Frank M Howell, K4FMH / [email protected] and Scott Wright, KØMD / [email protected]

Generational Changes in ARRL Contesting: Strategies and Data to Guide Contesting into the Future

Ham contesting also known concerns and clarify opportunities for much smaller number from Canada. as “” is one of the top activi- the contesting community to “right Figure 1 is a map of CW and Phone ties for ham operators.1 The annual the ship before it takes on too much participants for the years 2000, 2005, ARRL Sweepstakes contests in CW water,” so to speak. 2011, 2015, and 2020 all combined and Phone have broad appeal as Our analysis is based upon entries within each transmission mode.2 contests and the numbers of par- into the ARRL Sweepstakes contest, They are concentrated around met- ticipants has been increasing each a popular contest held annually in ropolitan areas but especially in year. Clearly, from an engagement North America. The ARRL made the Northeastern corridor, the West viewpoint, it is one of the great suc- available to us the participant entry Coast, the Midwestern Rust Belt cit- cess stories of the League. So, why data from the years 2000, 2005, ies, and Florida. The Los Angeles, are there hams within our fold who ex- 2011, 2015 and 2020 for a series of San Francisco and Seattle areas tend press concern about the potential for analyses designed to create opportu- to be concentration zones as well as declining participation in contests like nities for the contesting community to Chicago, Minneapolis, and Detroit in Sweepstakes? Why are there some grow the ranks of contesters. the Midwest. The spatial patterns for alarmists among us who believe ham We discovered that Sweepstakes CW and Phone participation are very radio contesting may face a cliff with participants over the past two de- similar with some tendency for CW regard to drop-offs in participation? cades were from all over the world participants to be in more rural areas. We hope this article will answer those but mainly in the United States with a So, Sweepstakes participants tend

Figure 1 — U.S. participants in CW and Phone Sweepstakes Contests in 2000, 2005, 2011,201t, and 2020.

NCJ September/October 2021 1 to be like most Americans, residing while Phone’s annual rates of growth here is necessary for interpreting mostly in and around large cities with range from 4-7 percent, with more the results. If the age structure of some outside of those metropolitan participation in Phone Sweepstakes contest participation is such that new areas. That’s great, right? from both absolute participation hams are being regularly drawn into As the well-known sports an- numbers and percentage growth. radiosport in sufficient numbers to nouncer, Lee Corso, says: not so These results clearly suggest that the replace those aging hams who exit, fast! The demographic processes Sweepstakes participation is growing the shape of the distribution from shaping Sweepstakes’ participation, and includes hams from all around 2000 until 2020 would remain almost and perhaps most all long-standing the U.S. and a noteworthy number identical. That is, amateurs from more contests, portend the potential for outside the country, especially in recent generations would enter as dramatic change to come in the next nearby Canada. But like the sailor older participants become physically decade or so. We report the first re- who ignores the dark clouds in the or mentally unable to engage in the sults of a new study of Sweepstakes distance, there is a demographic necessary “butt in chair” activities log submissions over the 2000-2020 storm on the horizon. for major contests or have relocated period with age-matched data from their housing into situations where ARRL membership files and other Generational Patterns of participation in radio contesting is not enhancements by the authors. Using Participation in the Sweepstakes possible. However, if the age distribu- a number of data analytic procedures, Contests tion continues to shift upward from we identify key generational changes The ARRL kindly provided birth 2000 until 2020, then newer genera- in contest participation patterns that year for all of the call signs in the tion newcomers are not keeping up have not been previously identified. Sweepstakes Contests data where in replacing with those from earlier They paint a concerning picture for age information was available.3 We periods who are eventually leaving the attraction of new blood into the used this information in our enhanced the contesting scene. Or, it could radio sport of contesting. But first, let’s dataset to examine the age distribu- be a mixture of these two opposing look at Sweepstakes participation tions for each year and also added scenarios. The empirical answer from itself for the past 20 years. actuarial life expectancy data from these data is surprisingly clear. The growth in contest participants the U.S. Social Security Administra- We present a histogram of the age seems very clear from the numbers tion to each birth year (see Note 5 distribution for Sweepstakes’ partici- that the League compiles from the log below). This gives us a unique per- pants in each observed contest year submissions. Figure 2 lists numbers spective on not only the age patterns by mode in Figure 3. The median of logs successfully submitted by year of these contesting hams but their age over all contests and modes is and mode. likely remaining years until reaching 60 years. We insert this median into From each five-year gap, the rates Silent Key status. Each log each distribution to give a fixed target are positive and robust. For CW, the was also georeferenced to license through which to visualize trends in annualized rates of growth are from address. the respective age distributions over about 4-5 percent over each gap Some age demography theory time. The results are striking, espe-

