[Dalkin (left):] Oh boy! Tiered Membership!
How does such a simple concept get so screwed up and become so complicated?
I don’t know that it got so complicated. I think some people didn’t understand the simple concept and made it complicated.
When I looked at it, my impression was that it was primarily designed to sell merchandise instead of building membership.
I agree with you. We did market research, and this is one of those things that sometimes you should farm things out, and sometimes you shouldn’t. We farmed out the marketing and research through Strike Ten and some of the companies that put in to say, "What do we need to increase the affinity of our members?" They did focus groups and all kinds of things, they had Parker Research in Toronto involved, and the answer came back that they want different values and merchandise, what I affectionately call "trinkets and trash."
We took that market research provided by an outside vendor and said, OK, we’ll come up with three levels of membership the first year—silver, gold, and platinum. Three price points, and three different levels of merchandise gifts. Now let’s go out and sell it at three prices—$25, $20, and $15—and we’ll also attach to it a communication vehicle called Pin Action Magazine because bowlers want to hear what’s going on.
The complication came in that our delivery system was not set up to deal with three levels of memberships. Our system was such that people came in and said, "Yeah, we’ll bowl league, here’s my money, and now we’ll go out and bowl." We were not set up to sell memberships at different levels. So, we had a lot working against us. Probably the biggest thing was the bowler was saying to the organization, I don’t care about the little baubles. I want real services. Stick with the bowling thing, and sell me a membership related to my wants and needs as a bowler. I’m either a committed hardcore bowler, I’m a recreational bowler, I’m a once-a-month couples bowler...."
Shouldn’t it be based on average level instead of what gifts you would like to purchase?
I don’t know about average as much as it is desire and what you want from membership. In that couples league, the guy might average 200, but he’s not looking for honor scores or does not want to bowl in the ABC Tournament. He doesn’t care about average. He just wants to have a good time.
Right now, we are testing three different types of memberships. We are testing a senior membership, which offers different types of recognition and services to seniors. It’s not a structured league organizations membership. We’re looking at once-a-month couples recreational leagues. We did some surveys in Chicago, and they told us that many bowlers are not interested in having averages or honor scores or tournaments. They just want a recreational membership.
Let’s say you bowl in XYZ bowling center. Within that center, if you have an ABC recreational package, your average is recognized for tournaments in that center. If you leave that center to bowl in another center, you need a regular membership for your average to be recognized. If you only bowl in one center, you can purchase this club membership at a low price, but you don’t get to travel with your average, or get honor score awards, a bit that makes a lot of people happy. That’s being tested in Portland.
What about open play bowlers? Have you considered a low-cost $2-$5 "Frequent Bowler Club"?
We’ve talked about it, and it’s a good idea, but the proprietors are concerned about ABC/WIBC becoming involved in the open play market. They don’t see a lot of services we can offer that can’t be done at the center, and they don’t think we should get into customers who are not committed to the sport or interested in rules and regulations. We would be forcing ourselves into an area of their businesses we shouldn’t be into.
Do you know if BPAA has a plan to reach this market?
I think they are working on it. What we want to do, as an industry is to get everybody’s name captured in a database. The third test we’re doing is called a franchise membership. It deals with the issue that people get scared off by all the fees they have to pay up front in a traditional league—first and last week, league fees, sanction fees, etc. In southwest Florida, at Pat Cinello’s center, we have a test where the center pays a flat fee based on last year’s membership and all leagues are automatically sanctioned. He folds it into the lineage. Everybody’s covered, and he makes three payments to the local association. It’s working very well. The bowlers love it. It’s a no muss, no fuss, no hassle situation.
Of course, the other one we’re looking at is Sport Leagues, and it’s not based on average. I think a lot of people will bowl Sport Leagues simply because they want to be challenged. There are a lot of competitive 150[-average] bowlers, and there are a lot of 200s who are not interested in competition.
In our conference today, it was mentioned that Sport Leagues would carry an additional fee above normal membership dues. Do you know how much that will be?
The operational side dealing with the averages, rules, membership, etc., is being overseen by Jeff Henry. Jeff was the head of the Rules Department. He is now V.P. of Bowling Inc. He’s an avid bowler, he has an ABC eagle, he understands the game, and he understands the rules. Preliminary research, which includes rules, average maintenance, recognition.... The ballpark [figure]? I think they are talking about $30-$35. It could vary dramatically, but that’s probably a good ballpark right now.
Was hiring Steve Ryan the biggest problem? If not, what was?
