franklin_m

That's ok, my formal letter asking an expanded question is in the mail. I'm as curious as anyone how it comes back. I'm pretty sure I know, but we'll wait and see.

I'll be sure to post it here, whichever way it goes, when I receive it.

franklin_m

It seems to me that better fields closer to all those new members you want to capture would be more advantageous to boosting membership than improvements to a field a thousand miles or more away.

franklin_m

As I said, my formal letter asking the question is in the mail. Now I'll admit, I'm pretty sure what answer I'll get. Either way though, I'll post it here for your reading enjoyment.

franklin_m

For now though, the FAA UAS Integration Office 12 July 2016 email stands:

"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO ... You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO."

franklin_m

In case anyone is wondering why, in 2011, AMA might want to get CBO language in a bill? Take a look at this:

As a non-profit, the AMA's IRS990's are available to the public. I've been able to find all of them from the period 2013 to 2001 online. I had to ask the IRS for 2014 form, and they sent me a copy. If you look at schedule A, where the AMA lists its membership revenue, I found an interesting trend.

Posted below, by year, is raw revenue numbers. But for a fair comparison, you have to adjust for inflation, and put the data in constant year dollars. I chose 2011, as that is the year that PL112-95 would have been passed.

All inflation calculations were done using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, with the "Has the same buying power in" box set to 2011.

Delta percent calculation for third column was Delta% = (Current Year inflation adjusted $$ - Prior year inflation adjusted $$) / Prior year inflation adjusted $$

Delta percent calculation for fourth column was Delta% = (Current year inflation adjusted $$ - 2001 inflation adjusted $$) / 2001 inflation adjusted $$

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Year[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Raw membership revenue $$ from IRS990 Sched A[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Raw $$ Inflation adjusted to constant 2011 $$[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]% inc/dec from prior year[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]% change over the period 2001 to current year, in constant 2011 $$[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2001[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,837,317.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$9,954,366.17[/TD]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2002[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$6,639,768.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$8,302,072.12[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-16.60%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-16.60%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2003[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,735,083.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$9,456,096.93[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13.90%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-5.01%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2004[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,804,137.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$9,293,037.44[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-1.72%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-6.64%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2005[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,770,001.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$8,949,187.17[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-3.70%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-10.10%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2006[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,685,063.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$8,574,753.90[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-4.18%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-13.86%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2007[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,737,523.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$8,394,202.27[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-2.11%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-15.67%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2008[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,691,095.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$8,035,314.04[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-4.28%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-19.28%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2009[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,268,757.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,621,188.56[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-5.15%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-23.44%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2010[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,022,548.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,244,216.74[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-4.95%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-27.23%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2011[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,234,290.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,227,499.75[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-0.23%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-27.39%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2012[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$6,978,741.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$6,837,247.58[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-5.40%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-31.31%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2013[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$6,980,706.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$6,740,441.48[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-1.42%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-32.29%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2014[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$7,084,369.00[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]$6,731,341.57[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-0.14%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-32.38%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

In 2011, when PL112-95 would have been working it's way through Congress, AMA would have been in the midst of its 7th straight year of revenue decrease from the prior year, and would have been seeing that its revenue had dropped by a total of 27.4% since 2001. Is that enough incentive to try and get something in law that "might" be a tool to reverse this trend? I see 2,726,866 reasons (as compared to 2001). Or an average of 247,924 reasons a year.

By 2014, AMA has seen revenue decreases in 12 of the past 13 years, and a total drop of 32.4 percent since 2001. Is that enough incentive to make statements like "to satisfy all the of the requirements of Section 336 ... you have to join AMA?" Or say that "We've made it clear, that to operate within our safety program, you must join the AMA?"

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

O/K, fair enough. But who figures out where all those new members does, I presume the AMA right (based on new memberships). Are they then supposed to proactively contact these new people and ask them if they want to form a new club? What if those new members don't want to fly at a club, they want to fly by themselves at a school yard? Or they joined another club in the area? At what point does the AMA's responsibility to find club and give out money end, and the responsibility shift back to members? Plenty of clubs have asked for and received help getting land, and plenty have asked for help financially and received it. How much money do you think is allotted to those two things, that never end up getting used?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I can't believe nobody saw that coming back in the day, or got into the time machine and warped back to get a grip on that. Weren't you asking for money and help starting a club back then, didn't you see these things going on?

franklin_m

Honestly, it wasn't until recently I realized that 990's were so easy to get. Everything 2013 and before is available online. When I saw the 2014 wasn't available, I filled out one form and sent to the IRS, and in came a copy of the 2014 filing.

As for watching it, each year they could have done a backward look. Not like the trends weren't visible. It's pretty much nothing but down each year starting in 2004.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Well it's a good thing this catastrophe in the making was caught when it was, if this had gone on another 80 years there would have been a HUGE problem eventually.

franklin_m

Well, I'd probably start by looking at hobby sales data vs. geography vs. AMA market penetration by geography. Perhaps Horizon / Hobbico / AMain and others would lend some general data. Another thing might be to decide what's a reasonable one day out and back driving distance, then use geolocation software to points in the US that are that distance from the most members. See if any existing clubs are close to those points and turn them into regional Muncies.

