LCPU State of the Union by Bob Singleton

Lancashire and Cheshire Photographic Union

State of the Union 2011 Questionnaire Report Christine Widdall BSc (Hons) EFIAP DPAGB BPE3

Contents Page: 1

The Author

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Definitions

Introduction

Aims and Objectives

Method

L&CPU State of the Union Questionnaire 2011

5 6 7 7 7

8 12 20

Initial planning and development of data collecting tools The population and the selection process Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 2 Return of Questionnaires Results of Questionnaire 1 Notes on the Qualitative Analysis Results of Questionnaire 2

38 Discussion 38 39 44 51 52

Return Rates Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 2 Accuracy of Results and Statistical Evidence Recommendations and Dissemination

53 Appendix 1 Questionnaire 1 57 Appendix 2 Questionnaire 2 62 Appendix 3 Letter to Club 63 64 64

Most Important...How to select participants from your members Return of the Questionnaires Questionnaire 2 - Special Instructions

The Author Christine Widdall BSc(Hons) EFIAP DPAGB BPE3 Christine joined Oldham Photographic Society in 1986. Apart from taking a short break of one year, during her time at University, she has served on the committee there since 1987, holding the posts of Secretary, Competition Secretary, Syllabus (Programme) Secretary and has been three times President. She is currently Webmaster and Joint Programme Secretary. Christineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s professional background, until 2007, was in the National Health Service, where she worked as a Senior Orthoptist at the Royal Oldham Hospital and in the Community. After studying research methods, statistical analysis, management and communication and achieving a First Class Honours Degree in the Behavioural Sciences in 1998, Christine became Research Lead for her Department and conducted, or was responsible for, a number of research projects including Patient Satisfaction Surveys and also developed information leaflets for patients. Since 2006, she has worked professionally in photography as a Partner in SteelOrchid Photography. After joining the L&CPU Executive Committee in 1999, Christine served as Minutes Secretary from February 2000 has subsequently held the positions of Hon. General Secretary, Vice President and currently holds the office of President until February 2012. She regularly has work accepted in national and international exhibitions, was recently appointed to the PAGB Judgesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; List and she is also a lecturer in the photographic community.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people whose assistance during this project was invaluable: Members of the Executive Committee of the L&CPU for giving me feedback on the proposed questions and proof reading the documents during the development stages, also for being subjects for the first pilot stage. The club members who helped with the second pilot stage. Thanks also to: Those club committees and individual club members who have put their time and effort into providing the questionnaire data, without which the project would not have been a success. Christine Widdall September 2011

Abstract Anecdotal evidence and the information supplied by member clubs of the Lancashire and Cheshire Photographic Union (L&CPU) indicate a year on year increase in club membership numbers across the Union. It would seem that members coming into the clubs are primarily digital photographers and may have different needs to those who predominantly use film and wet chemistry. Many are new to photography as a serious hobby and often appear to need tuition. Many clubs are rising to this challenge but some less so. In March 2011, a questionnaire survey was conducted within the Union with two main purposes: 1. To give feedback to the L&CPU Executive Committee on the services which they provide for clubs in order to determine where any improvements might be made. 2. To provide the clubs with a pool of information to share and use as they wish to develop their own services and programme of events. Two questionnaires were developed:Questionnaire 1 was sent to every club committee. Questionnaire 2 was given to a randomly selected sample of 10% of club members. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis were performed. The survey has been successful in providing a large pool of information for the Executive Committee and club committees to consider and, hopefully, in many cases, ideas to implement.

Definitions The Author/The researcher: The term “author” or “researcher” is Christine Widdall, sometimes writing in the “third person”, reverting to the first person in the Discussion section. Club: The word “club” has been used throughout this document as a generic term to describe all or any photographic clubs, photographic societies, camera clubs and other specialist photographic, AV or imaging groups who were members of the Lancashire and Cheshire Photographic Union at the time this survey was conducted, that is the summer of 2011. Population: The population studied consists of all members of photographic clubs, photographic societies, camera clubs and other specialist photographic, AV or imaging groups who were members of the Lancashire and Cheshire Photographic Union at the time this survey was conducted, that is the summer of 2011. Sample: All those members of clubs who were selected to take part in the survey are referred to as “the sample”. Participants (subjects): The individuals and clubs who returned their completed questionnaires. Quantitative research Employs experimental methods, quantitative measures and statistics...often known as “number crunching”. Quantitative analysis: That analysis which is made by mathematical and statistical calculation. This type of analysis is often regarded as more easily replicated, rigorous and objective. It allows statements of statistical significance to be made about the results. It does not rely on opinion. Qualitative research Qualitative research, broadly defined, means “any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Qualitative analysis: That analysis which is made by summarising and discussing the descriptive replies of the participants. It often gives richer, more complete and more realistic information, but findings may be less reliable and more “subjective”. Validity: In Quantitative research, validity is about whether the research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how “truthful” the research results are. Reliability: A reliable research project is defined by the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology.

Introduction Just over 10 years ago, against a background of falling membership in the clubs of approximately 4% per annum over several years and with the turmoil that the introduction of digital photography was causing in some clubs, the author was asked to conduct the first “State of the Union” Questionnaire Survey and Report. The 2001 survey flagged up a number of issues with which the clubs needed help and the author produced a follow-up document later in 2001, with the help of members of L&CPU Clubs and the Executive, which included how to attract new members, a suggested format for a Judges’ Charter, a model for clubs working together, how to apply for grants from the National Lottery and other Community Organisations and about setting up a Young Photographer’s Group. The survey results also helped in the planning of L&CPU services for the coming years. Above all, the 2001 survey was a wake-up call. It allowed clubs to share information with each other and with the L&CPU Executive in a way that had not been possible before. By random sampling from the club population, it was possible to make generalisations for the whole population, with some degree of accuracy, based on the information provided by a sample. It is possible to say that predictions made from the 2001 survey did, largely, come to pass. It allowed the L&CPU Executive to see what they were doing right and where improvements could be made. It was no magic potion and neither will the 2011 survey sort out all the problems that will be highlighted by the feedback it provides. It will pinpoint where there are problems but it cannot itself effect change - that requires the intervention of people. What people do with the information that this survey provides is the challenge that is now posed. Conducting a survey of this type is no mean feat...it takes many weeks of development and various pilot stages. The data tabulation and analysis takes a serious amount of time and so does the writing of the report. The data that has been collected is partly quantitative i.e. it can be analysed mathematically or statistically and partly qualitative i.e. it consists of data (in this case verbal information/opinions) that need to be read, understood, interpreted and reported effectively but also efficiently and without bias...the latter is often considered to be the most challenging type of data to analyse. There is also the cost of sending out the questionnaire forms to consider (this will be dealt with and explained in more detail under “Method”). Consequently, such a project is not to be undertaken lightly or too frequently. However, the Executive considered that, after 10 years, it was the right time to take a another “snapshot” of club life....a Census! When designing the new questionnaire, it was first necessary to review the last one, firstly to see what was achieved but also what were its shortcomings. The temptation is to just run the same questionnaire again, but photography and clubs have changed, so new questions had to be devised. Nevertheless, where a question could be used again, it was decided to do so, in order that comparisons could be made with data collected 10 years ago.

Aims and Objectives The declared aim of the project was to conduct a questionnaire survey with the following objectives: 1. To give feedback to the L&CPU Executive Committee on the services which they provide for clubs in order to determine where any improvements are needed or might be made. 2. To provide the clubs with a pool of information to share and use as they wish to develop their own services and programme of events.

Method Initial planning and development of data collecting tools The clubs themselves are the members of the L&CPU and it was clear that, as in the 2001 survey, seeking the opinion of their secretary/committee members would be an essential first step. This would provide information about how the clubs use L&CPU services and what they think of them in addition to the type of activities they provide themselves. A standard SWOT analysis (Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) would complete the questionnaire and provide a degree of qualitative feedback. The Executive Committee once again accepted the author’s recommendation that an effective way of gathering information would be to ask club members themselves. This would allow a much greater sample of individuals to make their voices heard, not just the seasoned committee members. It would provide a different type of data, so would need a different data collection tool. Club members could be asked to give information that would be useful to their clubs as well as to the L&CPU. Two questionnaires were developed. In each case, the questionnaires went back and forth between the author and Executive members until all could agree the wording of the questions. Some secretaries asked for inclusion of new items which came within their own area of speciality. Once the questions had been developed, the questionnaires were first piloted within the Executive. This first pilot stage was intended to identify any inconsistencies of numbering, typographical errors, spelling errors, ambiguity of questions, completeness and so on. This was an iterative process until each participating executive member was satisfied with the resulting documents. At the same time, the author was paying attention to how the data would be analysed. Likert (graded) scales would provide a degree of spread of opinion in quantitative data, rather than always using simple yes/no options. There would also be the opportunity for participants to add information that wasn’t specifically asked for as qualitative data. A second pilot stage was performed. Several clubs were asked to partake in the second pilot. Both questionnaires were piloted and the participants were asked to highlight anything they didn’t understand or found ambiguous, errors, omissions and the time to took to fill in. No problems came to light, so the Questionnaires were considered to be ready for distribution.

The population and the selection process At the time the survey was conducted, the population of the L&CPU consisted of approximately 3,800 club members, based on the annual returns that the clubs sent in during the summer of 2010. It would be impossible to sample the whole population, because of the cost, timescale and logistics of handling such a huge volume of data, particularly of the qualitative kind. The declared club membership numbers were used to calculate how many questionnaires to be sent to each club, based on a quota system of approximately 10%. Membership numbers were rounded up or down i.e. a club with 30-34 members received 3 copies and a club with 35-39 members received 4 copies. 95 copies of Questionnaire 1 were issued and 385 Questionnaire 2. Both Questionnaires were to be returned by the end of June 2011. The selection process is crucial. In research, it is possible to make generalised comments about the whole population under study, based on the data collected from a few. That’s how we know about the efficacy and side-effects of drugs, for example. You don’t need to investigate every person - but you do need to analyse results from a TRULY RANDOM sample. In a randomly taken sample of, say, 10% of 3,800 individuals, you can say with some degree of confidence that the proportions that occur within the sample match the proportions that occur in the whole population...e.g. if a correctly taken random sample gives a proportion of 20% women to 80% men within the sample, it is possible to use statistical methods to calculate exactly how confident you can be about that same proportion occurring in the whole population, in this case L&CPU club members. The more questionnaires that are returned the more confident you can be that your answers are representative or VALID. But validity was to a large extent to be in the hands of others, not the author but the club secretaries. The validity of the results would largely depend on clubs carrying out the sampling process as instructed (as well as accuracy and truthfulness in the replies given). It was clear, therefore, that the author would have to find a relatively easy sampling process which clubs could carry out on her behalf. Two main sampling methods were chosen, based on “raffle” and “short straw” processes. Either would give an equally random effect and both were simple to understand and implement (see Appendix 3 for the instructions given). A random number generator was provided as an internet link for those clubs who needed to use the alternative method of selection because they finished the season early. These clubs were instructed to sample directly from their membership files. Perhaps it sounds complicated but in reality was not! The sample of members selected should now contain experienced and new members, men and women, old and young, ordinary and committee members etc. in proportion to their existence in the main population of club members. Afterwards the author made a number of discreet enquiries with a number of club members as to how the sampling had been done at their club. In the majority of cases, the answer was quite satisfactory. In one or two cases, it gave rise to concern. How much the occasional club official “doing the sampling his/her own way” have affected results, we will never be 100% sure. The author considered leaving out

results from clubs where it was known that sampling has not been 100% ideal. However she decided that such action might also have the effect of ignoring valuable qualitative information and decided to include all returned questionnaires anyway.

Questionnaire 1 One copy of Questionnaire 1 was sent to each of 95 clubs in the current membership, by post, with instructions that the club secretary should fill it in with the help of the club committee if required.

