ORIGINAL: P-51B
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
A ninth person is also on staff, however his salary is from the advertising schedule of MA, a nice $132,583 for a stay-at-home job.
AMA is paying someone a $132,583 salary for this type of work?!?!?!?!?!?
I find that quite offensive.[:@]
Yes and No. That 'salary' is a commission on the advertising income so sold by the individual.
The situation that I find offensive is that AMA ad. rates are less than all other magazines, yet AMA has a captive-audience far exceeding the distribution figures of the other model media, with the exception of the rates of
RC Report.
The low rates, along with the high number of captive customers, make it easy to sell the advertising. The large distribution of
MA would support rates at the highest in the industry. Properly conducted,
MA could well be a profit center for AMA.
As a Profit Center, the profits, though taxable, would still help support AMA operations, plus relieving the $1,168,738 to also be diverted back into AMA operations. That would equal a $7-8 dues increase. Very high ad. rates could well be a motivator to other media to again support AMA activities. While a number of the other media are on the newsstands, that would be great outside-the-choir advertising for AMA. Then just maybe AMA could again move into increasing the membership where all significant income to AMA really exists.
Only a membership directive from the polls will ever provide for a definite change of course for the floundering AMA ship.