<>I was recently on the NAR webpage where they boast about having over
<>65,000 members over the last 30 (or so) years. How many paid members
<>does NAR have now? 5000, more, less?
That's 40 years. So if we assume the average member has been in for 40 *
(5000/65,000) we get 3.08 years.
<>If its 65K and 5k then only 7.7% are still NAR members.
<>TRA has had about 7500 members over about 16 years and about 2500
we get an average membership period of
16 * (2500/7500) or about 5.33 years.
So about 33% are still TRA.
<>NAR has lost 60,000 members, and TRA has lost 5,000 in half as
Absolute numbers of lost members is a bad comparison for organizations of such
different sizes and ages.
the relevent figures would be a 3 year NAR average membership duration vs a 5
year TRA average membership duration.
My figures assume a constant membership for both organizations, If one is
undergoing a growth spurt now, it would give the impression of a longer
average time as a member. (if the NAR had been going along at 2500 members
for the last 40 years, and then membership jumped to 5000 last year, the real
average membership duration would be more like 1.5 years, and we would have no
way of knowing how long the new 2500 would stay. This hasn't happened at the
NAR, but if TRA has had a rapid growth spurt in the last couple years, it
could easily skew the numbers. Has TRA been growing rapidly? I don't know,
but it seems likely to me. If TRA membership was significantly lower 2 or
three years ago, the 5-year figure could be significantly too high. Of course
growth would be a separate issue to brag about.)
<>Hmmm, looks like NAR's the one with the repeat membership problem
To the extent that this is so, it may well be due to the fact that many NAR
members are kids. Another factor is that the NAR accumulated a lot of
ex-members during the space-crazed 60's. The loss of those members when space
became passe in the 1960's would not reflect on NAR management.