Questionnaire 2 A quota of Questionnaire 2 was sent to each club by post with instructions on how to select participants. Note: Both questionnaires can be seen in the Appendices along with the instructions to clubs on how to select participants. The timing of issue of the questionnaires was not ideal. Since a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Big Day Eventâ&#x20AC;? had not been held for over three years, it was essential to get feedback about the Big Day 2011, so delivery of the questionnaires was not made until after the Big Day at the end of March. A problem had been anticipated with distribution of questionnaire to members of clubs that finish early for the summer (a small number end their season in March). For that reason, those club secretaries were sent the first batch of questionnaires and were also given special instructions on how to disseminate Questionnaire 2 to their members if their season had already ended. This included, for that group only, how to download Questionnaire 2 to email out to their members. Fortunately many complied with this request. It is worth noting here that it is perfectly possible to develop a questionnaire that is in electronic form to be filled in and submitted entirely on the Internet and this makes analysis very easy. Surveys of this kind abound on all sorts of subjects. Naturally they favour people who are accustomed to using the Internet. However, it is not easy to achieve random sampling this way and self-selecting samples are notoriously invalid and subject to bias. Also, it was necessary to weigh the cost of printing and posting questionnaires against the need to ensure that everyone has an equal chance of being selected to contribute and is able to handle the technology i.e. a pen and paper!

Return of Questionnaires The deadline for the return of the questionnaires was the end of June 2011. In fact a number were still being returned at the end of July and even one arrived in August and all were included in the analysis. The author carried out the quantitative analysis and produced graphs using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. All handwritten comments were read and summarised and the most important ones will be discussed later.

L&CPU State of the Union Questionnaire 2011 Results of Questionnaire 1 A total of 63 clubs returned their Questionnaire 1. This represents a return rate of 66%. The graph below shows the percentage of clubs replying “yes” to various questions about their activities. There are no major surprises, few clubs differing from the “standard model”. The main change since 2001 is that now twice as many clubs have a website of their own.

Percentage saying "yes" to questions about club activities

Hold internal competitions (Q5) Separate Digital and Wet Chemistry in Competitions (Q7) Reserve a parking space for visiting lecturers/judges (Q11)

95.2

13.8

42.5

Offer a drink on arrival to visiting lecturers/judges (Q12)

86.7

Club takes part in interclub competitions (Q15)

87.3

Offer organised photographic tuition to members (Q20) Hold Annual Exhibition which the public can view (Q21)

67.7

82.3

Club has a web site (Q25)

90.5

Club committee uses L&C web site for information? (Q26)

98.3

Club is happy to receive L&CPU information by email (Q27)

93.4

PAGB handbook available to the person making the bookings (Q29)

96.8

Willing to report on the performance of judges and lecturers (Q31) Find Judges' categories helpful. (Q32)

100

75.0

86.7

Percentage of clubs with steady, rising or falling membership (Ques 2) The pie chart below shows the proportion of clubs whose membership is stable, falling or rising. In fact only 7 clubs out of 63 returning questionnaires are reporting a falling membership and this will be discussed in more detail later in the document. 89% of clubs are showing either steady or rising membership, compared to 2001 when there had been a net loss of club membership members for a period of several years averaging at 4% per year. 2011 Membership Trends:

STEADY 43%

RISING 46%

FALLING 11%

Lecturer Bookings (Ques 3, 4 , 30) Activities vary widely between clubs in the L&CPU. Clubs showing lectures as part of their annual programme engaged between 2 and 26 Lecturers per year, with an average of 11 and booked an average of 7 L&CPU Lecturers, up to a maximum of 20 L&CPU Lecturers per year. Only 39 clubs (62%) send a booking form by post. Internal Competitions (Ques 6-10, 33) 59 out of 63 clubs (94%) hold internal competitions. The number of internal competitions varied from 3 to 16 per year, with an average of 8. Of 58 clubs declaring whether or not they separate digital entries from wet chemistry photography in their internal competitions, 50 clubs said they did not separate them and 8 did. 34 clubs (54% of participants) did not divide their internal competitions into different classes (e.g novice or beginner, intermediate, advanced and such). 17 clubs had 2 classes and seven clubs had 3 classes. Out of 54 clubs (37%) accepting print entries, only 20 had rising print numbers, 17 (31%) had a falling number of print entries and 17 (31%) were steady. The average number of L&CPU judges booked in a year was 8, the least 2 and the most 12, for those clubs who hold internal competitions. No suggestions were made on alternative categorisation of judges.

Ques 34: The number of prints, projected digital images (PDI) and combined Prints and PDI that a club consider to be the maximum a judge would be expected to comment on in a single evening

Average, Median, Maxima and Minima Average

Median

Maximun

Minimum

350

300

300 Number

250 200

150

150 100

150 40

90 80

86 80

72 70

0 Prints

PDI

Combined Prints and PDI

Medium The graph above shows the replies to the subsections of question 34, which asked how many prints, PDI and combined prints and PDI a judge should be expected to comment on in a single evening. The first two bars show the mean (average) and median (most quoted value). The third and fourth bars show the maximum and minimum number quoted. Film Usage (Ques 13) Film usage is drastically down since the 2001 survey. Out of 53 clubs answering the question “How many of your members use transparency film?” 22 (42%) clubs said “none” and of those remaining 58% of clubs who said they had members using transparency film, the average was 1.4 members per club. The average number of members using print film was 1.3. Ten clubs did not answer this question, presumably as they did not know the answer with certainty, so for the 53 clubs answering the question, the total number of slide workers was stated to be 72 and the total number of print film users was stated to be 67. This will be discussed later in the document. L&CPU Competitions (Ques 16) Four clubs (6%) stated that they take part in all L&CPU competitions and 49 clubs (78%) said they take part in some. Of the 6 clubs (9.5%) who never take part in any L&CPU competitions, reasons given were: “We see competition as divisive and we prefer to get on with photography.” “Better things to do - we prefer to have discussion/appraisal evenings.” “Not enough interest.”

“No interest/lack of confidence.” “Not competent enough.” “Distance.” (This last reason is curious, as this Lancashire-based club could send in their entries by post for some L&CPU competitions). L&CPU Exhibitions (Ques 22) On the question of whether the L&CPU should provide an exhibition of projected digital images at the time of the Annual Print Exhibition, only 6 clubs said “no”. 25 clubs (40%) wanted such an exhibition and 26 clubs (41%) didn’t mind. If the L&CPU were to provide a projected image exhibition, 50 clubs (79%) wanted it online all year round, one for a limited period, 23 clubs (37%) wanted a TV display at the print venue (in most cases additional to an on-line exhibition) and 4 clubs suggested other means of showing the images, i.e. CD, DVD or “several digital picture frames at the Exhibition”. L&CPU Folios (Ques 24) Out of 63 clubs answering, 46 (73%) showed the colour print folio as prints, 7 (11%) looked at the CD instead of the prints and one club used both, with 5 clubs not showing the colour prints folio at all. 44 clubs (70%) showed the mono prints folio as prints, six (9%) showed the CD, 7 did not show at all and one club used both the prints and CD. 32 clubs (49%) showed the illustrative folio as prints, 10 (16%) showed the CD instead, one club showed both prints and CD and 4 clubs did not show at all. 40 clubs (63%) showed the digitally projected image folio, 4 did not show it and 5 clubs showed the slides (transparencies). Communications (Ques 27-28) 93% of clubs were happy to receive L&CPU Communications by email. Of those clubs who had experienced difficulty receiving L&CPU information, two clubs noted that their Club Secretary did not pass on information. One club suggested that competition information should be sent to the club competition secretary, not the secretary (again, because the information was not relayed). Another said that there had been a problem with the L&CPU password on the web site for the L&CPU AGM 2011. One club (secretary presumably) had “erratic or extant internet access”. One club asked for a list of lecturers and judges to be made available on-line. One club felt that email did not have the same impact as a letter. Another wished to have printed material sent to them to put on their club notice board (“to promulgate at the club”).

One club had specific complaints that 1. Emails sent to L&CPU personnel were not replied to. 2. L&CPU Events information was not put on the web site or of poor quality. 3. Information given to the L&CPU was not passed on. One club secretary had informed the L&CPU of his change of contact details but the database had not been updated promptly.

Notes on the Qualitative Analysis The largest section of qualitative data was collected at the end of the questionnaire. Such open questions give clubs the freedom to put forward ideas rather than just answering “yes/no” questions and gives not only a wealth of information, but also gives the opportunity for “unusual” ideas to be put forward that may not be considered in wholly quantitative data. All the qualitative data has been read and summarised in a tabular form and the results are shown on the next pages, with discussion on the most important points made in the Discussion section later in the document. For simplicity, it was necessary to group comments together where they had a similar/same meaning. Questions 35 and 36 were concerned with how clubs attract and retain members. Questions 37-40 were in the form of a standard SWOT analysis. A SWOT Analysis is often used in business and is a useful technique here for understanding club strengths and weaknesses, and for encouraging them to think about and identify both the opportunities open to them and the threats their organisation faces. The final open question (41) was designed as a “catch-all” so that clubs could highlight any points that had not been covered in the questionnaire. On the next pages, detail is included of the comments made by the clubs. The numbers in the right hand column refer to the number of similar comments.

Answers given to question 35: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Please state any ways that work for your club in attracting new membersâ&#x20AC;? Attracting members

Total

Excellent club web site/keeping web site up to date

Exhibitions

Local Newspaper ads/ parish magazine/local press/weekly newspaper report/marketing

Word of mouth/reputation/local networking

Posters in local venues/shops etc

Open day/evening

Personal invitations/introductions

Instantly welcoming prospective members and introducing them to members

Local Radio ads Running Digital Photography course for beginners in summer/running evening workshops Taking part in local arts/ local community events e.g. local carnival, joint exhibitions and projects

Good club syllabus/programme/ lectures appealing to less experienced photographers

Out of season activities/Photographic walks that are open to the public

Running open photographic competitions locally

Having success in national photographic world/having a national profile

Council web site listing Enquire of new members how they heard about the club (feedback on what method is successful)

Facebook

Free trial period for prospective members

Hard sell when visiting other community groups

Local library referrals

Make sure the club president is female

Offer free photographic magazine (up to 6 months old)

Outreach to schools

Positive attitude to all photographic styles

Printed material available about programme and club

Vibrancy

3 3

Answers given to question 36: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Please state any ways that work for your club in retaining existing membersâ&#x20AC;?

Retaining Members

Total

Good varied programme/covering all aspects of photography

Ask members what they want/have a suggestion book/meet members' needs

Provide practical workshops/share knowledge/tutorials

Welcoming/ keep a good rapport/friendly atmosphere/sense of belonging

Involve all members in club activities/inclusivity

Good communication/emailed newsletter

Photographic trips/holiday

Internal Competitions

Evolve/Forward looking/Not being set in your ways

Good Lectures

Buddy system/mentor system

Running a summer programme/continuity through summer break

We have problem retaining members/rely on members' loyalty

Value for money/affordable subscription rate

All go to pub after meeting to socialise/have a licensed bar/socialising

Keep a sense of fun

Mid-session break to encourage socialising

Who knows?