Participation in ARRL Sweepstakes Contests by Year and Mode

Year CW Chg Chg % Phone Chg Chg % Total Chg Chg % 2000 1,238 ------1,610 ------2,848 ------2005 1,204 -34 -2.7% 1,441 -169 -10.5% 2,645 -203 -7.1% 2011 1,404 200 16.6% 1,826 385 26.7% 3,230 585 22.1% 2015 1,350 -54 -3.8% 1,826 0 0.0% 3,176 -54 -1.7% 2020 1,444 94 7.0% 2,047 221 12.1% 3,491 315 9.9% Total 6,640 206* 16.6%* 8,750 437* 27.1%* 15,390 643* 22.6%* Note: * 2000-2020 change. Annualized change for CW is 0.83% and Phone is 1.13%.

Figure 2 — ARRL Sweepstakes Contest participation by year and mode of transmission.

2 September/October 2021 NCJ Figure 3 — Age distribution of Sweepstakes participants by year and mode.

cially for CW participants. The bulk is not occurring as the Sweepstakes year (e.g., 2000) that matched the of the age distribution lies to the left contesting participant pool is aging to call sign logs submitted in the next (younger) side of the median in 2000 the point where we need to examine contest observation (e.g., 2005). This for each contest mode. But with each carefully what is the demographic tells us which individual call signs successive five-year snapshot, it profile of newcomers and those continue from five-year observation moves like a caterpillar’s crawl to the exiting. Moreover, what is the life to the next observed contest. Only right (older) of the age 60 median. It expectancy of those continuing to a third to a half of the call signs in a reached a tipping point in 2011 with participate in the ARRL’s premier given year appear again in the next the middle bulk of participants being contesting program? We step through contest some five years later. This ap- around the age of 60. By 2020, a clear results addressing these issues from plies to both CW and Phone contests. majority of participants are above the this dataset. However, the Phone contest continu- median bar (older) but slightly more Some key indicators of demo- ation percentages are systematically so for CW participants. graphic change are in Figure 4. The smaller, never reaching 50 percent. This picture suggests that the row labeled Continuation is the per- It’s clear that readers should recog- needed demographic replacement cent of call signs from the previous nize that Sweepstakes’ participants,

NCJ September/October 2021 3 Continuation, Age and Licensing Characteristics of Sweepstakes Participants by Year and Mode 2000 2005 2011 2015 2020

CW

Continuation --- 36.4 49.6 55.3 57.5 (%)* Age 51 54.9 59.9 63.3 67.3

Age Licensed 19.8 18.51 19.73 19.44 20

Tenure 31.72 36.84 40.38 43.97 47.41

Generation (%): Traditionalists 37.3 34.7 30.6 27.5 22.3

Baby Boomer 55.8 56.7 61.5 64.3 68.2

Gen-X 6.8 7.7 7 7.5 8.3

Millennials 0.1 0.8 1 0.6 1.1

Post- 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 Millennials

Phone

Continuation --- 26.4 35.7 43.1 44.8 (%)* Age 49.8 53.7 58 61 63.9

Age Licensed 24.4 23.1 25.4 26.2 27.5

Tenure 25.8 30.9 32.7 35 36.5

Generation:

Traditionalists 33.1 30 25.3 21.6 14.6

Baby Boomer 58.3 59.4 61.2 64.7 66.3

Gen-X 7.8 9.3 11.9 11.5 15.9

Millennials 0.8 1.2 1.5 2 2.8

Post- 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 Millennials * For continuation, this refers to the percent of call signs in the column year that were also in the preceding column year (e.g., 2005 is 2000-2005).