[Laughs] Hindsight is 20/20. I don’t know if there is a good answer. If you hire anybody and it doesn’t happen, you can say it was a bad decision.
Also, are any steps in place to insure that Strike Ten President and Chairman of the Board Frank DeSocio doesn’t fall into the same traps that doomed Ryan?
Regarding the Steve Ryan issue, based on the information at hand then and the background he had, the people who did the interviews—Darold Dobs, Charlie Brehob, and Joyce Deitch, all of whom I respect—Steve might have been good for the position, and maybe the industry was not ready.
He really didn’t have the contacts that some thought he had, did he?
Some said we bought a Rolodex, and that may be partially true. Maybe that Rolodex from his NHL days was not the right rolodex for the bowling industry. In Steve’s defense, he was under the belief that we had a very solid membership list that you could bank on and that the proprietors would be behind him 100 percent, so if he sold a sponsor the centers would be on board. Actually, our database was 9-12 months old, because it was done by hand. It’s now up-to-date, at least 60 percent of it, because it’s done electronically. BPAA will say they have trouble getting 50 percent of their membership to do anything together, and they only represent half of the bowling centers in the country. So, maybe Steve had a flawed product to work with.
What is Frank doing to avoid the traps Steve fell into? I think a number of things. Steve felt his charge was to run the entire marketing/promotion/public relations side of the entire bowling industry. If you look at some of the rights agreements, technically, Strike Ten owned the ABC Tournament and how it operated, because he needed all that to go out and sell it. That was probably an octopus with too many arms to be effective. He may have been inadvertently set up to fail.
When we restructured Strike Ten, we made some dramatic changes. We focused Strike Ten on a very clear narrow focus: sponsorship. When you walk in to sell a sponsor, you bring the right people with you.
Example: If you are talking to a brewery, it used to be that just Steve Ryan would go in. Steve was not up to speed to really talk about ABC or WIBC or PWBA. When Frank walks in now, he brings the ABC, WIBC, PWBA, PBA—whomever he needs to provide the details to make the sale. When the guy asks about membership, I can answer. If he asks about bowling centers, [Bowling Proprietors Association of America CEO] Jack Kelly can answer. If he asks about pros, [PWBA President John] Falzone can answer. So the whole team is sitting there. We represent bowling as a team. It’s no different when you talk to Post Cereals or Cartoon Network. In those meetings, Jim Zebehazy from YABA attends.
Frank has a very clear charge of bringing sponsors to the table, and when he gets the meetings, he gets the right players from the industry into the room. It’s a united front, and he doesn’t have to do it alone.
Will he be successful? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. We may find that, frankly, we are such a diverse industry with the ma and pa bowling centers and the different chains that we can never act united. And the sponsors will continue to promote bowling whether it be MTV or whatever, but they are never going to put the money into it because there is no place to put the money to get results.
Is there a timetable set up to reevaluate?
If I’m not mistaken, Frank started last summer, and the indication was 12-18 months. I think there are probably two time clocks. One is 12-18 months, the other is money. ABC and WIBC have made it very clear that from an operational standpoint that we have no intention to provide any additional loans to Strike Ten. They are going to have to do it on their own.
How much is already gone? Industry rumors put the figure as high as $10-12 million?
There were three separate transactions. ABC and WIBC loaned $2.5 million—$1.25 million each—to Bowling Inc. when it started up. The loan was not to set up Shared Services or any of the operations here in Greendale. It was strictly to capitalize Strike Ten Entertainment. Bowling Inc. is a not-for-profit organization, Strike Ten is a wholly owned for-profit subsidiary. To capitalize it, they needed money, so they borrowed it from ABC/WIBC. That was $2.5 million, owed to ABC/WIBC.
Which will never be repaid?
It probably will be. As BI and Shared Services reduces costs and generates positive cash flow; they are making interest payments on it now. They will probably start paying the principal. They have 10 years to pay it off. Strike Ten is a different issue. After they were up and running, Steve Ryan called a meeting of the entire bowling industry in their office in Shelton, Connecticut. He said, "To do this right, to get the bowling industry turned around in marketing, we need about $5 million bucks." Everybody kind of looked at each other. The bottom line is the only organization that had that kind of capital at that time was ABC/WIBC. ABC and WIBC, and BPAA to a far lesser extent, loaned the necessary capital and provided a line of credit to Strike Ten. One loan was $2.5 million from ABC, $2.5 million from WIBC, and $100,000 or $200,000 from BPAA, somewhere in that neighborhood. Those were loans directly to Strike Ten.