Encouragement and praise of members' efforts

Treat everyone with respect

Critique sessions

Include all media including slides

Members' evenings to show their work

Good web site

Welcome pack

Quality of venue

Ensuring continuity of committee

Involvement in local photographic projects

Monitor members' satisfaction and feedback to committee

The SWOT analysis begins here with what clubs consider to be their strengths (Q37) - the number indicates how many similar responses Strengths

Total

Friendly/welcoming/sociable atmosphere

Willing to help each other/sharing information/in-house experts/offer tuition

The knowledge/expertise/high standard of our members

Excellent Venue/Location/Meeting room/parking facilities

Diversity/mix of abilities/balance between men and women/range of ages

Good programme/range of activities

Dedicated/enthusiastic committee/chairman/secretary

Good supportive loyal /longstanding members

Informality of meetings/committee meetings Competition with local clubs/external competition/external competition success/competitive

Enthusiasm of members

Facilities for members to borrow equipment

Increasing/high/stable member numbers

High profile/profile within L&CPU/involvement within L&CPU

Level of participation of members in club activities, lecturing, demonstrations

Accessibility of licensed bar/socialising after meetings

Affordable subscription

Every member is a committee member

External events/extra-curricular events

Innovation

No competitions

Outward-looking/looking for new initiatives

Sufficient funds for good programme

A "Let's see your photography" attitude

Access to press coverage

Flexible constitution

Free trial membership period

Good equipment

Heritage

Including as any members as possible in inter-club competitions

Like minded people with a common interest

Members doing "qualifications"

New members

No named chairs

SPS exhibition providing a platform for young photographers

We like to do photography rather than be lectured to

Wide Networking

Question 38: What clubs consider to be their weaknesses - the number indicates how many similar responses

Weaknesses

Total

None reported

Insufficient younger members/lack of targetted youth programme

Specific weaknesses identified in club programme

Ageing membership/age profile

Insufficient members/too few active members/failure to retain new members

Interclub/external competition performance/reluctance to enter by members

Member apathy/lack of volunteers/lack of focus

Size of meeting room/restrictive venue

Difficulty in attracting committee members/always falls to same people

Lack of adequate disabled access

Lack of exhibition space/venues/lack of regular exhibitions

Financial viability with falling membership

Cost of expansion with rising membership

(In a large club) we don't know all of our members

Accessibility in winter

Alienating experienced members by concentrating on new members

Difficulty in finding interesting speakers

Dwindling number of prints

Lack of communication within club

Lack of contact with UK clubs and insular attitude of some members

Lack of creativity

Lack of female members

Non-inclusivity

Not being able to meet all members' hopes and aspirations

Not enough committed serious photographers

Not enough done to welcome and encourage new members

Parking problem

Personality clashes

Poor venue

Practicals difficult because of high membership numbers

Really poor on portraiture

Reluctance to embrace new ideas/inertia

Too varied a membership

Trying to provide something for everyone

Website

Younger people may prefer internet photo group rather than physical club

Question 39: What clubs consider to be their opportunities - the number indicates how many similar responses Opportunities

Total

None

Attract and maintain new members

More success/involvement in external competitions

Advance members' skills in all aspects of photography

Promotion via public exhibitions/display of members work

Embrace/stimulate an interest in digital photography/keep pace with trends

Community involvement to raise club's profile

Develop a youth programme/working with Colleges and Universities etc

Enable members to fulfil their/our aspirations

Offer tuition, in club and online via our web site

"The Future"

Attract new members who are taking first steps in photography

Attract professional speakers and photographers to the club

Develop better publicity and marketing strategies

Develop charitable aims

Encourage active participation of the members

Encourage AV work

Encourage members to try for the PAGB Merit Awards

Improve projection quality with new equipment

Injection of new ideas from newer younger members

Maintain traditional skills

More diverse membership

Move to a better venue

One on One learning experience

Plenty of summer visitors

Promote members' enjoyment of photography

Promote outings

Share the enjoyment of photography

To be the best club in the L&CPU

To share work and views on images

Question 40: What clubs consider to be threats - the number indicates how many similar responses Threats

Total

None

Rising cost of running the club

Advancing age of members/death/age profile/lack of younger members

Lack of volunteers to help run the club/be on committee

Threat of loss of venue, "tired" venue, keeping/finding a venue

Apathy

Cost of technology, buying/replacing computers projectors etc

Falling member numbers/non-retention of members leading to reduced income

Complacency

Cost implication of having to move to a larger room

Cost of membership

Lack of/difficulty in finding local exhibition space

Members not being able to give priority to club/less personal time

Not evoloving

Trying to find a programme to suit all abilities and interests

Becoming stale

Being banned (this may refer to plagiarism issues)

Clubs with unethcal aims based on elitism

Failure to accept image making as an artistic expression

Failure to deliver our promises and expectations

Internet critique sites/photo sharing sites

Keeping track of what work has been used before in external comps

Lack of time/resources to develop the web site

Loss of the printed image in favour of digital projection

Management of the premises

Night school classes

Not being inclusive to all members

Parochial attitudes

Personality clashes within the club

Storage problems for equipment

Too much dependency on technology

Question 41: Open question inviting any further comments Below is a listing of all additional comments (abbreviated for convenience). • We would welcome judges from the UK mainland if costs were neutral to our club funds. We appreciated the L&C financial support given for the President’s (CW’s) visit in 2011. • Vary location of the Big Day and other events (Cheshire). • Judging sometimes leaves something to be desired/more time needed for judging. • Feedback form to comment on or criticise speakers and judges a good idea. • Organisation, by the L&CPU, of photo holidays desirable. • Want fewer lecturers showing their holiday pictures. • Many speakers and judges in the handbook are well below par and should be weeded out. There is a need for more and younger judges and speakers The Judges’ Course is excellent and more should be encouraged to attend. • More speakers offering techniques and fewer travelogues required. • We don’t know what the PAGB does - compared to the PSA, information is scarce. Having someone on the Executive, means that info from the L&CPU is now trickling down. We are encouraging people to get involved in PSA club membership and enter their work in PSA club competitions. • (L&CPU) competition rules are too strict and some relaxation is desirable. • We are quite happy with the L&CPU’s input - it is very well run. • L&CPU should introduce a new category for “photographic art” for heavily manipulated images. • L&CPU needs to be more progressive and consider the broader aspects of photography, to recognise photography as a tool/medium for artists. Needs to embrace new technologies e.g. in AV/video convergence. Should introduce internet technologies e.g. Paypal payments and make more effective use of email systems like Mailchimp. • There is an assumption that all software is compatible and held by clubs. • Please put on the website any information relating to clubs successfully attracting younger members. • “Wet photography” should still be a part of competitions and lecturers’ presentations. Many media study students are interested in non-digital photography, movie and video etc. Thanks for the opportunity to join the L&CPU! • I have always had quick replies to my emails to the (L&CPU) committee. The L&CPU website needs re-designing to make it more user-friendly. A downloads area where ALL downloads can be found would be desirable.

Results of Questionnaire 2 223 individual club members returned their Questionnaire 2, a 58% return. The two graphs below show the age and gender demographics of participants. Age profile of sample (Ques 2) Below is a comparison of age profiles of participants in 2001 and 2011.

Age profiles 2001 and 2011 2001 ages

2011 ages

Percentage

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 10-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70+

Age

Proportion of Male and Female Club Members in participants (Ques 3) Not included in the pie chart below is the one individual who ticked both male and female in the gender section.

Female 28%

Male 72%

Years of membership of their club and status of participants (Ques 4-5) The majority of participants had joined their club within the last five years. After that there is a gradual fall-off. The majority were ordinary members of their club. 80 67

Number

50 40

15 5

12-14

15-17

18-20

10 0 0-2

3-5

6-8

9-11

21+

Years

160

148

140 120

Number

100 80 63

60 40 20 6

Club Life

Delegate

0 Ordinary

Committee

Status

Executive

LCPU Life member

Percentage of participants who enter internal club competitions (Ques 6) Out of 120 participants who answered the question about whether or not they enter internal club competitions, 35 said “no” and 185 “yes”. These are shown as percentages on the pie chart below. Percentage who enter club competitions: No 16%

Yes 84%

Use of film amongst participants (Ques 7) The percentage of film users to participants not using film is shown below. Out of 45 film users amongst participants, 24 used transparency and 21 used print film, predominantly for making chemically produced monochrome prints.

Film users 17%

Don't Use Film 83%

Media use now and expected media use in 5 years time (Ques 8-9) The blue (dark) bars show the percentage of participants who are producing work in a given medium now. It is probably not surprising to see that only about 3% of the sampled members still work in traditional wet colour chemistry methods, nor should it be a surprise that more of the traditional workers are using monochrome printing methods than colour. Those numbers are predicted to be steady over the next five years. Almost all wet chemistry workers also used digital processing. However, of the 10% who still use traditional slide material, only half of those expect to still be working with transparency in five years time. The digital revolution is plain to see in the figures, with 81% producing digital colour prints, 57% digital monochrome prints and 78% producing digital files for projection. In all three cases, a modest rise in production in these media is expected in the next five years for those already working in those media. Maybe the biggest surprise is in the number of people working in the audio-visual medium, with a very modest 17% at present but predicted to approximately double over the next five years. If this were to be mirrored across the whole population, about 32% of club members will be working in AV in five years time.

Expect to produce in 5 years Chemical Colour Prints

Produce now

3 3

Chemical Mono Prints

7 8

Digital Colour Prints

Digital Mono Prints

Original Slide

10 78

PDI

4 4

Slides from Digital AV

0.0

20.0

40.0 Percent

60.0

80.0

100.0

The importance given to various club activities (Ques 10-20) Participants were asked to score from 1 to 5 the importance they attached to various club activities where 1 = not at all important 2 = fairly unimportant 3 = unsure/no opinion 4 = fairly important 5 = very important The above scale is called a Likert Scale. The responses from all participants are averaged and tabulated below and this gives a measure of the relative importance of various activities. So we can say that the most important club activities â&#x20AC;&#x153;on averageâ&#x20AC;? are internal competitions, educational talks and lectures and the least important is circulating folios.

Degree of importance of club activities Average of score out of 5 for all participants

3.5 Internal Club Competitions External Competitions Educational Talks Lectures Outings Social Events Folios Practical/Studio Sessions Individual Tuition Exhibition Demonstrations

4.5

Club Activities (continued) When asked if the club provided all the activities that the participant wanted, 84% said yes and 16% “no”. The two graphs below show the 2011 figures and the 2001 survey results and demonstrate that more clubs are now catering for the majority of their members’ needs in 2011 than in 2001. The qualitative data relating to this question is reported later. Does the participant’s club provide all activities that are important (Ques 21) 2011 result: No 16%

Yes 84%

2001 result:

No 21%

Yes 79%

The remaining questions relate to participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; use of L&CPU services Communication: (Ques 23-26) A batch of questions was used to ascertain how and if participants felt that they had access to the various emails and newsletters that are provided electronically for the dissemination of information to clubs. (A weekly email is sent to each club secretary and interested parties to inform them of L&CPU events and web site updates. L&CPU Executive meeting reports are posted on the web site. PAGB newsletters are emailed to interested individuals and posted on the web site. L&CPU and PAGB events are advertised on the web site, by emails to each club and sometimes with posted flyers). The responses are given below, with percentages shown of how club members receive this information (or not).

How participants receive communications

In Person

Through my Club 0%

L&CPU Weekly Emails from Webmaster

L&CPU Executive and General Meeting Reports

PAGB New sletter

L&CPU Events

PAGB Events

20%

40%

Don't Know 60%

80%

No 100%

Percentage of participants who had visited the L&CPU Web Site (Ques 28)

No 35%

Yes 65%

General impressions about using the web site (Ques 29-31) Each bar is divided up to show the percentage of answers on various aspects of web site usage i.e. 68% think the web site is generally useful but only 59% can easily find the information that they want. 28% do not think the web site is generally useful. 32% do not find the information they are looking for.

Yes

Sometimes

THINK WEBSITE IS GENERALLY USEFUL

INFORMATION EASY TO FIND

FIND NAVIGATION EASY

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Satisfaction with aspects of L&CPU Web Site (Ques 32-37) Participants were asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 their satisfaction with various aspects of the web site, where 1 2 3 4 5

= = = = =

very dissatisfied fairly dissatisfied unsure/no opinion fairly satisfied very satisfied

and the responses of all participants was averaged to give produce the graph below:

DOWNLOADABLE DOCUMENTATION DOWNLOADABLE ARTICLES COMPETITION RESULTS/REPORTS

PAGB NEWS

L%CPU NEWS

NEWS OF L&CPU CLUBS 3

3.25

3.5

3.75

4.25

4.5

Level of satisfaction

4.75

Frequency of use of L&CPU web pages (Ques 38-49) Participants who do use the web site were asked to indicate how frequently they have visited individual pages on a scale from 1 to 5 where: 1 2 3 4 5

= = = = =

never seldom occasionally fairly often frequently

Frequency of use of individual pages of web site 2

2.5

3.5

4.5

FRONT PAGE EVENTS INFOBANK CLUB NEWS COMPS EXTERNAL COMPS L & CPU CLUBS FORUM/GALLERY DOWNLOADS PAGB LINKS

(Ques 50-52) The percentage of L&CPU forum users is shown below. It is interesting to see that more people think that the forum is a useful feature than actually use it.