Figure 4 – Age, Age Licensed, Tenure and Generation of Sweepstakes Participants by Year and Mode.

4 September/October 2021 NCJ especially those in Phone, are not years have been licensed longer than To address these questions, we the same operators but they do tend similar Phone participants. They are enhance the Sweepstakes dataset to reflect the same generation, col- culturally rooted in the era of amateur to compute measures of exits and lectively moving in some lockstep radio where they entered the hobby at newcomers into each five-year ob- through the past two decades of the a young age and may indeed reflect servation window. Because it can Sweepstakes. This suggests that an earlier generation of ham radio in be complicated to just describe this Sweepstakes contesting is culturally cultural beliefs about the hobby. In data creation in just words, we rely on rooted to one or more generations both cases, the vast preponderance the diagram in Figure 5. From left-to- rather than a single collectivity of of participating hams (88.9%) was right, the years of data we obtained specific hams. born in the Traditionalist (pre-1945) from the ARRL represent whether a The average age has moved or Baby Boomer (1945-1964) gen- specific call sign was in a contest for upward over the past two decades erations. that year or not.4 If a call was in 2000, some 15 years from 51 to 67 among for instance, and it was not in 2005, CW contesters. Phone participants then we count that as an exit case are slightly younger on average, but Demographic Sources of for the 2000-2005 interval. If that call they too have moved from 50 to 64 Newcomers and Exits from was also in 2005, then we consider over this twenty-year period. Now a Contesting that a continuation (as shown in Fig- key element of this demographic mix Having described the dominant ure 2). If a call was not in 2000 but is the age at licensure, created from generational character of Sweep- was in 2005, then we consider that the “check year” field in the required stakes participants, we remind the a newcomer. These were computed Sweepstakes log compared to the reader that these are not the same separately for the CW and Phone birth year. Phone participants tended set of individual hams to participate Contests. We also recognize that we to be licensed in their mid-twenties year-in and year-out (e.g., 50% or are not able to link call signs to previ- while CW contesters were in their late less continuity). But what age demog- ously used call signs, so this aspect teens. These are averages, of course, raphy are those who enter contest- of our analysis is a weakness. and vary somewhat. We include the ing? When did newcomers become But taking into account that we do standard deviation under the mean licensed? How about those who get not have each and every single year’s score to better illustrate this variation. enthusiastic about later log data, this method could have a But this aids in our understanding of in life? These factors are what will call sign that was in 2000-2004 but the tenure of being licensed. Par- drive contesting into the future over just missed 2005 and still be counted ticipants in the CW Contest over the the next 10-15 years. as an exit. The same thing could con-

Figure 5 – Schematic Diagram for Sweepstakes Contest Log Database Construction for Exits and Newcomers.

NCJ September/October 2021 5 Figure 6 – Exits from Sweepstakes Contests by Period.

versely be the case for newcomer. But term newcomer. These may be more by Generation X members during to counteract this random absence reliable but longer-term indicators of the second decade of observation. case, we computed long-term exits the ebb-and-flow of Sweepstakes Note that the number of those leaving and entrants. As the red box on the Contest participation than the 5-year this contest program declines over left designates, if a call sign was in measurements. time, suggesting that it may indeed either 2000 or 2005 but was not in The short-term exits for CW and be age-related health issues rather any of the remaining contest files, Phone are shown in Figure 6. There than changes in interest. While exits we counted that as a long-term exit. is a greater exodus during the 2000 to exacerbate the generational problem, Accordingly, if a call sign was in 2015 2011 decade and is dominated by the or 2020 but not an any previous Traditionalists and Baby Boomer gen- contests, we count that as a long- erations. Some exits are prominent

6 September/October 2021 NCJ Figure 7 – Entrants to Sweepstakes Contests by Period.

Figure 7 contains data on newcom- ers, where replenishment of those leaving may be found. But here is what may be a surprising result. Newcomers tend not to come from later generations but from the well- spring of the Baby Boomers and their preceding generation. And while this is true for both contest modes, there is a nominally greater increase of Generation Xers and some token Mil- lennials arriving in the Phone contest logs in the last five years. This trend is a potential strategy for the contest- ing community to grow participation in Sweepstakes especially via the Phone contest. The long-term exits and newcom- ers are described in Figure 8. In the CW Contest, long-term entrants are almost wholly from the Baby Boomer generation. While the small presence of other generations is observed, they pale by comparison to both long-term newcomers and exits by this generation. Another potential source of new blood into radiosport are what the first author termed, “late-in-life hams,” in his NCJ article series on Aging and Figure 8 – Long-Term Exits and Newcomers by Birth Generation, 2000-2020.