That was the one that led to questions about why BPAA was not an equal partner?
BPAA will tell you they didn’t have the money. Right or wrong, that’s what they will say. I have a position that if you are an equity player then you need to act like an equity player, and if you want more money in BPAA then you do the same thing ABC/WIBC does and raise your dues. We took our money out of surplus that we generated, and we did the loan. The loans were interest-bearing and they were to a for-profit corporation. Last year, in our financials, we made it very clear that we do not see in the current configuration of Strike Ten that there is a reasonable chance for that money to be repaid. It was fully reserved, meaning in essence, we took it off as an asset on our books. We took a $2.5 [million] hit. The loans are still in place, but from a financial and audit standpoint, we said they are probably uncollectible. Strike Ten has come forward with an offer to pay so much on the dollar, and it was an offer for a profit sharing agreement, so in essence, they want to get the loans off their books because it affects their audit and financial. They wanted to pay us a very small cash amount.
How small?
Very small. Pennies on the dollar. Maybe not even pennies on the dollar. But the caveat on the other side of it is that it would take them out of debt and give them a clean financial, but we would replace it with a profit sharing agreement. If and when it becomes profitable, we would share in the profits, up to the loan amount.
The reality is, Do we ever think we’ll get it back? No. So we will take some cash at the time and move forward, and if Frank or the future Strike Ten is successful, we’ll get the money back. And then it becomes "found money" if you want to call it that.
Was it a good investment for ABC/WIBC? I think it was, and there were good intentions. The execution was probably poor.
Would we do it again? Yeah. I think it’s important that the industry markets, and it’s important for the industry to do it together. I think ABC/WIBC are the leaders of the industry, and it’s our responsibility to promote bowling. I think it was a good investment—no different than buying stock or something else. It was the right thing to do.
Did it turn out right? No. Some people might say it was a bad business decision, you should be fired, etc., etc. It was a decision I made with our officers and WIBC made with theirs. We thought it was best for the industry.
It was not unheard of. Prior to Strike Ten, we were providing $1 million a year to industry marketing. So we were putting $2 million on the table to promote bowling because we think it’s important.
Is the Connecticut office of Strike Ten still open?
No. When we restructured, Reno Pichetti, Hazel McLeary, and I were on the restructure team. I was the one charged with going in and shutting down the Connecticut office. I had to walk in there and, unfortunately, terminate 14 employees, and try to explain to them that it wasn’t their fault. We had a rental agreement with the building that ended in August. I re-negotiated a lower price, and we shrunk down the square footage. As of August 1, the Shelton operation shut down. Jack McDonald still operates in Connecticut out of his home. But the primary operations are in Wichita, Kansas and Arlington [Texas]—Frank lives in Wichita, and BPAA is in Arlington. Also, there is an office here at ABC for Frank. He’s probably here about one day every two weeks.
Are Frank and Jack the only two employees of Strike Ten at this time?
Frank is the president, and I think Jack is employed for six to eight more months. There is some clerical support staff, and Peter Kohn is still working. He is an outside salesman, working on commission.
Speaking of Jack, what happened to the $200,000-plus raised from the Strike Ten Select promotion?
It’s in the general operating fund of Strike Ten. Strike Ten this coming fiscal year has sufficient cash and income from sponsorships that it will be solvent through the year. If it had to pay the loans, it wouldn’t be. That’s why we are doing the buyout settlement. As I said, the clock is running on Frank and Strike Ten, and if on August 1, 2001 they do not have sufficient capital to operate another year, they are out of business—unless BPAA or somebody else decides to fund them.
Wasn’t the System of Bowling created because BPAA was unhappy with ABC, and they threatened to stop sanctioning their bowlers? They really held a proverbial gun to your head didn’t they?
No. That’s probably the answer to one section of the SOB—the 3-unit rule. But, the SOB was created as an outshoot of the Limited Distance Dressing Task Force Study Committee. I was the coordinator of it. There were representatives from ABC, WIBC and BPAA on it. We did tests around the country for two years on short oil. It became very evident to us that the game was more involved and more complicated than just an oil pattern. There were other factors at work. There were a lot of interrelationships.
Prior to 1991, we started looking at the concept of tying it all together. The friction of the lane surface, the friction of the ball, the friction of the oil became a system, all interrelated. We added specifications for bowling balls that were never there before. We added specifications for lane surfaces that were not there before. We did not change specifications for bowling pins because we felt that was probably the most regulated section. We tied in a lane-dressing rule to deal with the characteristics of the balls and the lane surface, and they were all married together.