The other challenge is looking at locations where there are other attractions. Something to draw people for other than just flying?

Just thinking out loud.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Right, but that doesn't address the question, which is who is expected to find and get the fields up and running. Horizon nor the AMA is going to collect that kind of data and then go out hunting for people to ask they if they want a field. Many of the areas where sales are booming are heavily populated areas already (CT, NY, NJ CA), or the land is plentiful but expensive and/or tough weather wise. This isn't the AMA's responsibility nor a vendor, it's got to start with a group of people willing to put in their sweat and labor equity, and then get assistance from the AMA (and perhaps vendors).

franklin_m

For the first question, that seems like a natural role for the regional VPs & AVPs, at least to spearhead the effort. There's a lot of folks out there who have solid project management skills and a willingness to work, but have no desire to muck with the fundraising / cajoling effort. Muncie works for folks in that area because there's full time staff. How do you replicate that on a smaller level in more regions? I'm not saying I know, but these are ideas to pursue.

And that is perhaps a fundamental weakness of the club field effort. I'm not saying that it's the AMA's responsibility, but I will say that they've got a strong interest in solving it. If they don't more clubs go away, then fewer people need memberships to fly, and you have a sort of death spiral. So it might as well be AMA's responsibility for all practical purposes.

The other issue is that people are willing to put in sweat equity, but I honestly think people's time horizons are shorter these days. If you have to spend three to four years building a war chest to put in a paved runway, then a year or so to get it done, many folks aren't willing to wait that long. Some even move to a different area by then. So again, why plow time and money into something you may not be there to enjoy. Is it a tad selfish, yes, but that's human nature. People want to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Just some thoughts.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I can't say for certain, but I doubt there is a field out there that the AMA "built" and put together, and then people flocked to it to join (other than Muncie). The AMA is there in a support, advisory, and advocacy capacity, I don't think they should spend time hunting down fields. Can't disagree at all with the AVP or VPs helping out in that capacity. In some areas they might be focused on actually keeping what they have, in addition to possibly helping find new ones. But again, they need to hear from the members who are willing and able to put their own efforts and finances on the line before the AMA spends time of effort making it happen.

franklin_m

Fair enough. Just so long as you recognize that the "efforts and finances" you talk about compete with other priorities in people's lives. For those that RC is their only interest, and therefore have all the time and money to do it, more power to them. But the problem is those folks are few and far between - and there may not be enough of them anymore to sustain the existing business model.

cj_rumley

Interesting data for sure. Wonder why the large blip in 2003 that counters the trend? Recall that was near the time that AMA was victorious in their retaliatory lawsuit against SFA which soon thereafter died of mortal wounds, but my search effort unable find a record to corroborate the actual dateline I estimated. That event left the SFA membership with nowhere else to go.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Speaking of credibility, or lack thereof.....retaliatory lawsuit? You have got to be kidding me, this is revisionist history at it's best, and most inaccurate. Litigation was planned from the first day of SFAs creation, it was the goal all along. Conceived with ill intent, it was ultimately given a much deserved death sentence. Not once, but twice.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...sociation.html

Some light reading, from someone who was in on the ground floor.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Wasn't Tiano involved in the SFA?

cj_rumley

FWIW- The SFA Story, short version

<source>SFA/AMA Lawsuit Update AMA National Newsletter October 1993



So in their own words, AMA reported that SFA won their lawsuit against AMA (i.e., a settlement was reached in favor of a $$$ award to SFA).


Subsequently, Al Zlogar, owner of Sport Flyers Association took the money and disappeared, after selling whatever remained of the company (the membership list and what little else remained) to Elliot Janss, who used it to form a new company, Sport Flyers of America. This is the entity that AMA sued (what I refered to as a retaliatory action, appropriately or not as IANAL) and won by default. Janss died, AFAIK before AMA collected any of the award granted by the court. His wife conducted the business of the company until caving under the collection actions by AMA's agents.

The Great Satan SFA was dead.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

LoL, I love the colorful and yet dystopian language, "caving under the collection actions by the AMA's agents". So ominous! I've heard there's a special ops like group of AMA folks in Muncie, very hush hush.

It doesn't appear you understand the difference between an award, verdict, and a settlement, or perhaps it's more colorful to fit the story into the AMA=Bad narrative, even for actions in the past. SFA won nothing. Do you understand how a "win" works? It's certainly not caving on litigation you started, to accept 10% of the legal fees you've incurred. Oh by the way, SFA paid out of pocket for that first suit, nobody else. While the AMA had an insurance carrier footing their bill. Oh, and by the way, that insurance company gets to call the shots on any settlement, not the AMA. Since it's the insurance companies money on the line, they call the shots. Settlements for financial/business decisions happen all the time. I'm guessing you never thought the carrier realized they had a winning case, but would cost somewhere close to 6 figures to prove it. And they would get costs (not everything) from the SFA after they won, but guess what, they really had no collectible assets. Other than Zlogar absconding with the money, was the SFA poised to continue forward with business as usual after their big settlement?