NCJ September/October 2021 7 Contesting. These are middle-aged adults who become licensed and en- gage in the hobby. Using the definition cited in the NCJ articles (see note 1), we computed late-in-life-hams using the age variable as license age be- ing 40 or above. Out of the 12,663 logs with matched age data, a total of 1,655 (13%) were classified as late-in-life hams. While this is a small number in absolute terms, to what ex- tent do they represent newcomers to the Sweepstakes? Figure 9 provides an answer. The bar chart shows that there is an increasing number of hams licensed later in life joining each con- test year. Well over 100 were present in each year since 2000 in the Phone Sweepstakes but less for CW. This is a clear differential in late-in-life hams favoring Phone over CW. In the past decade, this difference has become larger with over 250 such hams tak- ing up Sweepstakes Phone entry as compared to no more than 100 in CW. Thus, late-comers to ham radio and Sweepstakes contest participation migrate to Phone much more than CW. These observations suggest that the Phone Sweepstakes are a Figure 9 – Late-in-Life Hams by Year of Contest and Mode. perfect entry way into HF contest- ing for newer licensees who want to try contesting by participating in a domestic event that fosters success with modest antennas (wires, verti- cals) and lower power (100 watts). It is an opportunity for all contesting clubs to find and invite such newer licensees to join Sweepstakes 2021 and beyond to experience the thrill and passion of HF contesting. This suggestion is made even more crucial to long-term contesting sustainability given the next trend we uncovered.

8 September/October 2021 NCJ Life Expectancy and the score. Regardless, taken in aggre- mode (Figure 3). Instead of age, we Demographics Facing gate, these projections are likely substituted remaining life expectancy Sweepstakes critical for understanding the cliff that computed as the difference of life Our final analysis involves the HF contesting is about to experience. expectancy and age. Instead of the estimated life expectancy of Sweep- If we think of the expected remain- median life expectancy, we inserted a stakes participants, using the U.S. ing years of life at a given age as vertical line at zero which reflects the Social Security Administration’s a battery where “years of life” is a average remaining life expected, trad- actuarial data for average predicted charge, we can examine patterns ing on the remaining battery charge remaining life by age.5 Some ba- of life expectancy as being above metaphor. Figure 10 contains graphic sic explanations of these data are or below the expected “charge” representation for each Sweepstakes warranted before proceeding. The until reaching depletion (Silent Key year and contest mode. predicted remaining life is the aver- status), whether SK status reflects The positive results are that all but age and there is variation around relocation to a living situation where one time-to-expected-SK status is that mean score (standard devia- contest operations cannot occur or on the right side of zero (or positive). tion is thought to be between 8 and ultimately through death of a given If newcomers to the Sweepstakes 15 years, depending upon the time individual. The presented data will contest program averaged the age period referenced. (See Note 5.) So, underestimate the age when physi- distribution in this participation pool, these are population characteristics cal or mental infirmity precludes there would be a supply “re-charge” and individuals (hams) will vary on active contesting. We constructed (replenishment of SK contesters with length of time with regard to becom- a set of histograms similar to the newer contesters with life expectan- ing Silent Key around this average age distribution by year and contest cies of several decades) that would

Figure 10 – Life Expectancy of Sweepstakes Participants by Year and Mode.

