ARLA/CLUSTER: Projecto Bouvet 2016 precisa de mais 133 000 para atingir os 250 000 euros necessários.

[João Costa > CT1FBF]

Bouvet 2016 Project - update and a reflection on DXpedition funding

Mark, ON4WW, sent out the following press release [edited]:
Dear DXers - Are you as excited as I am, being able to work K1N
Navassa, the #2 Most Wanted Entity? What a thrill, and what a fine job
the operators are doing under such difficult conditions!
With already almost 23,000 unique callsigns in the log, there will be a
lot of happy DX-campers!

With Navassa being activated, Bouvet Island will be #2 on the Most
Wanted Entity list. Time for an update on my plans.

I was going to wait with an update until I visited the boat owner to
hopefully finalize the financial matters and contract (within a few weeks,
if there is sufficient funding). However, a current discussion on Topband
Reflector about DXpedition funding, has intrigued my interest and I
would like to share this with you. Hence this pre-update.

As you know by now, for this specific one-man project I need to know
upfront what financially is possible. Many of you, the deserving DXers,
have responded graciously. Meaning, the Bouvet 2016 project is at
133,000 euro of the needed 250,000 euro. Waw, and thank you.

The following remarks on Topband Reflector intrigued my interest:

---quote
- Some of my friends go on these trips (three are on Navassa), and all
of them complain that while EU hams are very demanding, they don't do
much to contribute to the cost.

***followed by
- It appears to be the case that NA finances the big trips and EU gets
the Q's. That needs to be ironed out.

***followed by
- Someone did a more extensive analysis of several DXpeditions maybe
2 or 3 years ago. Basically the same conclusion. Typically NA puts
up the largest percentage of the funds but doesn't get that percentage in Q's.

***followed by
- (back and forth arguments from Europeans and North Americans, too
long to put here)

***followed by
- The point that (yyy) is making, he did it very well, is that EU as a
group should contribute more than what they are presently doing. And
he is right.

***followed by
- The last time I saw numbers several years ago the US had something
like 530,000 licensed hams which I think was more than all other
countries together (or close to it). No way to know what percentage
are DXers and possibly concerned with working a particular DXpedition.
However, it might be more relevant if the percentages of financing
were percentages of DXers that contributed. It may be still skewed of
course.

***followed by a final and important remark (to silence this quite
animated discussion) by my buddy Don, N1DG:
- "The number of US hams isn't the issue, it's the number of DXers
working each DXpedition. And the better number to look at is uniques.
My Dayton presentation is here:
http://www.ncdxf.org/misc/N1DG-DXpeditioncosts-Dayton2012.ppt

My NCDXF article is here on pages 5 through 7:
http://www.ncdxf.org/newsletters/2012-AUTUMN.pdf

Since I did the research, NCDXF has received updated information from
its grantees that has not changed the results presented."
---unquote

I had a closer look at the outstanding analysis Don made, especially
the part on Southern Oceans (Bouvet!). To everyone who hasn't read his
analysis, it is important to understand the funding mechanisms behind
the most difficult Most Wanted Entities, do read Don's analysis, please.

The following is quite an eye opener and -catcher of the PowerPoint
presentation:
• Financial transparency rarely done on DXpeditions. It should be.
• If more of the ham community knew the costs and risks involved in
big ticket DXpeditions fund raising might be easier.
• DX Foundations and Clubs can’t continue to do all the heavy lifting.
• Not all DXpeditions are alike. One size does not fit all in donations.

Bullets 1, 3 and 4 are pertinent to the Bouvet 2016 project. Without
having seen Don's presentation (until yesterday), I knew this was the
way to go for my project:

1. Why on earth should I have secrets about YOUR finances (in case I
couldn't find a single corporate sponsor)?
3. I tried to find a single sponsor outside the ham community, to try
and get the financial burden away from the Foundations, Clubs and
individual DXers. I failed so far, but I tried. Someone else will
do better.
4. Why would Bouvet have to be done by a large group, if it can be
done by one person? Is this written in stone? Not all DXpeditions
are alike… indeed, they are not.

Bullet number 2 is addressed to most of us. And is somehow related to
the discussion on Topband Reflector. Let's have a look at some of Don's
figures.

For the Southern Oceans DXpeditions, 63% of the funding comes from
team members. DX Foundations/Clubs make up for 25% of the funding,
individual DXers 12%. Of all QSOs made, 43% were by Europe, 36% by
North America, 16% by Asia and 5% by the Rest of the World.

For the VP8ORK DXpedition, 80% of the funding came out of the USA
(DXpeditioners, Foundations/Clubs, individual DXers). An impressive
figure. As the team members were mostly Americans, this partially
explains the high number of 80% funding by USA (63% > team members).

There is an additional explanation, albeit also being partial. The
donation to DX Foundations in the USA is Tax Deductible, and makes it
more attractive to donate, compared to other countries where this
system is not in place.

Personally, I do believe that indeed the Americans are donating pro-
portionally more than other countries/continents. Mind you, this is a
personal opinion, not backed up by facts (as Don says, DXpeditions
should be more transparent. I have no means to verify whether the
figures in the presentation are correct, neither can Don - these
figures were handed over in good faith, and I base my assumption on
that fact, thus being factually subjective).