As I indicated to you earlier and I said this to the FIQ, the number is 6-7 units (of oil). Our original thought was 6-7 units, and we ended up in a political battle, and threats went back and forth between the proprietors and the regulatory agencies even dealing with how fast we implemented it.
The FIQ rule for oil is 5-unit minimum isn’t it?
Yes. We told them that 5-6 was the right number, and in FIQ events, you don’t deal with the political issues because they are very focused and they run the events. We were dealing with the commercial aspects in this country, and I said to the technical committee at FIQ that five was a little low, but if you target 5, you will have 6 or 7. In 1991, the equipment was not that good that you could get down to a precise unit; so a 5-unit rule would mean probably 6-8 units to be safe.
Why would BPAA care if the minimum requirement was 3 or 5 units?
You probably should ask the BPAA that question. The indication they gave us was that they "couldn’t put that much oil outside," "the machines weren’t capable," if "they put that much oil out they would have machine problems". There was a litany of statements.
Who was saying this? Who is "they"?
Uh ... I’d have to look back and see who the leadership of BPAA was in 1991. Off the top of my head, I can’t give you that answer, to be honest. I lived through it, but I’ve been in disagreement with BPAA on a number of things, so it could be any number of people.
I do remember a situation that sticks out in my mind. It sticks out very vividly, and the people who were there will remember this. We were in St. Louis at the Salute To Champions dinner, and the major topic of discussion was the 3-unit rule. We were advocating 5-6, and the proprietors were saying that, "If you don’t go lower, we are not going to sanction." Threats and innuendoes were going back and forth.
From the technical side, ABC said that if you go under 5 units, there will be some help, or at least some steering capability. Finally, we said 3 units is as far as we will go.
In St. Louis in a side meeting before the Salute, the proprietor contingent said, "If you want to go forward with this 3-unit rule, we are not going to sanction." The ABC leadership was sitting there, and we looked at each other. The president of ABC at that time was Max Skelton, and he stood up and said, "Then, I guess we have nothing to discuss," and the whole meeting stopped.
BPAA said, "Wait a minute, we want to caucus," and they went out in the hallway. They came back in and said, "OK, we’ll accept 3 units, but only if you phase it in so our proprietors can become used to it." We said OK, and if you recall, we phased it in from the start of the season in August, and it ended up being three units on January 1.
There was a time to draw a line in the sand, and WIBC was in agreement, so it was done. That’s how the 3-unit rule came about.
In hindsight, do you wish your position had been 6 or 7 units instead of 3?
In an era that was not as politically charged, maybe. The System of Bowling was a logical choice that allowed us to get some control of the ball that was never there before, and a lot of people only look at the lane dressing rule, but there is a lot more to it. Was it to appease the proprietors? I actually think it ticked off the proprietors. It ticked off some of the ball manufacturers. They had specs that they never had to deal with before.
Yeah—it really hurt them, didn’t it? [laughs]
Well, once they figured out what the spec is and how to work it, then you go forward.
I’ve had people at the ball companies tell me that they don’t care what the specs are, we are going to build whatever fits the environment and the marketplace.
There is no such thing as a perfect ball. An interesting anecdote, back in the late '80s when the dressing rule was 26 feet, scoring started escalating. The reason we test for a whole year is that there is a learning curve by the bowlers and the maintenance guys. We found out that they were finding out how not to strip and do other things, so we said let’s shorten the rifle barrel, and in Niagara Falls, we went to 24 feet.
I was at the BPAA Convention later that year, and I had a manufacturer walk up to me and say, "I want to thank you, Roger." I said, "What for?" He said, "Changing the distance." I said, "Why, do you think it will help?" He said, "I don’t know, but I’ve got a whole warehouse full of balls, and I’m going to market them as the ball to handle the new lane condition." It had nothing to do with it, but it gave him a marketing edge. So, be careful what you read in the magazines [laughs].
The basic foundation of the SOB is still the 3-unit rule, correct?
Yes. Three units are required edge-to-edge as far as you dress the lanes.
Why is there no maximum unit rule?
At the time, if you recall back to the early '90s, with the ball technology then, 20 units was considered a flood. The purpose of the 3-unit rule was to equalize the friction across the lane. We didn’t feel it was necessary to have a maximum because if there was a lot of oil out, and if you take 20 down to 3, you still have the same frictional characteristics, and the lane surface doesn’t change.
