As one of the 39 parasites who finaled last year in the Golden Heart:
1) The idea that the GH offers no value to its finalists is patently false. I received two agent requests for fulls, three editor request for fulls, and signed with an agent: all because of my final and the attention/gravitas it brought to my novel. In addition, the GH finalists form a very tight group. The advice, help, education and support I've received from my fellow finalists is priceless. Of my class, ten have publishing deals, most of us are agented, and several of us are currently on submission. Many of us are also pursuing self-publishing and are deep in the prep work of developmental edits, copy edits, and cover art.
Four of the five finalists for the RITA for Best First Book this year are former Golden Heart finalists. Funny how RWA didn't mention that...
2) The dollars spent - which are ridiculously inflated and outright misleading - are not limited to the finalist leeches. I finished my first novel because I used the Golden Heart as a deadline. My critique partner finished her first novel using the contest as a deadline. While there isn't detailed feedback, the entries receive numerical scores across five judges so the author is able to see "Do I have a love it or hate it book?" "Is my book strong but just not strong enough to final?" or "This manuscript needs more work."
And let's talk about those costs:
First, the luncheon cost is not included in the cost breakdrown provided, as RWA would still need to hold its award luncheon (the GH was added to the luncheon for the service awards, bookseller award, etc.). However, RWA DID include the cost of the emcee/keynote speaker, as well as the cost of the A/V - costs that would be incurred regardless of the GH being awarded or not. And yes, adding the GH back to the RITA ceremony would mean very few incremental costs to the overall expense of that ceremony. In addition, the RITA ceremony has a volunteer committee to help plan it, thus defraying those supposed staff costs (more on that later).
Second, RWA said the GH had two receptions. It does not. It has one, which was held for the first time last year: a meet and greet with agents and editors. The second reception includes RITA finalists and the board of directors, and that reception would still be held with or without the GH.
Third, the staff costs. The staff costs are aburd. If you break down the cost into hours, then at annual salaries of $60,000-$100,000 (being very generous) that would mean staffers would need to spend 300-500 manhours on the GH ALONE. That's seven to twelve weeks, 40 hours/week. ALONE. No RITA, no general conference planning, no working on other issues, JUST the GH. A contest that is handled mostly via software. That's why people are questioning the staff costs. Because that is a claim too ridiculous to be believed. Anecdotally, I twice emailed an RWA staffer with questions about a particular GH entry I was given to judge (it exceeded the page count and I didn't know whether I should score it or not) and never received a reply, so I highly doubt it was all GH, all the time.
Fourth, the comp registrations for the national conference for GH judges. Those aren't expenses. They are lost income or payment in kind, and they should not count against the expense of the GH as those editors might be otherwise comped for workshops/pitch sessions, or may not come to National at all if they aren't comped, therefore not incurring the lost income.
Fifth, the dreaded "so much money for the benefit of so few." Let's look at the RITAs, shall we? The 2016 audit report shows that RWA took in $119,250 in contest fees but spent $174,144 on contests. Using the (very imperfect, I know) assumption that Golden Heart expenses, as calculated in the cost breakdown, remained consistent from 2016 to 2017, then the Golden Heart would have accounted for $32,837 of these expenses, of which $17,747 would be a net loss. This means the RITA would have cost RWA $141,307 in 2016, with a net loss of $37,147 – and the RITA provided a career benefit to only sixty or so authors.
Yet no one called for the abolition of the RITA. Instead, the RITA was modified to eliminate expenses such as shipping physical books, while tiered entry and staggered submission costs were introduced to alleviate pressure on entries and increase the number of individual authors. Contrast that with Golden Heart statement, in which the board jumped to eliminating the contest as the first and only concrete solution given.
I agree the contest should be revamped. In fact, I believe RWA needs to take a long hard look at its overall mission and who it wants to serve. I do not agree with the statement's wording. I also feel terrible for this year's GH class, who now have this hanging over their head when they shold be celebrating their accomplishments. Not to mention this statement came after RWA eliminated, without any notice, the priority signup for agent/editor pitches from the 2018 finalists.