Five clear reasons why the APS stragegic plan 2026 – 2030 is unlikely to be successful

Background

In their newsletter, APS has shared strategic plan for years 2026 – 2030 (link). The challenges of APS are, in the big picture, the same as those of Finnish philatelic associations. The difference is that in Finland the decline is proceeding faster, because of order of magnitude lower number of stamp collectors & philatelic association members. And faster digitalization = giving up paper letter mail.  I have written about it separately (link). But for the same reasons as in Finland, plans for philately in associations are unlikely to grow with any feasible measures – at most the rate of decline can be slowed down a little.

1. The plan depends on a shrinking and aging volunteer base

Almost all meaningful APS activity—content, education, clubs, shows, mentoring—depends on volunteers.
That volunteer pool is declining, aging, and already stretched.

The plan assumes that:

• volunteer capacity will remain stable or grow,
• volunteers will take on additional tasks,
• and they will do so for new digital initiatives.

This assumption runs directly against demographic reality. Without sufficient human capacity, strategy execution stalls regardless of vision or infrastructure.

2. Digital transformation cannot substitute for human engagement

APS can buy:

• modern platforms,
• websites,
• CRM systems,
• marketing tools.

But it cannot buy participation.

Digital infrastructure only works if members:

• actively create content,
• interact regularly,
• mentor newcomers,
• and sustain communities within those platforms.

The plan treats digitalization as a driver of engagement, when in reality it only amplifies engagement that already exists. It does not generate it.

3. The core membership is structurally resistant to change

The APS membership base is predominantly older. As a group, older members tend to:

• prefer familiar formats,
• resist changing long‑standing practices,
• disengage quietly rather than adapt.

The strategy assumes widespread willingness to:

• adopt new tools,
• change participation habits,
• support new outreach models.

This is unrealistic. Some members will adapt—but many will withdraw, reducing the very engagement the strategy depends on.

4. “Growth” is asserted without evidence, metrics, or contingencies

The plan repeatedly promises “growth” but:

• sets no numerical targets,
• defines no baseline,
• offers no fallback scenario if growth does not occur.

This suggests growth is being used as motivating language rather than a realistic forecast.

Given the niche nature of philately and competition from digitally native hobbies, meaningful net growth is highly unlikely. At best, APS may slow decline or stabilize at a lower level—an outcome the plan never openly acknowledges.

5. The strategy postpones, rather than resolves, structural decline

In practice, the plan appears designed to:

• preserve optimism,
• maintain institutional credibility,
• and buy time before harder decisions are required.

Rather than confronting limits—volunteer exhaustion, shrinking scale, necessary consolidation—the plan projects a future that depends on capacities APS probably will not have.

As a result, the most likely outcome is:

• partial implementation,
• uneven results,
• volunteer burnout,
• and eventual disappointment when promised momentum does not materialize.

Bottom line

The APS plan is not doomed because it lacks vision or good intentions.
It is unlikely to succeed because it overestimates human capacity for change and underestimates demographic reality.

Growth is improbable. Renewal is limited. Stabilization at a smaller scale is the most realistic outcome—but the plan does not admit this.

P.S. The plan, in its unreality, could also be interpreted - between the lines - as an expression of despair creeping in. Which is translated as "growth" for psychological reasons.