We were trying to match lane frictions as opposed to limiting or putting a top hat out there. When we did the rule, we never envisioned 60 or 80 or even 100 units. The wick machines were dealing with the environment of the time. When we did it, we agreed that we wouldn’t change anything for five years because we had been changing a lot of things at that point. We started reevaluating in 1996, and said we need a whole different rule. I think it will be a ratio rule.
I’ve said it many times and suggested a ratio as a solution for many years. Will it happen?
I think that’s what you will see coming out of Sport Bowling. It won’t tie in with units; it will tie in with ratios. Right now, on our sport conditions, the blend is primarily a 2:1 ratio. John Davis at Kegel uses, I think, 2.3:1 ratio. It will deal with a ratio rather a minimum/maximum.
If it’s 2:1 and they are putting 60 in the middle to handle these balls, that means they will have to put 30 on the outside?
That’s exactly right.
That won’t work, will it—going from 3 units to 30?
Yeah, it should. Thirty units on the first board where nobody plays anyway—what’s the difference? The opportunity of the ratio situation will allow you to do a taper so you can get reasonable ball transition.
Like it or not, the 3-unit rule is almost obsolete right now. Nobody dreamed in 1991 of the dramatic reaction the balls get today.
But 2:1 is not a done deal at this point, right?
Right. It could be 3:1 or it could be a slope. In the early to mid ’80s we had a slope rule. There is actually a template used. I’m not saying we will go to a template situation. I’m relying on Neil [Stremmel] to develop the parameters that clearly articulate the lane dressing procedure and put it out there. Sure as shootin', some lane guy will find a way to manipulate it or work it, and we’ll have to make an adjustment again. It’s part of being a regulatory agency. It’s a continuous cycle of adjustments.
You have bowled on all different lane conditions over the past several decades. Did you ever think you would see the lanes change as much as they do from Game 1 to Game 3 in a league session?
No, I didn’t. But I never saw the Internet coming either. If you sit back and really analyze it, bowling balls have gone from rubber to plastic to urethane to aggressive to soakers to the sanding. It’s probably going to happen. A person a lot smarter than me may have seen it coming, but I never did. When I was in my prime, I averaged 200 and I was pretty good. I threw a[n AMF] Three Dot Classic full roller. It was an accuracy, down-and-in shot, hit the pocket, make spares, get a couple of doubles for a good game. If I moved one or two boards, that was a huge move.
Now, I still throw a full roller, and I move 5-6 boards. I get into the third arrow and it feels like I’m getting the bends!
But, the game has changed. It’s changed for the better. Some say it’s a great game today. Some who bowled in the '60s and '70s might say it’s bad. If you ask anybody when was the game at its peak, my theory is that they will tell you it was at its peak when they were at their peak. I think it was at its peak in the late '60s-early '70s when I was a collegiate champion and world champion because I could throw a full roller off the comer and I could kill anybody in sight.
How old were you then?
Twenty.
Does that mean that the game is designed for 20-year-olds, even now?
If we were 20, we would say, Yeah, this is a good game! There’s probably no complete explanation for scoring, but we are getting better. John Davis may have found it by studying the topography of lanes. He may have found why some lanes score better on the left or right or why the left and right lanes score differently with the same lane dressing pattern, but what do we do with that information? You’re not going to have a proprietor out there adjusting the topography of his lanes.
Why can’t John seem to figure out the National Bowling Stadium? The stadium already has a reputation as a lefty house based on the results of several events.
I know it does, but I went to the Senior Masters with the sport conditions, and I watched ABC V.P. Kevin Dornberger, a right-hander, knock off seven straight left-handers in match play.
I’ll give you another example: Last summer at The Orleans in Las Vegas, the Mini Eliminator immediately followed the PBA Senior event. I believe John’s company did the lanes for the PBA, and they had eight left-handers on their show. As PR director for the Mini, I got several E-mails from Mini Eliminator bowlers saying they didn’t want to bowl on lefty lanes. We had to assure them that it would be fair on both sides, and it was. We had no problem. It just seems to me that if you know the topography favors the left side (or the right) you should still be able to balance the condition with the oil pattern.
We had those accusations when Mike Aulby bowled Parker Bohn in the Masters finals, and I wonder if it occurred to anyone that maybe they were the two best bowlers. Those guys are not exactly slouches!