Yes 0% IS A REGISTERED FORUM MEMBER

TAKES PART IN FORUM DISCUSSION THINKS THE FORUM PROVIDES A USEFUL SERVICE

20%

40%

No 60%

80%

100%

L&CPU Folios (Ques 54) The proportion of participants who see the L&CPU folios is as follows: No 13%

Yes 87%

Of those who don’t see the folios “our club doesn’t show them” was the most common reason given. (Ques 56-58) Satisfaction with aspects of the folios was measured on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = very dissatisfied 2 = fairly dissatisfied 3 = unsure/no opinion 4 = fairly satisfied 5 = very satisfied The average scores for each individual were plotted on the graph below:

VARIETY OF SUBJECTS QUALITY OF IMAGES NUMBER OF FOLIOS 3.5

4.5

Level of satisfaction

Participants were asked how they would prefer to see the print folios (as prints, PDIs or no preference) and the results are shown in the pie chart below. (Ques 59) No Preference 35%

Prints 42%

Digital Projection 23%

The L&CPU Annual Exhibition (Ques 61-68) Only 8% of participants had visited the Annual Exhibition (2010 at Kirkby Library). A measure of their satisfaction with various aspects of the exhibition was taken on a scale of 1 to 5 where: 1 = very dissatisfied 2 = fairly dissatisfied 3 = unsure/no opinion 4 = fairly satisfied 5 = very satisfied An average was taken and the results are shown on the next graph:

PUBLICITY LAYOUT MOUNTING/FRAMING LIGHTING DIRECTIONS TO VENUE OPENING TIMES WHERE IT WAS HELD 3.5

4.5

Level of satisfaction

L&CPU Annual Competitions (Ques 70-74) 39% of participants said that their work had been entered into the L&CPU Annual Competitions. 50% said their work was not entered and 11% did not know if their club had entered their work into the competition. Satisfaction with various aspects of the competition are shown below where: 1 = very dissatisfied 2 = fairly dissatisfied 3 = unsure/no opinion 4 = fairly satisfied 5 = very satisfied

Level of satisfaction 3.5

4.5

CATEGORIES

AVAILABILITY OF RULES CONDITION OF RETURNED WORK

(Ques 74) This question asked if the participant would enter a stand-alone competition for â&#x20AC;&#x153;first generation unmanipulated slidesâ&#x20AC;?. The pie chart below shows the answers. It is necessary to see this in conjunction with the discussion section of the report in order to interpret it.

Maybe 11%

Yes 39%

No 50%

The Big Day 2011 (Ques 76 and 84) 9% of participants attended the Big Day. 100% of those who attended said “yes” to the question “Are you likely to attend a Big Day in the future?”. Taking the responses of all 223 participants into account, i.e. including those who did not attend the Big Day 2011, the proportions who said they would be likely to attend a Big Day in the future are shown below.

Yes 21%

Maybe 60%

No 19%

(Ques 77-83) Satisfaction with various aspects of the Big day 2011 are shown below, where an average of all responses has been taken and: 1 = very dissatisfied 2 = fairly dissatisfied 3 = unsure/no opinion 4 = fairly satisfied 5 = very satisfied

SPEAKERS' PRESENTATIONS DIRECTIONS PUBLICITY CATERING PROGRAMME FACILITIES LOCATION 3.5

4.5

Level of satisfaction

The following 4 pages contain summaries of the qualitative answers/ resumĂŠ of comments made by individual club members with the number of similar comments on right Q 22 What activities would you like your club to provide (i.e. that they don't)? More demonstrations Practical Nights/workshops Photographic outings/with casual training/local outings One to one tuition Tutorials on Photoshop More lectures/educational talks

9 6 4 3 3 2

More photography based lectures More studio evenings Advice re equipment More themed competitions More communication

2 2 1 1 1

Would like fewer cliques Fewer folios Less Photoshop - more practical evenings More talks from photographers who have done well in L&CPU competitions More nature Too many lectures/too few practical evenings More emphasis on photographic skills, less emphasis on how to blag it in Photoshop Foreign trips Group discussions of photos No hands on opportunity (at club or on location with club) to take photographs Would like to see members' work in non-competitive sessions

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Guidance needed at basic level Mentoring

1 1

Q 53 Additional Comments for the L&CPU Webmaster Would recommend a total re-design of the overall site Club secretaries should be encouraged to pass on L&C and PAGB news/information

2 1

List of current judges should be on web site I do not find the web site very user friendly Used to participate in forum but found little of interest The useful list of places to photograph should be kept up to date and several links no longer work Went to look at gallery - could only see one picture - no obvious way to see more Easy enough to navigate but could be set out in a more informative and structured way It has not been easy to understand the abbreviations or the services offered without navigating around several times The "view forum activities since last visit" facility does not work reliably - frequently returns error message Q69 Exhibition Should be at a different venue each year Too far away Too expensive for IOM club members to view it parking facilities limited but we managed Suitable Gallery: National Waterways Museum South Pier Rd Ellesmere Port CH65 4FW

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

Q60 Additional Comments for the L&CPU Folios Secretary We have difficulty in obtaining folios in time for our planned evening (too tight schedule) Projected image quality does not do justice to images, OK for large audiences Good to see the folios for seeing the latest fashion/trends Difficult to appreciate the quality and content of folio prints on a club evening but prints are the real thing Do not have proportional representation - how can a club of 11 members have 25 prints in the folios?

2 1 1

Little variation in points awarded for folio work Some prints/images good…some leave one wondering what they are doing there very varied standard Too many pictures of the same event Some of the salon Cds are more interesting

1 1 1 1 1

Judging suspect I want to see more of the top performing prints rather than a variety Judging inconsistent - some excellent images received low marks (and vice versa) We do not use the commentary because our members seem to find them not very interesting Folios without commentary are preferable so AV presentation with background music would suffice Quality of commentary variable The audio commentary is of little value The folios are biased towards the big clubs They should contain a wider selection of club work as well as highly placed entries V. inspirational although the themes/ subjects are very random - would be nice to see themed categories Folios to be included on L&CPU web site (note: presumably means would like that)

1 1 1 1

PDI are much easier to deal with and doesn't waste expensive fuel on deliver/collection Would like to know how the photographs were taken and what "treatment" given Some explanation of the selection process would be useful. What criteria are used? Always problems with the recorded commentary - members provide the comments. Folios not currently used. Most exceptional but some marked high looked much poorer to me Excellent inspiring work but line between photography and art is very blurred - some images resemble artwork it may be useful to have a separate category for these images We use without commentary and seek members' views Content is often very repetitive Use of the full folio does not hold the members' attention sometimes Commentary is very variable Too much selective colour - awful! Lack of variety in natural history - too many birds with blurred backgrounds - often the same birds - Where are the insects, lizards, spiders, flowers?

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q75 Additional Comments for the L&CPU Competition Secretary I am a member of 2 clubs and enter L&CPU every year - why can't I enter from both? How would the organisers be sure they were unmanipulated first generation slides? (in response to Q74) Like to see genuine copies of digital slides not Photoshop manipulated one (in response to question 74) print images submitted but not returned to me Should be a different category for heavily manipulated images e.g. creative Photoshop section/digital art A more distinct difference/description of what qualifies as a Nature shot I.e. clearer rules necessary

Making a slide from a digital image is unfair - a slide is a slide and should not be tampered with Please try to resist more rules and compliance requirements - require submission spreadsheet in triplicate Emails to competitions email addresses are rarely acknowledged and queries infrequently answered Ref Q74 - an excellent idea - they should not be competing with manipulated examples from pot hunters I was the only members of my club to submit slides for selection so they were not entered into the L&CPU

A category for completely new (previously undisplayed) work would be interesting for me Ref Q74 - if it means film transparency and not copied from a digital file, then maybe Competitions are useless - no one sees the events Have wondered about the ability of judges to judge the sharpness and quality of the prints Gave up entering the L&CPU after seeing the unsharp nature print and printing error of parallel lines at exhibition Guidance on how to enter is lacking - more guidance needed on suitability and process

1 1 1 1 1 1

Q85 Additional Comments for the L&CPU Events (Big Day) Organiser Failed to grasp what the Big Day was all about so not excited by idea (like Big Society) Perhaps a bit more publicity and notice required A more central venue e.g. Warrington or St Helens

1 1 1

A great thing to have, bringing all the clubs together The heating/air condition did not work properly…one theatre very cold, one too warm Botanical Lecture too specialised Digital manipulation lecture way over my head I regret to say I am not sure what it is! Enjoy club meetings

1 1 1 1 2 1

I have enjoyed the Big Day in the past and was sorry to miss it this year It is also interesting for social and photographic contacts 2 speakers (speaker named) lacked variety and after an hour of (speaker named) I lost the will to live - the Big Day is a first class event - a bit more care with programming could provide the appeal needed to make the most of it Presentations- one stunning and interesting, one poor and confusing, one had too many on same theme and one with amazing images, surprise of the day It was good to see the return of the Big Day with some excellent speakers

1 1

I don't know what the Big Day is or why I might benefit from going Give early notice It would be nice if it were held in the south of the region occasionally No theme to link the 4 speakers - would be nice to see more space for print display (was too cramped) Gave up going to Big Day because impossible to see prints from back of theatre (However, researcher note - all work was seen by digital projection in 2011) Exhibition in the canteen was a bit of a frace - not enough space A flyer with summary of what lectures about would be helpful

1 1 1

1 1 1 3 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1

Q86 Additional Information for the L&CPU Committee Have returned to photography after 25 yearsâ&#x20AC;ŚL&CPU not on my radar, our society emails the summaries regularly but they have not yet interested me Am no longer competition minded - my photography is more for personal interest Our club is not competition based and we help each other L&CPU Executive is to be congratulated for what it does Some judges, whilst expert, sometimes make stupid remarks It is vitally important for IOM clubs to strengthen links with the L&CPU - the last couple of years have seen an improvement (welcome) in this regard Photoshop wizards visit the club but after 3 or 4 moves we have lost the thread (lecturer on an ego trip) Speakers wishing to demonstrate Photoshop skills should provide handouts with step by step moves Needs a Photoshop techniques section on the website for downloadable tutorials/Avs /videos The L&CPU and PAGB are important contacts - we'd be working in limbo without them thanks to all of you for all the work you put in! (signed) I think the committee do a great job Know little about the L&CPU and virtually nothing about the PAGB Perhaps the L&CPU cold advertise at club level Help may be needed to raise the level of some club standards (very few courses are affordable) Judges complaining about or ignoring image titles is unacceptable - it is an integral part of the work My club is a friendly and informative club Needs to be more visible to members as a (unreadable) I sense some antipathy towards the RPS and I don't think this should continue The L&CPU/PAGB should make available a test card for DPI also how bright the print viewing box should be

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Discussion In this section I am reporting in the first person. This is not the convention in research, where the researcher will generally speak in the third person, but I think that a more personal approach is appropriate here, as I am fairly well known to the clubs and it is a more informal way of communicating. In discussing the Questionnaire results, a certain amount of interpretation is required. In cases where calculations have been made or statistical tests have been done, the results speak for themselves. But to put the results into context, I will occasionally make observations about these findings based on my own interpretation. The reader may have a different and equally valid interpretation and that is why the results have been given in the previous section in detail, so that you can look at them and make your own inferences. You can also see the Questionnaire documents themselves in the Appendices. I have had a variety of prior experience in conducting both quantitative and qualitative analysis during my career in the NHS. “Quantitative” is all about collecting data which can then be analysed by means of mathematical and statistical methods, sometimes known in research circles as “number crunching”. It is what comes most naturally to me. “Qualitative” analysis is quite different. Comments have to be somehow brought together and categorised. The strength of feeling and relative importance of individual responses must be judged whilst guarding against the introduction of bias into the report. In other words, it is not an exact science. Both questionnaires contained elements of both types of analysis and the results are discussed below.

Return Rates 95 copies of Questionnaire 1 (Q1) were sent out and 63 returned, a return rate of 66.32%. 385 copies of Questionnaire 2 (Q2) were sent out and 223 returned, a return rate of 58%. These return rates are less than the 2001 “census”, when there was a return rate of 75% for Questionnaire 1 and 70% for Questionnaire 2. One of the reasons for the reduced return rate may be because of the time of year that the survey was conducted. In 2001, the survey was conducted at the end of the calendar year, with a deadline for return of 18th December. This was during their season for all the clubs. In 2011, because the Big Day had been moved to March from its previous customary date of October, the Questionnaires could not be distributed until the end of March, when some clubs had already ended, or were about to end, their season. In this case, it would be expected that the increased difficulty in completing the task would seriously put some clubs off. Nevertheless, a 66.32% return for Q1 and 58% return for Q2 are still phenomenal in an area of research where a 30% return is the most that can often be expected. The high numbers of Questionnaires returned make statistical analysis possible and we can derive meaningful results from them. I would like to thank those clubs who went out of their way to get the results back to me in spite of the difficulties that the less than ideal timing created. I hope that those clubs and club members who did not respond will at least read the report and benefit from the input of their peers.