NCJ September/October 2021 9 sustain it for over two decades or so. younger participants thus far. Contesters and contesting clubs The clear and dramatic exception is That said, we also recognize that can create new marketing/recruit- in the CW contest where fully one-half it is not too late to reverse these ment strategies to welcome adults of the 2020 participants have used trends and interrupt the aging-related of all ages into the hobby, and to half of their expected remaining time decline that is happening in con- encourage them to give contesting a until SK status. This does not take testing and that will soon result in try. Phone Sweepstakes is one such into account physical or mental im- dramatic reductions in numbers of ‘gateway’ to contesting. Contest spon- pairments that would take hams out participants. Sweepstakes, espe- sors, like the ARRL, can ensure that of the contesting participation pool. cially Phone Sweepstakes, attracts any changes in the rules of Sweep- Thus, future participation in the CW new participants from among those stakes should reflect changes that Sweepstakes would fade out within recently licensed, regardless of their encourage rather than discourage a decade or two based upon these generational age. Growth in Sweep- new participants. The ARRL might data unless younger hams enter the stakes is not occurring from a new consider creating some awards which CW sector of radiosport. hobbyist “teenage” demographic, target exclusively newer entrants into which is how many of us entered Sweepstakes, like a ‘rookie category’ ham radio. There are plenty of data but without the culturally offensive What Do These Results Mean describing how ham radio does not stigma of calling a middle-aged for the Sweepstakes and Other have the same allure today as it did adult a ‘rookie’. (We suggest using Contests? in the 1950’s-1970’s. We cannot undo Newcomer instead.) The Contest The current participation numbers cultural trends and changes in new Advisory Committee may want to criti- for the Sweepstakes contests look technology. We can however create cally evaluate the Sweepstakes data good, even promising future extended new marketing/recruitment strategies and offer additional innovative ways growth, if we only take the raw counts to welcome adults of all ages into the to attract more participants. of submitted logs into consideration. hobby, and to encourage them to give Finally, these data suggest that This is exciting for those of us who are contesting a try. Phone Sweepstakes there are plenty of new hams in the long-term contesters as well as the is one such ‘gateway’ to contesting it hobby but not enough contesters. ARRL contest itself. However, there seems. The data already point to that, Local, regional, and national contest is more to what we have observed. and it is an observation that suggests clubs must reevaluate outreach strat- The loss rate of contesters leaving the ways for the contest clubs throughout egies and meeting formats to attract, ARRL Sweepstakes contest is high North America to target and draw in mentor, and retain new contesters and reflects the aging demographics new participants. within our ranks. Individual contest- of our hobby, as well as the lack of Our data analysis reveals several ers can also contribute to contest adequate replenishment of newer, indisputable facts. First, Sweepstakes growth. We can dispel the popular younger contesters. participation remains popular despite myth that a successful contest sta- Because of these demographic the folklore that it is not growing, tion requires multiple towers, Yagi patterns, it appears to be a culturally although that annual growth is small. stacks, vertical arrays, and teams of situated issue riding a demographic Second, the participants in Sweep- operators. There is a role for these storm. If it were just promoting the stakes are typically experienced ham sophisticated, team-based contest- Sweepstakes contests to other age operators who have been licensed for ers. They often lead through innova- groups, the activity would be attractive many decades. Third, the number tion and performance, stimulating by itself. However, note the maximum of younger generation hams (under the rest of us to pick it up a notch or continuity rates never reaching more age 40) has not contributed to any two. But there are plenty of ways that than 50 percent across each five-year measurable change in Sweepstakes individual contesters can enjoy the period. Yet, it was almost one-half of participation. Fourth, there are newer hobby and be successful, whether the second year’s participants that licensees (not necessarily younger in through modest stations at their were also from the Baby Boomer (or age) who are participating in Sweep- home, through mobile contesting or perhaps Traditionalists) generation, stakes and largely contributing to its even portable activities like the SOTA, not Gen-Xers or Millennials. Certainly growth. Fifth, Sweepstakes has ‘curb POTA, the Portable Operations Chal- not post-Millennials which could be appeal’ to newer licensees, especially lenge, and others. counted on two hands. This is strong Phone Sweepstakes. It is also important to acknowledge evidence that Sweepstakes contest- These observations suggest sev- the impact of housing transitions from ing as we know it is a cultural practice eral pathways forward to sustain a home without restrictions that appeals to those born before contesting, enrich the hobby, and to a property with severe restrictions, 1965 and, while nominally growing replace our senior contesters who especially later in life for those who among Gen-Xers, has not attracted are becoming SKs. wish to continue as contesters. It is