That is common on the women’s tour as well. It happened many times because some of the best bowlers on the tour, players like Aleta [Sill], Tish [Johnson], Dana [Miller-Mackie] and Dede [Davidson], and now they have Cara [Honeychurch] and Tiffany [Stanbrough], are lefties. You mentioned the Masters, I remember the year [Ernie] Schlegel won, about half the finalists were left-handed.
OK, let’s get back to it, the SOB. Are the balls a problem or do the ball companies simply make what is allowed, and if the pins were heavier and oil patterns were tougher, wouldn’t the ball makers just make adjustments?
That’s a big question: Are balls a problem? Just like other segments in the SOB, I think balls play a part in what’s happening. The cover stock and the inner cores allow players to throw the ball faster and still get a large angle of attack. That gives you better carry. So, it’s part of the issue, and companies do make balls within the specs. Are the specs the right ones at this time? I think they probably need some adjustment.
For the 140- to 170-average bowlers, the ball technology is almost too much for them. It’s like having the best golf driver and hitting it in the woods. Only in the hands of the proper people is it a big advantage.
Will lane dressing patterns offset this ball technology? Will they come up with new technology? That’s the problem we have in the sport level to develop a lane-dressing pattern that heightens the shot requirements. We have to make sure that they are the right specs even where they are sitting right now, that the ball manufacturers can’t work around.
We have some things in the works, and this is more of a confidential nature, that may deal with the materials and the composition of the materials and the ball surface, that we can put in place right now, that may counteract them from taking advantage of lane dressing patterns.
And the other thing we have found with the lane dressing patterns is that if you put out a challenging pattern, the pins are harder to knock over, because the angle of attack is less, and the speed has to be less, and you are not hitting the pocket as much.
If you look at Dan Ottman’s league in Detroit with top-notch bowlers, the most improved bowler was minus six pins. They are using the same high-powered balls bowling against the same pins. It’s just a lane dressing issue.
Our dilemma is that if we set up a pattern for Sport Bowling to make sure we have—this will sound strange—the right specs in place to limit future advancements by ball manufacturers to take advantage of it. It’s probably not what we were able to do with the SOB; the existing specs dealt with technology we knew about, not what was coming down the pike.
We have a little more insight now with consultants and people we deal with. We have a better idea of what the materials are and what the capabilities are of balls, and if we put those clamps on now before manufacturers want to use them, I think we will be ahead of the curve. It’s always hard to get ahead of the curve.
The proprietors often talk about the lane finish issue. Is life of the finish or durability of the finish, especially in the impact zone, a consideration when ball specs are written?
We have a specification of lane finish. If proprietors choose to do poor maintenance or a lane gets in horrible condition—you’ve probably seen this in the women’s tour events—it’s hard to get any reasonable pattern or consistency. We don’t feel it’s our position to legislate reasonable maintenance. If a proprietor chooses not to resurface, as long as they meet the dimensional specs of 40,000ths [of an inch], etc., they are approved. At Sport Level, maybe we need to hold them to a higher standard.
In defense of the proprietors, I’ve been in those shoes, so I know what they deal with: They think when ball makers start putting materials like ground glass in their shells, that may be stepping over the line. Agree or disagree? They may have to put out 100 units of oil to overcome these balls. Is that reasonable?
Or put less oil out, and the ball goes in the bag.
Yeah, with burned lane finish all over it.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how fast it goes into the bag. There is an ABC/WIBC rule that says you can’t put a foreign substance on the approach—talcum powder, etc. People probably do it, but it’s against the rules. It has nothing to do with scoreability. The reason the rule is there is that if you put talc out there, you have affected my playing ability, and you have not allowed me to use my skill because you made the approach so slick. You are making the universe more advantageous to you than for me.
If the bowling balls take the oil out of the equation or destroy the lane surface, and we can show it’s other than normal wear and tear, then we may look at a spec dealing with the abrasion factor of a bowling ball, and it would not be because it affects scoreability. It would be because it affects the universe and playing environment, and it’s detrimental to other players.
That rule is already in place for the approach; maybe it will work on the lane as well. We’re looking into that. Do we have a spec in place? Do we know where it’s going? No. But that is definitely under consideration.
Have you visited the Kegel Company in Florida?
Many times.
What is John Davis’ and Kegel’s involvement with the ABC at this time?
John Davis and Kegel, which is a commercial entity, is currently under contract as an independent contractor to assist us in some of the tests and putting out the lane conditions in, I want to say 12 or 15 of the Sport Bowling test centers. He is putting out the conditions, monitoring the lane dressing patterns, working with the proprietors, and collecting data for us.