Questionnaire 1 Club Culture in 2011 and some comparisons with 2001 The table on page 8 gives us some insight into the workings of the average L&CPU club in 2011. Club culture is dominated by lectures, internal and external competitions and exhibitions. The exception is in a very small number of clubs, where competition is not included in club activities at all, or conversely where external competition is the main aim of the club. Almost exactly the same percentage of clubs hold a public exhibition of their work as in 2001. The proportion of clubs taking part in inter-club competitions has fallen by 5% since 2001, which in part is accounted for by the fact that two of our newest clubs were formed on noncompetitive principles. The majority of the table speaks for itself and requires no comment or interpretation. I have chosen a few topics on which to elaborate, or to contrast with the 2001 findings. It was, at first, surprising to see that more clubs separate digital and wet chemistry work in internal competitions. This has risen from 10.7% in the 2001 State of the Union Report to 13.8% in 2011. I think the reason for this is that in 2001 there were quite a number of clubs where the digital “revolution” had not yet made an entrance in sufficient numbers for clubs to consider a separate section for it. It is interesting to note how many clubs offer some form of organised tuition to their members, which is 67.7%. Tuition is becoming increasingly important as more and more people develop an interest in digital photography and look to the club to show them “how” rather than attending evening classes, which perhaps used to be the norm. (Questionnaire 2 will show a large proportion of club members who have only joined their club during the “digital age” and many who crave more help via tuition and demonstration). The number of clubs who are prepared to report on the performance of lecturers and judges has risen from 60.3% in 2001 to 75% in 2011. Specific remarks made about the quality of judging and lecturing would seem to support this and a suggestion that a feedback form might be designed for clubs to use, is something the Executive might discuss along with the question of whether or not existing judges should go on a “refresher” course to bring them up to date with current trends, as those in some Federations do. Traditional or Digital? For the 53 clubs answering the questions about slide and print film usage, the total number of slide workers was stated to be 72 and the total number of print film users was stated to be 67. If these figures were interpolated to include all the 95 L&CPU clubs who were members at the time of the survey, the total number of slide workers would be 129 and print film users 120 out of an approximate total membership of 3,800 across the Union, approx 3% for both slide and print film. This approximation also assumes that there are no clubs which are atypical, for example a uniquely or predominantly slide or print film group, which would skew the figures. Questionnaire 2 will show this figure is very accurate for print film workers, less so for slide workers. The Questionnaire 1 figures do not tell us if the people using print and slide films are the same individuals or different. (Note: However, Questionnaire 2 will tell us those figures). The data also shows

that the clubs who do not hold internal competitions and do not enter the L&CPU competitions are among the clubs where there are still a good number of film users. In other words, a substantial number of film users choose not to enter L&CPU competitions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, in some clubs, print making has also reduced since the introduction of digitally projected image (DPI) competitions in many clubs and that, where DPI competitions have been held for a number of years, print making has fallen drastically in some cases. The survey showed that, out of 54 clubs accepting print entries to competitions, only 20 had rising print numbers, 17 had a falling number of print entries and 17 were steady. This should be seen against the increase in club membership year on year of approximately 3-4% (from L&CPU Annual Returns figures). With a continuing increase in club membership, it would be reasonable to expect print making to be on the increase in general, but whilst print making has become easier and more convenient over the years since digital processing has become available and fashionable, the rising cost of inks/papers in particular and the ease and cheapness of projecting images as an alternative poses a threat to print making now and in the future. Conversely, for those who are prepared to have someone else make their prints for them, the cost of having commercial prints made has drastically reduced with labs like DS Colour and ProAm Imaging for example. If the reduction in print making is the beginning of a trend, that would be worrying and would change the nature of clubs over the coming years. The reduction in slide workers is an important factor in deciding whether or not the L&CPU should run a separate slide competition at the Annual Competitions or elsewhere during the year. The huge trend, since 2001, away from traditional methods is something that the L&C Committee has taken into account in planning for future years and these results should be considered by the Competitions Subcommittee before the 2012 competition rules are published, in particular about whether or not a separate transparency competition is viable. L&CPU Exhibition The question of whether or not participants would like the L&CPU to provide a Projected Digital Image (PDI) Exhibition alongside the L&CPU Exhibition brought about an interesting response, with 73% wanting an on-line (web site) display of the selected images all year round, presumably because more members would be able to see it rather than having to make the journey to the Exhibition itself. Introducing such a service should be considered by the Committee. Folios There is still a big majority of the clubs who are showing the Colour Prints Folio (73%), slightly fewer show the Mono Prints Folio (70%) and fewer still the Illustrative Folio (49%). When adding in the clubs who viewed the CD version instead, this rose to 86%, 79% and 65% respectively. Only 63% of clubs viewed the digital folio CD. Only 5 out of 63 clubs showed the transparencies. With committees worrying about the cost of running their club, it would seem that they are missing out on some free evenings and the reason for this could be looked into (e.g. is it that the folio time-tabling does not suit them, the difficulty or expense of collecting and delivering the folios or do they just not like them?).

Communications There has been a huge shift in the last 10 years in how the L&CPU communicates with the clubs. The emphasis has gradually moved to email and internet downloads rather than moving a lot of paper around the country. With the large increase in the cost of postage recently, this trend is likely to continue. It is gratifying to see that 93% of clubs are happy with this. A small number of clubs who have difficulty (perhaps because their secretary does not have email or internet access) might consider appointing one of their members to receive material on their behalf. The changeover to paperless management is also one of a number of factors which have enabled the L&CPU to reduce club subscriptions over the last two or three years. The weekly updating of the website coupled with the emailed notification of this, have improved communications too. Mailings about L&CPU events go to each club secretary, who is responsible for passing the information on and other interested individuals can receive the emailed weekly update from the webmaster. At the beginning of the season, club secretaries are asked to check that the web master has their correct email address. Secretaries not receiving the emails should contact the web master. There is always concern when some Executive Members do not reply to emails, as one club has complained, but another club secretary said that her emails were replied to quickly, so this is clearly patchy. However, improvements can always be made in this regard. From time to time Executive members are reminded that they have a duty to reply quickly to correspondence. A gentle reminder or a follow-up phone call to the individual, if you do not receive a reply, should be effective and it is wise to remember that email is not 100% reliable and sometimes people send to out of date addresses. Ways of attracting new members Again, the table speaks for itself. I have transcribed or summarised all the ideas that were put forward, as minority ideas may sometimes be worth considering e.g. only one club mentioned Facebook, but this will surely become more important, along with other social networking sites, in future years. Where ideas were similar, they have been grouped together under one heading. Although there was an overwhelming impression that having a club web site was the most single important feature in attracting new members, there was no correlation found between the clubs without a website and those with falling membership. Of course, the question is a blunt instrument. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Does your club have a web site?â&#x20AC;? attracts a yes/no answer. It cannot tell us the quality of the web site, how many visitors it attracts, whether it is search engine optimised, whether it is kept up to date, whether it is attractive and interesting, has a Blog, gives technical information and news and a host of other features that might make the web site attractive and inviting, successful or unsuccessful in attracting members. Two clubs in the same town may both have a web site and one give a much better impression of club membership than the other, so that it attracts far more members than the other. It is probably fair to say that all of the above-mentioned features and many more should be a consideration when building and maintaining a club web site. Exhibitions, publicity via local newspapers, local radio and parish magazines, local

events plus marketing strategies are the next important factor in gaining members, followed closely by word of mouth, networking and poster advertising. The simple message, therefore, is “get yourself known” and attract the prospective members in. Retaining Members - Rising or Falling Membership? Attracting new members through the door is the first step and, of course, a very important one. However, no club should expect everyone who comes through their door to join them. Some prospective members will find the club is not what they expected or wanted and will quickly disappear, but there are clearly some things that help maximise the chance of new people joining and staying. Whether attracting members is achieved by websites, advertising and marketing or personal introductions, the club must develop the features that growing clubs exhibit in order to keep those new members as well as the existing ones. It seems, from the experience of the participant clubs, that a good varied programme, being friendly and welcoming, coupled with giving the members what they want and involving them in all club activities is a very positive way forward. These are perhaps the most obvious attributes. Beyond that, a lack of elitism and willingness to teach and share seems to be what club members need in the 21st Century. Gone are the days when clubs can complacently sit back and say “we are a club for enthusiasts...go and learn photography then come and join us.” We must help and advise, coach mentor and critique at all levels in order to keep our members. We must, above all, give our members what they want, whether that is many competitions or no competitions, wet chemistry and/or digital processing, tutorials and demonstrations, montage or AV. However, we must cater for the needs of our experienced photographers as well as our beginners, never become complacent, keep our enthusiasm and work hard at it to survive. Otherwise our members will join the club next door or just go away and join an internet group. The SWOT Analysis (questions 37-40) A SWOT Analysis is a strategic planning method intended to make clubs take a hard look at themselves, consider their own strengths and weaknesses and their opportunities and perceived threats. It is a process used frequently in the business world when planning for an objective. Ideally it should be based on an identified goal, such as the “promotion of the art and science of photography” or “giving mutual assistance in all matters pertaining to photography” for example. By considering their own club and performing this analysis, club committees should be able to identify ways in which they can help themselves to build on their strengths and opportunities and develop plans to minimise threats and reduce weaknesses. Strengths were identified in abundance, the most frequently noted being claims of having a “friendly and welcoming atmosphere” coupled with a “willingness to share information”. However one club secretary remarked that all clubs claim to be friendly and welcoming but few actually are! Many clubs considered the expertise of their members to be a strength and the attributes of their meeting place was

important to many. It is worth looking down the results table to see if you can identify important strengths that your club has, which maybe did not come out in your own analysis. Strengths could then be built upon. Eighteen clubs reported no weaknesses! A club with no weaknesses must be a happy place indeed. However, a number of weaknesses were identified in the remaining clubs, the most common being related to demographics, e.g. too few younger members, an ageing membership, falling membership numbers. In the case of more specific weaknesses, e.g. â&#x20AC;&#x153;alienation of experienced members by concentrating on newer membersâ&#x20AC;?, as reported by one club, such matters should be discussed in the club committee and a plan of action devised to seek a better balance. Alienating an important part of the membership should not only be considered a weakness, but also a threat...they might become totally disillusioned and leave! In many cases the remedy is with the club itself, having identified the problem, to discuss at committee level and with the members how things might improve. Weaknesses left unchallenged can lead to more serious threats in the future. A number of clubs identified specific areas in their own programmes where there were weaknesses. Whilst itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s true to say that the balance of the programme lies predominantly with the club and its programme secretary, the L&CPU also have a responsibility to try to help the clubs to provide a strong and varied programme by ensuring that we provide the most complete and varied list of speakers and as many new judges as we can. The search for new speakers should be proactive. Here, clubs can also help, by recommending new speakers to the L&CPU and we will approach them and ask them to go in the Directory listing. On the subject of opportunities, 15 clubs felt that there were none, but I would suggest that there are always opportunities, for learning, for sharing, for improvement, for development, for numerous aspirations. The list of opportunities identified by the remaining clubs is not exhaustive but gives ideas about what opportunities clubs might grasp in the coming months and years. The number of clubs working with their local communities seems to have grown in the last ten years...such collaborations are to the benefit of the wider community and may bring new members or additional funds into clubs, so are always worth exploring. Sixteen clubs also felt no threats, but many recorded rising costs of running the club and ageing membership coupled with too few younger members as the greatest threats, followed closely by a difficulty in attracting members to the committee, costs of maintaining a venue or replacing equipment, even, in some cases, a perceived threat of losing their venue. Complacency and apathy amongst members was relatively high on the list. Whether or not this can be changed in a particular club needs a very concerted effort. It is again worth doing a revised SWOT analysis for your club based on the experience of looking at the wider picture identified by the survey. The last question on the paper allowed club committees to comment further on any additional subject of their choice. Many of these are useful and worth looking at for the future.