10 September/October 2021 NCJ imperative that we acknowledge this 3. A total of 12,873 birth years were Frank M. Howell, K4FMH is pro- reality and work to create opportuni- supplied for the 15,390 logs sent to us fessor emeritus at Mississippi State by the ARRL. This resulted in 2,517 University and an adjunct professor ties to contest via remote stations or (or 16.4%) not having age data. We at Emory University. His academic through shared club stations, such examined patterns of missing age career involved sociology, statistics, as exists in The Villages in central data against several key variables that computer science, and spatial de- Florida. The ham radio hobby has are independent of age: US call vs mography. He co-founded two peer- international, year of contest, absence always been about innovation and reviewed journals — one on social of year contests by mode, mode over science computer (Social Science response to challenges. The chal- all years, state location, precedent Computer Review) and another on lenges we face in contesting are no category, long-term exits and entries, spatial demography (Spatial Demog- different. The demographic “cliff” we and total number of CW and Phone raphy) as well as a book series on the contests. All except long-term phone observe and describe with contesting latter topic late in his career. He also entry were statistically significant. But co-edited a sociology peer-reviewed need not be a self-fulfilling prophecy. examining the cross-tabulations, the journal of research, Sociological percent difference in any category was Spectrum. He is a former editor of Notes about 5 percent of the cases. We do not one of the leading textbooks on sta- 1. Frank M. Howell. “Aging and Radiosport see these differences as substantially tistics as well as the Springer Journal — Part 1” , reducing our ability to generalize series. He has been an SWL, BCB July/August 2020, pp. 3-8. age patterns to the full Sweepstakes DXer, and antenna builder since he 2. With the approval of ARRL CEO David dataset used in this study. was 8 years old. At age 20, he led the Minster NA2AA, these data were kindly 4. We recognize that call signs can and construction of two radio stations — a do change. While georeferencing each supplied by Bart Jahnke, Radiosport Georgia College FM (WXGC) and log record, we took note of this potential and Regulatory Affairs Manager, at a commercial AM station (WXLX) by examining the log entity (person, ARRL Headquarters. He handled in Milledgeville. He is an active ham follow-up questions in a very timely club, etc.). It did not appear to be very prevalent enough to warrant concern podcaster with the ICQ podcast manner and our thanks are expressed as well as his own website www. here. by us. 5. See https://www.ssa.gov/oact/ foxmikehotel.com. He has recently STATS/table4c6.html. We used these written about the first group of ama- data to construct expected (mean) life teur radio hobbyists in the US entitled span and compared it to current age in “The Lost Tribes of US Amateur Radio the contest year to compute remaining Operators” as well as a series of so- life expectancy. Our narrative discusses ciological observations about amateur the standard deviation around this radio at his blog and website. average life expectancy. See, for instance, this article by Edwards at Scott Wright, KØMD, was licensed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ at age 12 in 1977 as WD4HAD in articles/PMC3285408/ which suggests Kentucky. He developed his love of that 15 years is a good approximation. contesting as a youngster during Field Others, such as Hennington (https:// Day but seriously reentered contest- www.actuaries.digital/2020/08/12/ ing less than 15 years ago. He credits standard-deviation-around-life- K4IU for sparking the reentry. Wright expectancy-is-eight-years-what-this- is a past editor of NCJ, an active con- means-for-retirees/) suggest that 8 tester, a member of the Minnesota years is a better current estimate. Wireless Association, a Life Member of ARRL, a Maxim Society donor and an ARRL Diamond Club. He’s also a member of the RSGB, the CDXC, the B1Z Contest Club (honorary), and the Radio Club de Chile. He is a cardiolo- gist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic as well as an internation- ally recognized researcher in heart disease. Wright serves as associate editor of the Mayo Clinic Proceed- ings, one of the most widely circulated general medical journals in the world. He has appeared on Ham Nation and Ham Talk Live during the COVID-19 pandemic to discuss the pandemic and emerging therapies.

NCJ September/October 2021 11