Since Kegel manufacturers and sells both lane machines and lane oils, are there conflict of interest concerns?
No, because AMF and Brunswick are also involved in the test in a similar capacity. They are helping in 12 centers each, using their lane machines.
One of the things I made very clear to John is that the patterns and the dressing we have to put in place have to be reasonably obtainable by all lane dressing equipment. We can’t develop a rule that favors one manufacturer over another.
John is very aware of that, and AMF and Brunswick are as well. It would only be a conflict if we were only using John and we were developing the rules strictly for [his company's] Sanction Machine.
This event, started last year in Reno at the NBS, had a lot of problems. Would you label it a success or a failure?
The Festival of Bowling was a disappointment. I wouldn’t call it a roaring failure. I wouldn’t call it a success by any stretch of the imagination. We are in our second year in its current format in the fall, and entries are ahead of last year, but still not what we are looking for. If the entry level stays at what we think it will be right now, we’ll have to make a couple of decisions. Do we move sites, do we move the time of year, or do we just blow it up? That decision is yet to be made. We are going to see how it goes this year.
We think the concept has validity, and the people who bowled in it thought it was neat with the different events. Maybe we didn’t get the word out last year. We think we did this year, and if entries are low again, we’ll have to make adjustments or pull the plug on it.
What is the cost of a standard 300 ring?
Our cost is about $30. I don’t know exactly, but I’m guessing about $30.
So, the $12 rumor is not true?
Twelve dollars? The 298 and 299 [game rings] may be in that neighborhood because they don’t have a diamond.
How much is the gold option?
It varies with the price of gold. I want to say it’s about $300 right now.
What percentage of people opt for the gold?
I don’t know. I can get that, but I would speculate about 10 percent.
So, 3,900 is 10 percent of the 39,000 perfect games this past season. The easier the lane conditions, the more rings you sell, correct?
Yes, but we don’t sell gold rings. Keepsake Jewelry Company sells the gold rings.
Well, if I were them I’d lobby for more high scores!
And that may be the reason we get the regular rings so cheap. They probably make a good profit on the gold rings so they can sell us the other rings at cost. Is it a conflict of interest? I don’t think so.
So you are telling me ABC does not make a profit from the gold rings?
We get a royalty fee of $25 per gold ring for them to use our logo. We get 25 bucks. We make money if a gold ring is sold. It’s strictly an option.
Our responsibility is to recognize the accomplishments. The gold ring is a reward. The ABC is not in the rewards business. ABC is in the recognition business. The standard ring is very nice recognition of your accomplishment. If you want to upgrade, you can do that.
Of the 39,000-plus perfect games this past season how many people are represented?
My recollection is that 60-65 percent of the 300 shooters are first-timers. We were shocked when we did that survey two years ago. People have said, Why don’t you give one-per-lifetime gold rings? In a couple of years, we would be bankrupt because so many are first-timers. There are people who shoot five per year, but first-timers are about 60-65 percent.
How much is spent on patches? The reason for the question is that ABC just added more for the lower average bowlers. I don’t recall the last time I saw an adult wearing an awards patch. Who wears them?
Emblems? Actually, if you go to the Festival of Bowling or the ABC Tournament, quite a few people do. We’ve changed the league champion emblem to a lapel pin. A lot of people don’t wear them, but they do collect them. [He looks at the 1999-2000 annual budget.] Rings? Actually it’s rings and watches—$1.6 million is the budget. League Champions pins: $105,000. Emblem cost is about $440,000. For whatever reason, the feedback we get is they still like the emblems for the club awards. I would think they would want pins for 700s, etc. I think a 700 pin would be cool, but what do I know? Our bowlers want the emblems.
Because it’s so expensive, have you ever discussed partnering with BPAA for awards?
I don’t know if I’d call it expensive if you look at the ratio of awards given per member. We have talked at times of getting sponsors, i.e., the Coca-Cola 700 or such. We talked to Strike Ten about that, but it’s not high on their food chain; they have bigger fish to fry. The BPAA only represents two-thirds of the lane beds and only 50 percent of the bowling centers, so it would be awkward for non-members. We deal with all centers.
Didn’t BPAA have an awards program at one time?
Yes. I’ve bought some of those on e-Bay because they are collector’s items. That was a supplement to our awards program, not a replacement. Some did give 300 awards to bowlers whose scores were denied by ABC, but for the most part, it was a program to fill in where ABC didn’t give awards, like a 275 game or a 600 series or 500 series.