Questionnaire 2 223 individual club members returned their Questionnaire 2, a 58% return. The good return rate enables calculations to be made about the probable accuracy of various results, based on the size of this “sample” of participants. Profile of an L&CPU Photographic Club Member in 2011 From the responses of 223 participants, it is possible to create a typical profile for an L&CPU photographic club member in 2011 and I have included an interpretation here, based on both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the study. The typical club member in 2011 is male, in his 60s and probably no longer uses film...in fact, he joined his club in the last five years, since he took up digital photography, maybe after retirement. He enters competitions with both digital colour print and PDI work. He is expecting to still be enjoying his hobby in five years time and may be planning to increase the number of media that he works in to include monochrome printing and especially AV. However, he is unlikely to return to, or take up, film use. His hobby is centred, not around the L&CPU, but around his club, where lectures, competitions, educational talks and demonstrations are important to him. He is unlikely to go to the L&CPU Exhibition or the Big Day and may not even know they exist. Perhaps he will consider going to a Big Day in the future if the publicity gets through to him, though he does tend to rely on his club for publicity of L&CPU events rather than going to the L&CPU web site to find out for himself. When he does go to the website, he sometimes finds it difficult to get the information he wants, though other members of his club, who use the L&CPU website much more frequently don’t have that problem and once he’s been to one Big Day he will certainly go to one again. Our typical member doesn’t obtain much information about PAGB events at all, in fact he may not have any interest in the PAGB or its events. To sum up, our typical member finds that his club provides for all his needs, though he thinks that a bit of practical tuition now and then might be a big help. Statistics We can work out how well the sample of participants that responded is able to represent accurately the actual population of L&CPU club members. In other words, how confident can we be, in a sample of 223 people who answered this survey and are 72% male and 28% female, that the same percentages of males and females occur in the whole population of the L&CPU? The answer is that we can’t with 100% confidence. In every sample there is error and that error can be calculated, based on the sample size, the larger the sample, the smaller the error. The “probable error” is given the label “sigma-p”. So where the finding is 72% men and 28% women and the sample size is 223, the probable error can be worked out as: sigma-p = the square root of (72x28/223) = 0.03 Statisticians talk about confidence levels in their results and if you want to be 95% confident in your result, multiplying the figure for the calculated probable error

by 1.96 (the critical value for 95% confidence, which can be found from a table of statistical functions) gives a “confidence interval” which will contain the true value in the whole population. Of course, this also depends on the sample being TRULY random and the participants answering truthfully. In this example 1.96 (the critical value) x 0.03 (the calculated sigma-p) = 0.0589, which is approximately 6%. This means that the true answer for the whole population is plus or minus 6 percentage points from the calculated value for the sample, in this case, the true value for the L&CPU population for males lies between 66% and 78% (the confidence interval). It was interesting to work out that if all the sample of participants had replied (385), the probable error would have reduced to 0.02 and the “corrected values” would have been between plus or minus 4 percentage points of the calculated values. To achieve that bit more accuracy would have given me 42% more work in tabulating results! I have not worked out probable error on all the questions, but interested parties could work out some for themselves using the formulae above! Demographics We can say with 95% confidence (i.e. with only a one in twenty chance of being wrong) that the true percentage of men in the L&CPU is somewhere between 66% and 78% (see the calculations above). Similar statistical probabilities could be calculated for many of the responses in the Questionnaires and the large sample size enables us to make predictions for the whole of the population of L&CPU club members with a high degree of confidence. In 2001, the proportion of males to females in the sample was 21% to 79% with a probable error of 0.027, giving a 95% confidence interval of +/- 5 percentage points. The 2011 age profile looks very similar to the age profile in 2001 (see the graph on page 19). We are not simply seeing a population of club members who are, on average, ten years older than they were at the last census...we are seeing a fluid population of photographers whose age profile across the whole population remains fairly similar year on year. The one single fact that stands out is the slight peak in the percentage of 60 to 69 year olds in 2011. My belief is that the peak is a result of the “Post World War II Baby Boomers” who are now reaching retirement age. The peak in that age-group is being seen generally, not only in photographic clubs. Overall the graph seems to be telling us that photographic clubs are places that attract, on average, “third age” individuals, especially the “young retired” and perhaps people who have found themselves with more leisure time than they used to have as they get older. If this is the case, should we be worrying so much that we do not attract so many younger people to our midst? On balance it looks to me, from the figures, as if we are not doomed to become extinct. Our numbers are, on average, rising. The L&CPU Annual Returns figures also show us a year-on-year rise in club membership, over the last few years, of 3-4% per year. Our Federation has about 25% more members than it did ten years ago. The only clubs who should be worrying about their age profile might be very small clubs who never change what they do and do not have much turnover of membership and whose member profile has risen over ten years.

Should we not, instead of worrying about a lack of young members, just concentrate on making our clubs as good as we can for all age groups, so that when younger members do come through the door, there is something to offer them? The baby boomers could continue to fill our empty seats for some time to come and we might even set out to attract more of them. Just a thought! Status The status figures within the sample show that more than twice as many ordinary members have taken part in the survey as committee members. The proportion of committee members looks a little high...is so high a proportion really on the committee on average across the Union? Working out the error in the sample and using that to calculate the true percentage of ordinary club members in the L&CPU gives 66.3% plus or minus 6.2 percentage points, that is between 60.1% and 72.5%. Film users The percentage of participants who still use film was 17%, but all except two of those currently also work in the digital medium. The two “traditional only” participants account for less than 1% of all participants (0.89%). Both of these individuals expect to continue to work only in film and not take up digital processing in the next five years. Most of the participants who use both film and digital processes, expect to carry on doing that over the next five years. However, looking at the group of traditional slide workers only, who account for 10% of all participants at present, 50% of those expect to stop using slides over the next 5 years. The proportion who use wet processing of prints is predicted to stay the same. However, I suggest that the actual percentage of club members who will be working in film will continue to reduce over the next five years as the fluid nature of membership will attract in more people who do not use film, thus diluting the number of film users. For some, this trend will be hugely disappointing. The one “revolutionary” finding in Questionnaire 2, is that 32% of all participants expect to be making AV in the next 5 years. By calculating the probable error of the sample, we can say with 95% confidence that the true percentage in the whole population intending to take up AV is 32% plus or minus 6 percentage points, that is a between 26% and 38%. This would account for almost a doubling of the number that work in AV at present and is quite probably almost entirely due to digital photography and AV software, such as “Pictures to Exe” and “ProShow Gold” which allow us, at little expense, to make AV with great ease and with the equipment we already have, ready for digital projection at our club. Club Activities There is little to say about what members want from their club - the graph on page 23 speaks for itself. Remember that the scale goes up to 5, where 5 is the most important and the results are arrived at by averaging the responses from all participants. Clubs provide all of their members’ needs for 85% of participants,

which is an increase of 5 percentage points since the 2001 survey. Any move upwards is a positive step and it can be postulated with some degree of confidence that “you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. Where clubs were falling short in their members’ needs, the reasons given were mostly that there was not enough tuition given, with photographic trips as the second most wanted feature, to the extent that one participant craved foreign travel as part of his membership. The qualitative data adds detail to this information, with participants wanting more demonstrations, practical and studio nights, photographic trips, tuition on photography and Photoshop. The need for tuition raises a number of points...could the L&CPU provide more lectures or even a seminar, with tuition in mind, in addition to the Big Day of entertainment? Could more lecturers be encouraged to provide tutorial evenings, with all the problems that entails of trying to reach out to all the club members at whatever level they are? Could experienced club members themselves provide some of the tuition and do they have the necessary skills, both in terms of editing skills and importantly, teaching skills, to put it across? Being able to use Photoshop and being able to teach it are two very different things. Communications About 90% of club members said that their club committee pass on news of L&CPU events and 61% said that the club committee pass on information about PAGB events. The remainder of participants either didn’t know if they had access to the information or said they did not have access. About 42% of club members were aware that they had access to the weekly emailed out information sent out by the L&CPU web master each Monday morning, about a third of whom received the mailings in person and the remainder through their club. Only about 26% of all participants knew they had access to L&CPU Executive Meeting and General Meeting reports, in spite of 28% of participants being club committee members. All of these events and reports are available on the web site. Information is sent every Monday to every club secretary, so it is then hoped that the club secretary will pass this information on. The L&CPU is sometimes criticised for poor communication...in spite of big efforts to get the information across over the last few years, it seems that there are still weak links here and there. However, the L&CPU cannot be expected to communicate individually with each of almost 4,000 club members. The clubs are the members of the federation and the information is sent to the club representative i.e. the club secretary. The introduction of a database, some years ago, has increased the “hit rate” of communications as it can be updated at any time with new or changed contact details. Only rarely does that fail, though obviously sometimes a change of details does slip through the net or indeed is not even sent in. However, the means of disseminating information by post or email to club secretaries, does require, by implication, that they read it and pass it on. There are always going to be some weak links in communication where federations deal with clubs rather than directly with club members. So, how can club members help themselves? First the question is “do they actually want the information?” and “are they actually interested in L&CPU events or what is happening outside their club?”. If so, can they be persuaded in enough number to go and find information out for themselves and visit the L&CPU web site on a regular basis? The strongest

link in the dissemination of information might be considered to be the web site, where everyone has free access to information. Let’s have a look at web site use. Only 65% of our participants have EVER visited the L&CPU web site. There was a generally positive response to the questions about access, but only 59% of participants could easily find what they wanted when they visited (this of course begs the question “what were they looking for?” and we don’t know the answer to this). Web site usage amongst those who have ever seen it, is infrequent. Only the front page is said, on average, to have slightly above “occasional” use, with the other pages scoring between “infrequently” and “occasional”. It is not necessary for everyone to access the web site frequently in order for the web site to be useful, but what it is rather disappointing are the satisfaction measures for web site visits. Satisfaction is measured on “Likert Scales”, that is, by asking participants to rate their satisfaction level on a scale of 1-5 and then taking an average of all the participant scores. An average gives a more “realistic” result, rather than, say, interviewing one or two people, who may have very biased views. Human nature is to be “on average” reasonably satisfied with the status quo. What you expect to find in a satisfaction survey, when everything is running well, is that satisfaction levels should, on average, be in the “fairly satisfied” area, scoring around 4. A perfectly satisfied score averaging out at 5 over a large number of people is very unlikely. What we are seeing is that the participants’ responses are disappointing, with only competition news and the L&CPU section almost reaching a desired score of 4. Other areas of the web site were received less satisfactory responses with downloadable articles and documentation being given the least favourable vote. This is very disappointing, since our web master has worked extremely hard over the past few years to ensure that information is updated regularly. However, we need to address the implied criticisms and find a way to make a visit to the web site more positive. It is not too much of a worry that people don’t go to the web site often, so long as they are satisfied with the pages that they view and find what they are looking for. However, if infrequent use is linked to dissatisfaction with what they find when they get there, we must take notice and make changes. There are already plans to make the web site more interactive and this might mean some rethink of how it is set out. The committee of the L&CPU, along with the web master, should consider whether or not a re-design is necessary as some participants have suggested. 60% of participants think that the forum on the web site provides a useful service, though only 20% are registered as forum members and fewer than 6% take part in discussions on the forum. Figures for forum participants are not surprising, as such on-line activity only attracts a committed few. Folios 87% of participants see the L&CPU folios and averaged-out satisfaction levels were within the target levels for a satisfaction survey i.e. between 4 and 5, satisfaction with the variety of subject matter scoring very slightly lower than number of folios and quality of images.

