January 26, 2012
Communication is the Key
Ray LaCroix responds to Lance Walters' letter regarding
the U.S. Nationals Tulsa venue
Attn: Lance Walters, Arabian Horse Association
Mr. Walters,
Thank you very much for responding to your membership. The object of these letters, as I’m sure you will agree, is to reach some successful outcomes that will benefit the Arabian horse and the members of AHA.
As you state, it may be concluded, as per your analysis of the signatures, that I may not speak for the majority of the U.S. National exhibitors. I never claimed to. What I did was write a letter asking those who agreed with the letter, to endorse it. What you were not privy to was that there were 857 actual endorsements. (Due to technical issues, 182 of the endorsements could not be confirmed.) Those endorsements include 53 trainers and many, many amateurs. When you look at the number of horses and clients those 53 trainers represent, you can begin to understand the depth of the member discontent. Reading the 12 pages of comments left by the endorsers that were confirmed should have provided more clarity.
The simple point of all of this is that there are a significant number of members that don’t like the Tulsa venue and they are angry because they think you (AHA) are ignoring them.
Mr. Walters, in your letter you cited all of the ways that you communicate with the members. I went to the AHA Insider, your monthly newsletter, to see what kind of information was available. There was no mention of venue changes, future plans, footing changes, or anything relevant to the U.S. National show.
You mentioned that AHA’s Facebook page has 37,912 likes yet there is nothing on the page regarding plans for Tulsa. This page would be a fantastic way for you to disseminate information, however, I saw no informative posts. If you want some responses, it would be helpful to ask some questions.
No matter how you rationalize this situation by citing the ways that you communicate to the members, we are having this dialog — at this moment — because of a breakdown in communication. How else can you explain being completely unaware of this much discontent? Regardless of the communication systems that you have in place, it might be necessary to rethink the effectiveness of the systems. These signatures and comments are very real evidence of frustration that didn’t simply occur over night, but have existed for years.
In the second and third letters that I wrote, I suggested that you canvas your membership with a questionnaire in order to really find out what they think. Finding out what your membership wants will help you tremendously to plan for the future with a larger percent of membership approval.
At the U.S. Nationals, a questionnaire given to every exhibitor asking what was good, what was bad, and what and how things could be improved, would certainly be a simple and accurate way to benchmark the success of the show. Why not designate some people to actually walk the aisle ways during the show and ask if everything is up to standards? A visit to each main stabling area every other day by AHA representatives would do miracles for your “political capital” among your members as well as insure that you actually have your finger on the pulse of each national event. An inspection of the warm up areas by someone knowledgeable enough to be appointed “footing inspector” would insure that you stay ahead of contentious problems. I know that you might say that you have liaisons within the APAHA to do that for you, but the reality is that the APAHA liaisons are professional trainers and can be overwhelmed from simply attending to their own businesses at the show. Why not feel comfortable that you are taking care of business “in house,” instead of being dependent upon others?
In your letter you state that you are waiting for my recommendation. Please don’t wait any longer. My recommendation is for you to poll your membership. My personal preferences are irrelevant. This entire dialog is driven by the fact that the venue should be decided by the suitability of the venue to the needs of the show and the desires of the people who pay to show: your members. I have heard that Fort Worth is upgrading their facilities and that a facility is being constructed near Branson, Missouri. I know first hand that “Westworld” at Scottsdale is being improved. Read the comments that I provided you. Lots of people liked the east/west rotation. The main point to focus on is that Tulsa isn’t well liked, and is considered unsuitable by a sizable group of your members. How big of a group, exactly? Who knows? If this were my ship to run, I would find out. What might satisfy your membership is a statement by you that, while you are on your fact finding mission, you will look to the future with a different venue in mind.
AHA is a service provider. In business, when customers are angry, it is incumbent upon the business to solve the problem, or the customer will leave. In the end it all boils down to the question of “how can AHA function effectively without adequate input from the members?” Giving members a chance to be heard and have a say in what’s happening has to occur before decisions are made, not after the fact. Creating a channel of communication that is easy to use is not that difficult. In fact, two channels already exist, your Facebook page and your monthly newsletter. These two resources simply need to be used in an effective manner.
Honestly, the fact that this much discontent has built up, makes it clear that a change in AHA’s communication strategy is necessary. Denying this fact is not conducive to forward growth. I read a Facebook post by a concerned member that conveys a final thought perfectly: “The ear of the leader must ring with the voices of the people.”
I hope that this letter can be viewed as constructive. It is my fervent desire that this organization and this breed emerge from this situation stronger, and better educated through the implementation of clear communication channels that encourage more unity, and (less) dissension.
