happy to provide some select copies for their perusal.  However, this report would not be complete without at least offering some idea of the kinds of reasons listed on the surveys.  So I present below a few of the reasons and suggestions listed. 

1) Not much offered for younger members. 
2) To cliquish. 
3) lack of contact with local group. 
4) Poor service/response from National Office. 
5) Bad first experiences (generally associated with parties where the member was subjected to unwanted advances, too much drinking and/or attendees felt superior to the new member and bragged about their IQ). 
6) Fellowship program discontinued and/or no longer offering student discounts. 
7) Lack of intellectually stimulating activities. 
8) Socially inept members. 
9) Too much one-upsmanship. 
10) Too much dirty politics, both locally and nationally. 

Some suggestions listed were: 

1) Lower the annual dues, but raise the initial entrance fee.  For example, charge $100 to join Mensa the first year, but charge only $30 each year thereafter (or some variation of this). 
2) Provide an installment plan for paying dues. 
3) Reinstate the student discount. 
 

Thank you for allowing me to work on this committee.  It was an eye-opening experience.  For those interested in the numbers, the cost of conducting the two surveys combined was $1,302.  In closing I would like to thank LeAnne Porter, Susan Harmon, Virginia Aquilar, Angela Luecht, Russ Washburne and Dave Remine for their input and assistance in making this project happen.  I believe we met our goals, and have provided the AMC with some good food for thought.  Now let’s see if we can make something happen with this information.