The survey related to the 2010 folios which were selected by a sub-committee of two. The selectors cannot go through 4,000+ prints and DPIs to hunt out different material and represent every club, so they rely on the judges’ marks selecting out the “better work” and then go through those with a view to inclusion of a variety of subject matter in the folios, at the same time selecting the work which goes forward to the PAGB Inter-Federation competitions. Prints for the exhibition are chosen from the folio selection (in 2011 by a different sub-committee of three). This means that club members whose work has not been marked highly have less of a chance of being included in the folios and also that all the highly marked work (say, above 11) cannot be selected. Participants were asked how they would prefer to see the print folios. 42% preferred to see the actual prints, 23% by projection and 35% expressed no preference. There is always the problem, in larger clubs, that only people at the front of the room can see the prints properly. In 2011, print folios are provided on CD to accompany the actual prints, so that, for larger clubs, they can be projected alongside the prints and people at the back can see them more easily. For the 2011-12 season, there will be no recorded commentaries with the Folios. L&CPU Exhibition The questions relating to the 2010 Exhibition at Kirkby Library, which only 8% of participants went to see. This would equate to about 300 club members if extrapolated for the whole of the L&CPU community and about 100 of those would have seen it on the day of the Delegates’ Meeting, so the actual figure for people visiting the exhibition outside the time of the Delegates’ Meeting would be substantially fewer. Nevertheless, for those attending the Exhibition, satisfaction levels were within the target satisfaction level of between 4 and 5. L&CPU Annual Competitions 39% of participants had had their work entered for the Annual Competitions 2010. 50% replied “No” and 11% did not know if their club had entered any of their work. It does seem that some clubs keep a bank of members’ work to enter into external competitions, but it seems that some of them never tell the members that their work has been entered. Satisfaction levels for the Annual Competitions were within the target levels of between 4 and 5 for categories, availability of rules and condition of returned work. (I had declined to ask if people were satisfied with the marks they received!) 14 participants (6% of the 223), when asked if they would enter a competition for first generation unmanipulated slides said that they would. This figure falls within the percentage of participants who are currently using slide film. A further 10% of participants said they “might enter”. The combined figure of 16% is higher than the number of participants who are still using film. There are alternative explanations for this. Firstly, many people who no longer use slide film have a stock of old slides in storage and might wish to enter these into a “transparency only” competition. This could account for some of the people who answered that they might enter. Some may be prepared to start using or resume using transparency film. An alternative explanation relies on everyone reading the same meaning into “first generation slides”...evidence from additional comments made by one participant “yes, I’d enter it but only with digital files because I don’t use slides”, might

indicate that some people are picking up on the “unmanipulated” aspect of the question and seeing the word “slide” as meaning either film slide or “digital slide”. There is certainly a noticeable minority of participants who would like to separate “unmanipulated” work from “highly manipulated” work competitively. So I think we may have a mixture in this figure of people who would like an unmanipulated slides section and people who would simply like an unmanipulated section, which makes the interpretation a little unclear. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that there are significant numbers of club members who don’t like competing against manipulated work. The difficulty in catering for these people lies in the definition of what is manipulation. Can a borderline be defined between manipulated and unmanipulated images...clearly this is a little easier with transparency film, but not as easy with digital originals. A certain amount of manipulation of the RAW file is required in digital capture to get the work into the best state for projection or print making and there is always the temptation to go that little bit further...e.g. tidy up a model’s skin, remove telegraph wires from landscapes, clone out defects and distractions. The introduction of such techniques means that manipulation is now commonplace and, if done well, there is no easy way of proving that it has been done (though I believe there is software that will do it). Some years ago, in the early days of digital photography, the L&CPU did introduce a section for “creative” work but it proved impossible to manage and was dropped after a few years. The L&CPU Big Day March 2011 Twenty participants (<9%) attended the Big Day. Calculating the probable error (sigma-p) in the same way as before, we can be 95% confident that the actual number of club members in the whole of the L&CPU who attended the Big Day in March 2011 lies between 189 and 459, with a most probable value being 324, assuming a population of 3,800 at the time. Of course, this is something we didn’t have to calculate, because we can use the actual ticket sales to give us the real attendance figure of about 295 and this adds credulity and confidence in general to the survey as a whole, because we have been able to show that the calculated and the true figures are in agreement, or at least, not in disagreement. In other words, the participants are giving us an accurate enough reflection of the L&CPU in the summer of 2011. The small number of additional comments on the Big Day will help us to see where the event can be further improved, but it is certainly a feature that the L&CPU is planning to continue for the near future and the venue at Lancaster is the one that has generally been successful and was well liked by the participants. Additional Comments The additional comments section is fairly brief for Questionnaire 2, as the majority of participants did not enter any. These should be read with interest but without interpreting them as being necessarily representative of the opinion of L&CPU Club members in general. They are personal observations on the performance of their club and of the L&CPU and do highlight some topics on which individuals feel very strongly. The frequency of certain comments means that they are likely to crop up more in the whole population, such as the need for tuition and the wish to separate manipulated work.

Accuracy of Results and Statistical Evidence There are a number of limitations of any research project. How accurate does the evidence provided reflect what is actually happening in the whole population of club members? Is the result reliable? i.e. would the same results emerge if the survey was repeated with the same sample of people within a short period of time? and is it valid? i.e. can there be a reasonable degree of confidence that the survey device has measured what it is supposed to measure? Did the participants truly represent the population under study? The sample must contain a representative section of the population under study, in the same proportion that they appear in the whole community, in order to avoid introducing bias in the results. If the whole population (all L&CPU club members) had taken part in the survey (and had told the truth) the results would certainly to be representative. If I had sampled 20 or 30 members chosen just from club committees, or all men, or only people in their 30s, or let people choose themselves in a web site survey, the results would be very unrepresentative of the whole community of club members, so taking a large and properly randomised sample is one of the most vital parts of doing this kind of social research. An inevitable vulnerability of design of this project was the selection process, in which I was entirely in the hands of the club secretaries/committee members who selected the participants on my behalf. Care was taken to explain to those club officials how vitally important the sampling process was. However, I did not have direct control over the selection process. From anecdotal evidence (asking a sample of clubs, afterwards, which method they had used), I am reasonably confident that most clubs took the selection process seriously. In one or two cases, I was concerned to find that my directions had not been followed...this, I am sure, was well meaning...perhaps the odd club secretary felt that I would get more useful results if new members were not included in the survey in favour of committee members who would know more. How wrong could he/she be? The whole point of being able to generalise from results is that every type of individual must be represented in the proportion in which they occur naturally. Reliability and validity are determined partly by the design of the data collection tool itself, in this case the two questionnaires. Were the questions asked the right ones? Were they asked in the right way? Was every participant given the opportunity to say all they wanted? In most cases the questions seemed to have been understood and the replies that were given made sense. A few had question marks against them (especially the ones relating to the PAGB newsletter and the Big Day....some people did not appear to know what these were). The question about how many pieces of work a judge should be asked to comment on in one evening produced some bizarre results and I did wonder if people were misinterpreting the question...as one club who stated that the maximum number a judge should be asked to comment on was less than half of what they have actually asked me to comment on when I have been invited to judge there! Also, one club said 40 pieces of work was the most combined prints and PDI a judge should be asked to comment on - did they interpret the question as â&#x20AC;&#x153;how many entries does your club usually give a judge?â&#x20AC;?. The question giving some concern about validity/ reliability is the one asking if the member would participate in a competition for first generation unmanipulated slides and this has already been commented on. However, on balance I believe that the results are a reasonably accurate representation of L&CPU membership in 2011 and this belief can only be strengthened by being able to check figures, such as with the Big Day ticket sales.

Recommendations and Dissemination A great deal of work has gone into the production of the questionnaire survey and this accompanying report. Both club committees and their members have spent time and effort in responding. The aims and objectives of the survey have been achieved but, in order that some good should come out of it and all of the effort should not be wasted, further action is now recommended to both the L&CPU and its member clubs. The survey and the publication of a report on its findings can only be regarded as a first stage and cannot themselves result in any changes being made either to the services provided by the L&CPU or the fortunes of individual clubs. For change to occur, there should be further stages. Recommendations: For the L&CPU Executive That the Executive Committee should • Study this report over the coming months and examine the key points. • Define and formulate an action plan for any changes that are needed. • Implement any action plan produced. • Keep clubs informed of progress. For the L&CPU Clubs That Club Committees should • Study the pool of ideas supplied by their fellow clubs to see where they can pick up ideas. • Look at the results of their own SWOT analysis, coupled with ideas from other clubs. Repeat their SWOT analysis from time to time. • Define and implement action plans for the future within their own clubs. • Share any successes with other clubs via the L&CPU. Dissemination A PDF version of this report will be made available on the L&CPU web site. A copy will be made available to the PAGB Committee.

Appendix 1 Questionnaire 1

Lancashire and Cheshire Photographic Union State of the Union 2011: QUESTIONNAIRE 1 for Club Secretary/Committee This questionnaire should be answered on behalf of the club/society by the Secretary with the help of the Committee (if necessary) and should take 10-15 minutes to complete. All information given will be treated in the strictest confidence. Results of the analysis will be given in general terms only and published without naming your club. Please answer all questions if you can. Where a question is not applicable or if you prefer not to answer, leave a blank. 1

Name of Club / Society .................................................................................................................................................

Is your number of members tending to ........

How many lectures do you typically have in your programme in a twelve month period?

...........

How many L&CPU Lecturers will you typically use in a twelve month period?

...........

Does your club hold internal competitions?

How many internal competitions do you hold per year?

Do you separate digital and wet chemistry photography in your internal competitions?

How many competitions are on fixed subjects?

Rise [ ]

Fall [ ]

Remain Steady [ ] (Please tick one box)

Yes [ ] No [ ] ...........

9 Into how many classes are your competitions divided? (e.g.. Beginner/Advanced) ........... 10

How many L&CPU Judges will you typically use in a twelve month period?

If you do not use outside judges, please say what system of judging/appraisal you use

...........

Do you reserve a parking space for Lectures and Judges?

Yes [ ] No [ ] Not Applicable [ ]

Do you offer a drink to your lecturer/judge on arrival?

Yes [ ] No [ ] Not Applicable [ ]

Approximately how many members use film ?

Are the numbers of prints being produced in the club...

Do you take part in inter-club competitions?

Do you take part in L&CPU Competitions (e.g. Annuals, AV, Knockout etc.)?

If your answer to 16 was “None” please say why...

How many “in-house” nights did you have in the last 12 months? (e.g. talk/demo by own members)

Transparency film [

]

Print film [

]

Rising [ ] Falling [ ] Steady [ ] Not Applicable [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ]

All [ ] None [ ] Some [ ]

...........

18 How many social occasions of a non-photographic type (meals out etc.) do you have per year? ........... Continued overleaf...

How many photographic club trips do you typically organise per year?

...........

Do you offer organised photographic tuition to your members?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

Do you hold an Annual Exhibition which members of the public can see?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

The L&CPU hold an annual exhibition of 150 prints. Do you want an equivalent public display of digital images following the annual competitions? Yes [ ] No [ ] Don’t mind [ ]

If the L&CPU were to provide a Projected Images Public Exhibition tell us if it should be.... (tick all that apply): On-line (and therefore available all year) [ ] TV display at the print exhibition venue [ ] Other [ ] (Please specify):

Which L&CPU Folios did you show at your club in the last 12 months? Colour Print Folio As prints [ ] Digitally Projected [ ] Didn’t Show [ Monochrome Folio As prints [ ] Digitally Projected [ ] Didn’t Show [ Natural Hist and Illustrative Folio As prints [ ] Digitally Projected [ ] Didn’t Show [ Projected Images Folio Slides [ ] Digitally Projected [ ] Didn’t Show [

Does your club have a web site?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

Does your club committee use the L&CPU website for information?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

Are you happy to receive L&CPU information by email?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

If you have any problem receiving information from the L&CPU, please explain what the problem is below:

Is the PAGB handbook (which contains Conditions Governing the Booking of Lecturers and Judges) available to the person making the bookings? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Do you send a booking form by post to judges and lecturers?

] ] ] ]

Yes [ ] Sometimes [ ] No [ ]

31 Would you be willing to report to the Judges and Lecturers Secretary on the performance of judges and lecturers? Yes [ ] No [ ] 32

The categories that a judge is willing to cover are shown in the directory by the letters P,S,N,R,AV,T. Do you find this helpful? Yes [ ] No [ ]

If you have an alternative suggestion for how judges might be categorised, please write below.

What is the maximum number of images that you would expect a judge to comment on in a single evening?.........

Prints only.....................Projected images only.......................Combined (Prints and PDIs).........................

Please state any ways that work for your club in attracting new members.

Please state any ways that work for your club in retaining existing members.

What do you consider to be the strengths of your club?

What do you consider to be the weaknesses of your club?

What do you consider to be the opportunities for your club?

What do you consider to be the threats to your club?

If there is anything else you wish to bring to the attention of the L&CPU Executive Committee, please write below or on the back page.

Thank you for your co-operation. This document should be returned by 30th June 2011 to:

Mrs C Widdall AFIAP DPAGB BPE3, 2 Rushgrove, Uppermill, Oldham. Lancashire. OL3 6LD A report on the findings of this survey and the individual member survey will be published jointly under the name â&#x20AC;&#x153;State of the Union 2011â&#x20AC;? during the autumn session. Club Secretaries will be notified and a notice will be placed on the L&CPU web site.

