Opinion: GUM trails behind CUP in latest Zed survey - why?

 The MicroWiki General Survey is an annual survey held in November which asks for micronationalist's opinions and demographics, with questions relating to the year it takes place. It is held by Zarel Smith of Statistic-Dime.

2020's survey was held between 4–15 November, and reached a record 63 responses, up 85% from the 2019 survey which had 34 respondents, making it Smith's largest of his near-2 year career so far. We here at MicroWeekly published the results of the survey earlier today.

Of the ten questions featured, two of them asked participants' opinions on intermicronational organisations, first the Grand Unified Micronational (GUM), the largest in the MicroWiki Sector and one of the oldest intermicronational organisations, and the Cupertino Alliance (CUP), a developmental organisation that was revived this year. The options respondents could pick were "strongly positive", "positive", "negative" and "strongly negative", as well as a "no opinion" option.

42.8% (27) of respondents said the GUM was either "strongly positive" or "positive", whilst 34.9% (22) said either "negative" or "strongly negative", with 22.3% (14) declaring no opinion. Conversely, the CUP did much better at 63.5% (40) calling it "strongly positive" or "positive", against 14.3% (9) calling it "strongly negative" or "negative". 22.3% (14) also declared no opinion, the same amount as the GUM.

It has been widely known that the CUP has been assertive in growing a better reputation than the GUM lately, especially amongst the New Guard, however why is that?

Well, typically, growing a positive reputation is hard, however keeping that reputation is much harder. The CUP is also generally considered more laidback and still maintains its professionalism, as is expected being advertised as an organisation for the development of nations, however the GUM is expected by some to act more prestigious and professional, especially with its member states being amongst the most professional and influential in the community. 

While both organisations have had their fair share of scandals and controversies, the GUM seems to have had more major ones. The GUM was unlucky in having to deal with the 2020 Morrisgate Scandal, which according to some lowered its reputation, whilst the CUP did not have to deal with major scandals as large as that. "The Great Shag" was also a major blow - generally a micronation threatening to leave the CUP is a pretty big deal, however a micronation threatening to leave the GUM, especially a nation like Hrafnarfjall, is typically more well-known and seen as a bigger deal.

There is also a chance that since the CUP is new, and cannot easily be compared to much, whilst the GUM can be compared to its older points in history, it may be more easy to criticise; in other words, any criticisms that the GUM is less professional than it once was may look bad overall, even if said critics believe the modern GUM is still better than say the CUP. One would not often criticise something for "not being good enough" without good reason, such as a recent scandal or point in time when it was allegedly "good enough".

Furthermore, the Chairman of the CUP Jayden Lycon has also had an acclaimed term thus far, whilst 30th GUM Chair Thomas Bainbridge and 31st Chair Newton von Uberquie have faced their fair amount of critics, as well as allegations of inactivity. Conversely, the 28th Chair, Adam I, Emperor of Adammia received universal praise for his term, and was widely regarded as one of the greatest Chairs of all time, so much so in fact that he was named the Micronationalist of the Year for 2019 in a poll held by DIME Magazine. Naturally, continuing, let alone improving on such a feat is near impossible, and is certainly intimidating.

We reached out to other micronationalists to see what they thought:

"It's a good question, I think there have been some problems with the GUM honestly. There is a lack of drive in the GUM, with the GUM often resorting to it's safe "mega diplomatic session" during a random period. Credit where credit is due, they are a diplomatic group after all and these sessions have done a lot in charity and others, but they need to add more programs to the general group which leads members closer to the mission of the GUM; diplomacy I assume. Secondly, I think the GUM has lacked an advertising budget. Members still think the GUM is "elitist" and some do not know the clear mission of the GUM. The next administration will need to improve the advertising of the GUM, describe the mission of the GUM, how can the GUM benefit their nation, etc. Finally, I do believe that the GUM needs to increase the session count, make session communication better, as well as making them more accessible (i.e. Diversifying times to ensure that people from other time zones can actively contribute and debate in the organization). The Cupertino Alliance devised a system when we plan sessions, ensure that these sessions are well communicated, as well as allow Ministers to host sessions. This system took a lot of time and planning, with us creating a guide to hosting a session, ensuring that the quality of sessions is maintained no matter who is the host (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kitnwdDHx9x2ps5utjkjMHWkHTQG-xZS/view?usp=sharing). I have discussed with various members of the community and they claimed the GUM is not that active compared to the CA. If that is true or not, this is not the point of it; it shows the lack of marketing communication between the GUM and the public. I do understand that running an organization of this calibre is hard and stressful and that both organizations have major problems but in my opinion, the lack of marketing, poor session accessibility, and lack of drive are the main problems that need to be fixed the next GUM administration." -Jayden Lycon, Chair of the CUP

"I don’t believe the GUM is necessarily losing its reputation, but it is admirable that the Cupertino Alliance has developed as it has. It is clearly growing into a very important organisation for many micro nationalists to join. Regarding the GUM, I think a large amount of stagnation is simply down to poor organisation. While I’m not wholly unguilty of that myself, I’ve tried to spent my term going back to basics and allow future chairs to find a true purpose for the organisation. I also think a large number of staff being of an older generation which has difficulty finding time to commit to the GUM regularly." -Newton von Uberquie, Chair of the GUM

"The answer to that question is very simple. The Cupertino Alliance is branded as a development organization for newer nations, while the Grand Unified Micronational is branded as a more elite and prestigious organization, for the already developed nations." -Leon Montan, Minister of Membership Attachment for the CUP

"Well I think that it shows a growing disconnect between the Grand Unified Micronational, and newer members of the community. And it shows that we must do more to reach out to the wider community." -Austin Jaax, Press Secretary for the GUM

Full results of the question:

What is your opinion on the Grand Unified Micronational?

* Strongly positive: 6 (9.5%)

* Positive: 21 (33.3%)

* Negative: 16 (25.4%)

* Strongly negative: 6 (9.5%)

* No opinion: 14 (22.2%)

What is your opinion on the Cupertino Alliance?

* Strongly positive: 24 (38.1%)

* Positive: 16 (25.4%)

* Negative: 3 (4.8%)

* Strongly negative: 6 (9.5%)

* No opinion: 14 (22.2%)