There is no good or bad in this, whether the Americans donate more than
others, or the Europeans donate less than others. Moreover, we have no
objective means to verify who donates most. It is only the finance
accountant of an expedition who has that information (I have been on
two major DXpeditions, I have never seen the financial figures of those.
This is no criticism, it is a fact).

We can and should be very grateful these DXpeditions take place thanks
to the combined effort of DXpeditioners, DX Foundations/Clubs and individual
DXers, in whatever gradation they are able to donate. It gets ugly (as
happened on Topband Reflector) when people get personal and start accusing
each other across continents of 'this or that party not donating enough to
my personal likings'.

Let me give you some of the Bouvet 2016 figures (not taking into
account the $100,000 from the angel contributor).

The total number of individual DXers having given donation intentions so
far, is made up by 51% European DXers, 42% North Americans, 3% by
people from Asia and 4% by people from the Rest of the World. The
total amount of donation intentions is made up by 57% from Europe, 29%
from North America, 2% Asia and 12% by the Rest of the World.

For the DX Foundations/Clubs: 43% are out of Europe, 57% out of North
America. No Foundations/Clubs from other continents stepped forward.
The amount of donation intentions by Foundations/Clubs: 67% Europe,
33% North America.

If we combine the amounts of donation intentions made by both
individual DXers and DX Foundations/Clubs: 60% Europe, 30% North
America, 10% Rest of the World.

Perhaps a bit strange when you first look at it, this does not relate
to Don's figures whatsoever. As always, there must be a reason. Here
are
some I can think of:
- for the one-man project there is no 63% paid by DXpedition members
- North American hams/Clubs tell me: we donate through the major DX
Foundations, they will sponsor Bouvet 2016
- NCDXF has opted not to come forward (which takes away a big chunk
of the North American support)
- I am a European (that is meant to be a joke!)
- (more clever people than me will find other reasons)…

To conclude:
- figures (and certainly percentages) can reveal a lot of stuff, one
way or the other. In the end, it is the absolute figure that counts:
is there enough money at hand to activate a 'rare one'?
- kindly stop the mud-wrestling about who is donating most. There are
probably reasons beyond our knowledge as to why the figures are what
they are. If we even know the real figures, at all.

One more thing about NCDXF. I knew if I had their support, others would
follow suit. Bouvet 2016 would be a fact by now.

The reason given for not funding Bouvet 2016: it is the policy not to
support one-man DXpeditions. Fair enough of course, I can live with that,
but it makes my endeavor incredibly more difficult. Probably to the point
where the one-man concept comes to a halt.

For those of you who read Don's .pdf file: no way there will ever be a
future expedition to Bouvet for less than the one-man project's budget
of 280,000 USDs (the dollar/euro rate keeps swinging, you may have
seen another figure in the past). Count a minimum of 600,000 USDs for
a large group. Averaging 74,000 QSOs per DXpedition in the Southern
Oceans (per Don's figures). My target: 100,000 Qs, with lots and lots
of unique call-signs in the log. And lots of happy 9-banders as well.
Propagation and other circumstances willing, I know I can make more
than 100,000 QSOs. Substantially more.

I understand some of you still have reserves because of the safety of
one man being on Bouvet. Believe me, I do have my limits in regard to
safety (I would never board a space shuttle, never). For Bouvet, I have
substantial logistical, medical and safety measures backup.

Some of you have reserves because there will be a large group going to
Bouvet in 2016. So far I have not commented much on this, but as I get
more and more people telling me "Too bad the 3Y0F DXpedition is at the
same time", let me tell you this: there is no other group going to Bouvet
in 2016. There are no operators nor funding for 3Y0F. I was hoping
someone else would bring you this news, but as nobody has done so far,
and as I feel it is hampering my endeavor, here it is. Perhaps Alex
will succeed in another year, but not in the 2015-2016 time frame.

I received a radio license with a Bouvet callsign from the Norwegian
Communications Agency. Perhaps a bit premature, but better early than
not, I suppose. No, I will not yet tell you what the callsign is. I have
my reasons to differ from my usual transparency policy.

When I listen to the K1N pileups (police and DQRMers), I ask myself:
do you really want to go to Bouvet? Yes. I envision fun for everyone, for
3 months. With or without the silly police and DQRMers. For me it is all
about fun (it is a hobby!), to give something back to the DX community
(from which I received so much joy over the years) and activate Bouvet
in the cheapest possible way, giving an opportunity to get as many
unique DXers in the log as possible.

Unless another angel contributor shows up, or the Board of Directors
of NCDXF changes its mind, this project may very well come to a halt
under its current format.

I hope to bring some good news in the near future. In case not, as
always there is a plan B (which you will also like). In case plan A and
B fail, there is plan C: someone else will activate Bouvet, but not in
2016.

If you are able to, and would like to contribute to this project, kindly
let me know your donation intentions via e-mail to: bouvet2016 'at'
telenet.be (just the amount and your callsign). (I suppose in nowadays
terminology we can call this 'DXpedition Crowd Funding') You don't have
to pay now. Only if the project officially goes forward, a PayPal account
will be opened. You will be informed whether or not the project goes
forward. For those of you who contacted me in the past and did not get
a reply from me: please resend your mail (so far I have answered all
e-mails).

73 - Mark - on4ww

ps: I will not engage in a polemic about 'who donates most', the above
is just for your info, not for further discussions.

OPDX