It’s frustrating to ABC that some of the local associations duplicate our awards. They will say, We give all the 300 shooters a jacket, and I say, why? That bowler gets a ring from ABC. Why not take that money and give a 600 award to somebody averaging 150? They say the 300 shooters expect it. I say that 300 shooter is not going to leave if they don’t get a jacket from the local association, but the 150-average bowler who shoots his first 600 might feel slighted if he gets nothing for it.
That’s where the local associations need to step up to the plate. I challenge them to walk into the settee areas and ask them what they want. I think they will find that they don’t want much, but they will appreciate being asked. Spend some time in the settee area and you’ll learn a lot. It’s amazing what you hear.
I was bowling in a scratch league in Waukesha, which is just west of Milwaukee. Only my teammates knew I was with ABC; nobody knew me. One night, a guy left a 10-pin, came back and said, "Goddamn ABC!" I said, "What’s wrong?" He said, "They raised the pin weights to 3 pounds, 6 ounces, and now you can’t knock down a 10-pin!" I just said, "OK."
I was a little surprised that you verified that the PBA gold pins score exactly the same as the white pins today....
It’s a visual thing. The gold pins are in the upper end of the weight category, but being in the upper end, the center of gravity is at the low end. That’s simply the geometry of a pin.
I didn’t see any of Bill Taylor’s Shotmaker pins on the shelf at the testing lab.
Because none were approved. Here’s the other side of the story: Bill Taylor went to a manufacturer in Iowa that made approved ABC pins. Their pins had already passed the scoreability test, but we have a requirement that if you change the label on the pin or market it under a different name, you don’t need a new scoreability test. You just need to send us four pins, and we do the threshold test—center of gravity, make sure the coating thickness is right, etc. You get the approval for the new name. It’s the same permit number.
Bill Taylor had pins made that were 3 pounds, 8 ounces or 3 pounds, 10 ounces, I think. They sent us four pins with the BT Shotmaker label. We cut the pins in half and found that the core had shifted, so the coating thickness was real thin on one side and real thick on the other, meaning they had not done a good job. We sent back and said, "These don’t meet the coating thickness requirement of your permit. Send more pins."
We never heard from them again! Bill said we rejected them because they scored too low. That had nothing to do with it.
Are you saying he didn’t want them approved?
Absolutely. There’s no question he didn’t want them approved. I’ve said that in front of groups with him standing there. I’ve told him that if he sent us four more pins from that same company, and they pass the thickness test, he would get his permit. He never sent any more pins.
It’s not for us to walk out of the equipment specs facility and say, "We rejected this or that product." That’s between us and the manufacturer. Bill made an issue of it and I would answer anytime he did it in my presence.
The reality is he got more mileage and was able to throw darts at us for not getting approval. When he had his lane finish, I asked him to bring it to Greendale. He said, "I’m doing it in Europe."
Bill is smart, probably genius level. The problem he had with his ego is that even when he was wrong, he wouldn’t admit it. Even if we said, "Let us try to work with you," if it didn’t work to his advantage, or it wasn’t the way he wanted it.
It frustrated me because I think he could have contributed a lot more and helped the industry a lot more, but I think he relished that lone wolf demeanor. Bill and I are still good friends. I got a fax and left him a message recently. That’s the way it goes.
What’s your opinion of the new PBA?
I haven’t met the new guys yet. I spent a number of hours with Chris Peters. The thing that impresses me about Chris is that he has a passion for the sport and he loves bowling. His heart is in the right place and I think he will do everything he can to make it successful. From ABC’s perceptive, we’ll do everything we can to help him make it successful. As you are aware, ABC was willing to step up to the plate to bail out the PBA. Somebody asked me if I was upset that somebody else bought it. I really didn’t want to use membership dollars to bail out the PBA, but I think it’s important, and the industry needs it.
Chris comes in, a sharp guy, has the wherewithal financially, a good businessman—I think he’s the right thing. I don’t know the other guys yet, but I’m looking forward to meeting with them. I’m looking forward to offering our assistance, collaboration with Sport Bowling. I hope the PBA gets what it deserves along with the PWBA.
I’ve been an avid supporter of PWBA as well. They are important to the sport. They give us our top athletes, and they help make bowling successful. Anything we can help them with, we’ll try to do it.
To comment on this interview, E-mail Jim Goodwin.