Respectfully,
Ray LaCroix
Read Ray LaCroix’s letter to Lance Walters, dated January 25, 2012
Read Lance Walters’ letter to Ray LaCroix, dated January 26, 2012
Ray LaCroix responds to Lance Walters' letter regarding
the U.S. Nationals Tulsa venue
Attn: Lance Walters, Arabian Horse Association
Mr. Walters,
Thank you very much for responding to your membership. The object of these letters, as I’m sure you will agree, is to reach some successful outcomes that will benefit the Arabian horse and the members of AHA.
As you state, it may be concluded, as per your analysis of the signatures, that I may not speak for the majority of the U.S. National exhibitors. I never claimed to. What I did was write a letter asking those who agreed with the letter, to endorse it. What you were not privy to was that there were 857 actual endorsements. (Due to technical issues, 182 of the endorsements could not be confirmed.) Those endorsements include 53 trainers and many, many amateurs. When you look at the number of horses and clients those 53 trainers represent, you can begin to understand the depth of the member discontent. Reading the 12 pages of comments left by the endorsers that were confirmed should have provided more clarity.
The simple point of all of this is that there are a significant number of members that don’t like the Tulsa venue and they are angry because they think you (AHA) are ignoring them.
Mr. Walters, in your letter you cited all of the ways that you communicate with the members. I went to the AHA Insider, your monthly newsletter, to see what kind of information was available. There was no mention of venue changes, future plans, footing changes, or anything relevant to the U.S. National show.
You mentioned that AHA’s Facebook page has 37,912 likes yet there is nothing on the page regarding plans for Tulsa. This page would be a fantastic way for you to disseminate information, however, I saw no informative posts. If you want some responses, it would be helpful to ask some questions.
No matter how you rationalize this situation by citing the ways that you communicate to the members, we are having this dialog — at this moment — because of a breakdown in communication. How else can you explain being completely unaware of this much discontent? Regardless of the communication systems that you have in place, it might be necessary to rethink the effectiveness of the systems. These signatures and comments are very real evidence of frustration that didn’t simply occur over night, but have existed for years.
In the second and third letters that I wrote, I suggested that you canvas your membership with a questionnaire in order to really find out what they think. Finding out what your membership wants will help you tremendously to plan for the future with a larger percent of membership approval.
At the U.S. Nationals, a questionnaire given to every exhibitor asking what was good, what was bad, and what and how things could be improved, would certainly be a simple and accurate way to benchmark the success of the show. Why not designate some people to actually walk the aisle ways during the show and ask if everything is up to standards? A visit to each main stabling area every other day by AHA representatives would do miracles for your “political capital” among your members as well as insure that you actually have your finger on the pulse of each national event. An inspection of the warm up areas by someone knowledgeable enough to be appointed “footing inspector” would insure that you stay ahead of contentious problems. I know that you might say that you have liaisons within the APAHA to do that for you, but the reality is that the APAHA liaisons are professional trainers and can be overwhelmed from simply attending to their own businesses at the show. Why not feel comfortable that you are taking care of business “in house,” instead of being dependent upon others?
In your letter you state that you are waiting for my recommendation. Please don’t wait any longer. My recommendation is for you to poll your membership. My personal preferences are irrelevant. This entire dialog is driven by the fact that the venue should be decided by the suitability of the venue to the needs of the show and the desires of the people who pay to show: your members. I have heard that Fort Worth is upgrading their facilities and that a facility is being constructed near Branson, Missouri. I know first hand that “Westworld” at Scottsdale is being improved. Read the comments that I provided you. Lots of people liked the east/west rotation. The main point to focus on is that Tulsa isn’t well liked, and is considered unsuitable by a sizable group of your members. How big of a group, exactly? Who knows? If this were my ship to run, I would find out. What might satisfy your membership is a statement by you that, while you are on your fact finding mission, you will look to the future with a different venue in mind.
AHA is a service provider. In business, when customers are angry, it is incumbent upon the business to solve the problem, or the customer will leave. In the end it all boils down to the question of “how can AHA function effectively without adequate input from the members?” Giving members a chance to be heard and have a say in what’s happening has to occur before decisions are made, not after the fact. Creating a channel of communication that is easy to use is not that difficult. In fact, two channels already exist, your Facebook page and your monthly newsletter. These two resources simply need to be used in an effective manner.
Honestly, the fact that this much discontent has built up, makes it clear that a change in AHA’s communication strategy is necessary. Denying this fact is not conducive to forward growth. I read a Facebook post by a concerned member that conveys a final thought perfectly: “The ear of the leader must ring with the voices of the people.”
I hope that this letter can be viewed as constructive. It is my fervent desire that this organization and this breed emerge from this situation stronger, and better educated through the implementation of clear communication channels that encourage more unity, and (less) dissension.
Respectfully,
Ray LaCroix