Appendix 2 Questionnaire 2

Lancashire and Cheshire Photographic Union State of the Union 2011: QUESTIONNAIRE 2 for Individual Club Members This questionnaire will be given to a randomly chosen sample of club members. All information given will be treated in the strictest confidence. Results of the analysis will be reported in general terms only. We do not need your name. Please answer all questions except where specified otherwise. If you can’t answer, or don’t want to, just leave a blank. Any questions to Christine Widdall 01457 876215 or email christine@steelorchid.co.uk 1

Name of your Club / Society

.................................................................................................

2 Your age (tick one box): 10-19 [ ] 50-59 [ ] Male [ ]

20-29 [ ] 60-69 [ ]

30-39 [ ] 70-79 [ ]

40-49 [ ] 80+ [ ]

Gender (tick one):

Female [ ]

Years of membership at this club: 0-2 [ ] 3-5 [ ] 6-8 [ ] 9-11 [ ] 12-14 [ ] 15-17 [ ] 18-20 [ ] 21+ [ ]

5 Status: (tick all that apply) Ordinary member [ ] Committee member [ ] Club Life member [ ] L&CPU Delegate [ ] L&CPU Executive member [ ] L&CPU Life member [ ] Questions 6-9 are about your own participation in club activities: 6

Have you entered work in internal club competitions during the last twelve months?

Do you currently use film? (Tick which apply)

Yes [ ] No [ ]

Yes, transparency [ ] Yes, print film [ ] No [ ]

8 Which of the following type of work did you produce during the last 12 months? (tick all that apply) Chemically processed monochrome prints [ ] Digitally processed monochrome prints [ ] Chemically processed colour prints [ ] Digitally processed colour prints [ ] Original (first generation) Slides [ ] Projected Digital Images [ ] Slides made from digital files [ ] Audio Visuals [ ] 9 Which medium do you expect to be using in 5 years time? (tick all that apply) Chemically processed monochrome prints [ ] Digitally processed monochrome prints [ Chemically processed colour prints [ ] Digitally processed colour prints [ Original (first generation) Slides [ ] Projected Digital Images [ Slides made from digital files [ ] Audio Visuals [

] ] ] ]

Questions 10-21 are about your own club’s activities: Q 10-20 How important to you are the following club activities? Very Fairly Unsure/ Fairly Not at all

important

no opinion

unimportant

important

10 Internal competition [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 11 External competition [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 12 Educational talks [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 13 Lectures [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 14 Photographic outings [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 15 Social events/Socialising [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 16 L&CPU Folios [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 17 Practical/studio evenings [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 18 Individual tuition [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 19 Exhibition [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 20 Demonstrations [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Continued on the next page...

Does your club provide all the activities that are important to you?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

22.

If you answered “no” to question 21 please state what activities you would wish your club to provide (write below).

The remainder of this Questionnaire is about the services provided by the L&CPU About Communications: 23 Do you have access to L&CPU weekly emails about website updates? Receive Personally [ ] Through my club [ ] No [ ] Don’t Know [ ] 24 Do you have access to the L&CPU Executive and L&CPU General Meeting Reports from John Smith? Receive Personally [ ] Through my club [ ] No [ ] Don’t Know [ ] 25 Do you have access to the emailed PAGB News bulletin from Rod Whelans? Receive Personally [ ] Through my club [ ] No [ ] Don’t Know [ ] 26

Does your club committee pass on news of L&CPU events?

Yes [ ] No [ ] Don’t Know [ ]

Does your club committee pass on news of PAGB events?

Yes [ ] No [ ] Don’t Know [ ]

28 Have you ever visited the L&CPU web site? If you answered “yes” to question 28, please also answer 29 to 53, otherwise go to 54. 29 Did you find it easy to navigate (move around) the website? 30 Is it easy to find the information you want on the website? 31 In general, is the L&CPU web site useful? Q32-37 How satisfied are you with the following content of the L&CPU Website?

32 33 34 35 36 37

News about L&CPU Clubs L&CPU news PAGB news Competiton results/reports Downloadable articles Downloadable documentation

Very satisfied

[ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ]

Q 38-49 How often do you visit the following pages... Frequently 38 Front Page/Home [ ] 39 Events [ ] 40 Infobank [ ] 41 Club News [ ] 42 Competitions [ ] 43 External Competitions [ ] 44 The L&CPU [ ] 45 Clubs [ ] 46 Forum/Gallery [ ] 47 Downloads [ ] 48 The PAGB [ ] 49 Links [ ]

Fairly satisfied

[ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ]

Fairly Often

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Yes [ ] No [ ]

Yes [ ] No [ ] Sometimes [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Sometimes [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Sometimes [ ]

Unsure no opinion

[ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ]

Fairly dissatisfied

Occasionally

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

[ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ]

Seldom

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Very dissatisfied

[ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ]

Never

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

50 51 52

Are you a registered member of the Forum? Do you take part in forum discussions? Do you think the forum provides a useful service?

Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ]

If there are any additional comments you have for the Webmaster, please write them below.

About the Folios: 54 Do you ever see the L&CPU Folios?

Yes [ ] No [ ]

55 If you answered “no” to 54, please say why not. I don’t like them [ ] My club doesn’t show them [ ] Other reasons [ ] If you answered “yes” to 54 please also answer 56-60, otherwise go to 61. Q 56-58 How satisfied were you with... Very

satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Unsure no opinion

Fairly dissatisfied

56 The Number of Folios [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 57 Quality of the Images [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 58 Variety of subject matter [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 59 Do you prefer to see the print folios as prints or as digitised projected images (PDI)? Prints [ ] PDI [ 60

] ] ]

Very dissatisfied

[ ] [ ] [ ]

] No preference [ ]

Write here any other comments about the Folios:

About the Exhibition 61 Did you see the L&CPU Annual Exhibition at Kirkby Library in 2010? If you answered “yes” to 61, please also answer 62-69, otherwise go to question 70. Q 62-68 How satisfied were you with... Very

satisfied

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Fairly satisfied

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Unsure no opinion

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Yes [ ] No [ ]

Fairly dissatisfied

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Very dissatisfied

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Where it was held The opening times Directions to the venue The lighting of the prints The mounting & framing of the prints The layout of the prints Publicity about the event

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

If you have any views on where an Annual Exhibition may be held in the future, or know of a suitable Gallery, or if there are any other comments you have for the Exhibition Secretary, please write them below.

Continued on the next page...

About the Annual Competitions 70 Did your club enter any of your work in the L&CPU Annual Competitions 2010? Yes [ ] No [ ] Don’t Know [ ] If you answered “yes” to 70, please answer questions 71-75, otherwise go to question 76 Q71-73 How satisfied were you with...

71 72 73

The categories available to you Availability of the competition rules The condition of your returned work

Very satisfied

[ ] [ ] [ ]

Fairly satisfied

[ ] [ ] [ ]

Unsure no opinion

[ ] [ ] [ ]

Fairly dissatisfied

[ ] [ ] [ ]

Very dissatisfied

[ ] [ ] [ ]

74 If the L&CPU were to introduce a completely new stand-alone competition for first generation (unmanipulated) slides at a separate time from the annual competitions, would you enter it? Yes [ ] Maybe [ ] No [ ] 75

If there are any other comments you would like to make about the competitions, please write them below.

About the Big Day 76 Did you attend the “Big Day” event at Lancaster 2011? If you answered “yes” to 76 please also answer questions 77-83 , otherwise go to 84 Q77-83 How satisfied were you with....

Very satisfied

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Fairly satisfied

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Unsure no opinion

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Fairly dissatisfied

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Yes [ ] No [ ]

Very dissatisfied

77 78 79 80 81 82 83

The location The facilities The programme The catering arrangements Publicity about the event Directions to the event The speakers’ presentations

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Are you likely to attend a “Big Day” event in the future?

If you have any additional comments you would like to make about the “Big Day”, please write them below.

If there is anything else you wish to tell the L&CPU Executive, write your comments below. If you have not enough space to write your comments, please securely attach an additional sheet to this questionnaire.

Yes [ ] Maybe [ ] No [ ]

Thank you for participating. Please give your club secretary this form to return to me, or if you prefer, send it anonymously, by 30th June 2011, to: Mrs Christine Widdall AFIAP DPAGB BPE3, 2 Rushgrove, Uppermill, Oldham OL3 6LD A report on the findings of this survey and the club survey will be published jointly under the name “State of the Union 2011” during the autumn session. Club Secretaries will be notified and a notice will be placed on the L&CPU web site.

Appendix 3 Letter to Club

Lancashire & Cheshire Photographic Union State of the Union Questionnaire 2011 Background: Ten years ago I conducted a survey of clubs and club members on behalf of the L&CPU. Photography and image-making has changed so much in the last ten years, creating different opportunities and challenges, so the time has come to repeat the survey with two newly designed questionnaires. Aims: The aims of these questionnaires are: 1 To examine Photographic Club culture in 2011 in the L&CPU by taking a “snapshot” of club life. 2 To measure member satisfaction with the services provided by the L&CPU and provide feedback to the L&CPU, which will facilitate the planning of services for the future. . 3 To pool ideas and give feedback to the clubs; in particular to share ideas for attraction and retention of members and to determine if there are any common factors amongst those clubs who are gaining/retaining members better than others. To find out what current club members want from their club and the L&CPU. There are two questionnaires: Questionnaire 1 One copy of this is being sent to all clubs and should be filled in by the Club Secretary with the help of Committee Members if required. You will receive one copy of this. Questionnaire 2 is being sent to all clubs with the aim of sampling about one in ten members, selected at random. The advantage of a random selection is that it enables generalisations to be made for the whole population of club members across the Federation. Advice on how to make this random selection is given below. Proper sampling will give a proportion of new members, longstanding members, men and women of different ages, committee and ordinary members, novice and advanced photographers and even executive members in the proportion that they occur naturally across the club population.

Most Important...How to select participants from your members Each club has been sent a quota of “Questionnaire 2” in proportion to its membership. There are special instructions overleaf for clubs that end their season early in the year. The membership number has been taken from your last Annual Return. Please select a sample of participants at a well-attended ordinary club meeting, using one of the methods below. Do not use any non-random method for selecting participants. The more questionnaires that are returned the more valid the results will be, but only if the selection of participants is made randomly. Sampling methods for Questionnaire 2 - choose either Method 1 or Method 2 Method 1 (The raffle method) Give each member of the club attending the meeting a raffle ticket and place the counterfoil in a container. Thoroughly mix the contents and draw the number of tickets required. Method 2 (The short straw method) Cut or tear plain paper into as many pieces as you have members attending. Mark the appropriate number of pieces with a cross. Fold all papers and allow every member to draw one at random. Give questionnaires to those who draw marked papers.

Questionnaire 2 - Special Instructions for clubs who end their season in March/April It was important to include the Big Day in the questionnaire, so it was impossible to send them out before April. I am sorry that this causes difficulties for some clubs. For clubs who have already finished their season, please make your selection of members from your membership list. This can be done truly randomly, using a random number generator (RNG), such as may be found at www.random.org/integers/ and following the instructions for use....let’s say the RNG gives you random numbers of 3, 7, 22, you would send a questionnaire to the 3rd, 7th and 22nd member on your membership list. Alternatively, you could put their membership numbers or names into a “hat” and draw them. A downloadable pdf version of Questionnaire 2, which you can save on your computer and then email to members, is available at http://goo.gl/OJRVm Please post or email the questionnaires out to the chosen members and ask them to be returned to you for dispatch back to the L&CPU.

Notes: (1) Members should not be coerced into taking part if they do not wish to do so - participation must be entirely voluntary. Some help by way of explanation may be given to new members but they should not be helped with their answers. (2) It is likely that some club Committee Members, including Secretaries, and even possibly an L&CPU Executive member will be selected to complete Questionnaire 2. That is not a problem. (3) Each questionnaire should take 10-15 minutes to complete plus time for individual comments.

Return of the Questionnaires Club Secretary: please send a completed Questionnaire 1 and all returned copies of Questionnaire 2* by 30th June 2011 by post to Mrs C Widdall AFIAP DPAGB BPE3 2 Rushgrove Uppermill Oldham Lancashire OL3 6LD or deliver by hand at the L&CPU Delegates’ Meeting. *some members may wish to return their own questionnaires anonymously to me. That is perfectly acceptable. Results of the analysis of questionnaire responses will be available during the autumn of 2011. N.B. You may contact me by telephone: 01457 876215 e-mail: christine@steelorchid.co.uk or president@lcpu.org.uk if you have any queries regarding the questionnaires or the selection process. Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation. Christine Widdall President L&CPU April 2011