Oh, and the second iteration of the SFA didn't go so well either, and the courts didn't really appreciate the attempt to change names (more deceptive practices) and poof...there went the old/new SFA.

Satan? A bit harsh perhaps. Certainly an entity lacking credibility, and we know how important that is. They were created for the sole purpose of spreading lies and rumors about the AMA, and filing suit to squeeze some money out of the AMA. It was a losing proposition from the start, and it failed miserably, not once, but twice. It was a shame of course, they probably could have made a good run of it though legit means. You know, just providing insurance, because after all that's really the only thing the AMA does, so of course they could have done it to.

It's been 20 plus years since the SFA(s) imploded......still waiting to see who fills there shoes and goes toe to toe with the AMA and it's "agents".

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

looking at that data Franklin posted, i am trying to figure out how we can be down in 2014 almost 800,000.00 dollars in un adjusted value, from the 2001 total? remembering that the last dues increase we had was in that 13 year period, as well.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I suspect Franklin and/or others will have their theories.......but I suspect there are valid reasons why, change in investments, structuring income/taxes, and perhaps even the purchase of Muncie and the move from VA. The books are audited every year, and if I'm not mistaken they are waiting on the results of the IRS review.

franklin_m

No complex analysis needed, numbers were not total revenue etc, just straight income, mostly from "membership fees." If you look at the numbers, that's the overwhelming proportion of their revenue as well (something like 90% plus).


- In 2006 and earlier 990s, it was schedule A line 15 and titled: "Membership fees received"

- In 2007 and later 990s, the data came from schedule A line 1, titled: "Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received (Do not include any "unusual grants ") [emphasis added]"



So if anything, numbers in more recent years should have been bigger. They were able to include "Gifts, grants, and contributions" in the figure -- in addition to just "membership fees." And yet there's still been a 32% drop in inflation adjusted revenue!

franklin_m

No time warping required. The issue is at what point do they recognize and act on the clear trend of declining membership revenue? The beauty of the math is that no matter what year you fix as a reference for inflation adjusted dollars, the percentages in the last column come out the same.

I'm not a financial professional, so I wasn't watching it. But AMA has employs financial professionals who know or should know the importance of using inflation adjusted numbers.

- In 2004, should they have noticed the 3 straight years of declining revenue?
- In 2006, should they have noticed the 5 straight years of declining revenue?
- In 2008, should they have noticed the 7 straight years of declining revenue?
- In 2010, should they have noticed the 9 straight years of declining revenue?

Again, they're paying a CFO / financial folks to notice these sort of things.

If they did notice it, say around 2010, would that be enough incentive to get CBO language in a law? Language that might be used to reverse this trend?

franklin_m

That's just the raw numbers and it's bad. What's very bad is when you put those numbers into constant year dollars, a measure of how much that money would have bought. That $800,000 in non-inflation adjusted money is actually worth $3,396,083 in constant 2015 inflation adjusted dollars.

If the raw dollars are going down, and prices haven't been lowered, then it's some combination of these:
- declining paid members in all categories
- higher dollar memberships transition to lower dollar memberships

But if the raw dollars from "membership fees" are dropping, those are the only possibilities.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Remind me to mention the damned if they do, damned if they don't position they find themselves in at every turn!

Would the park flyer program be something they would have done in order to increase membership? It would seem to be, but the anti-AMA folks railed on this program, and still do.

Would embracing a new technology like say, multi-rotors and building education programs around the safe operation of these aircraft be part of a membership drive? It would seem to be, but of course the non "traditional" modelers and anti-AMA folks railed on this program, and still do.

Those CFO and financial folks...have they all been in their current positions since say, 2001? I don't think so.

If there is any criticism to be levied, it's that the EC didn't move to increase dues in a more timely manner, instead of waiting 13 years to do so. Or, when they did increase them, they weren't even covering inflation. So ya, I guess they might have missed the boat on that.

You can try to spin this as the start (or continuation) of the decline of membership, and eventual demise of the AMA all you want. Folks have been doing that since ...forever. Here's one from a guy 13 years ago. Same rhetoric to this day....minus a point or two.

To put it in a nutshell Frank lost because the membership didn't vote.Call it what you will but untill the run of the mill sport flyer is affected by how the AMA is run and how rules are changed,how money is spent(did they ask you where to build the AMA site),they will not care.Most flyers want a place to fly without a bunch of hassels or expense.As far as Sport Flyers the AMA and them got into a war of words the AMA sued and won putting Sport Flyers out of the game.All they did was offer PRIMARY INSURACE instead of YOUR HOMEOWNERS IS 1st.I've been around flying for 15 years ran into a AMA guy one time when we asked what the AMA could do to help inprove our field we were told "to have fun".I wish these people had to operate in the real world.If I gave my boss a reply like that I'd get canned.I guess my whole deal is the AMA membership is slipping and it aint going to get better untill we get new leadership wiiling to deal with 2004 instead of 1964.Times are changing and maybe the AMA should too.If I have offended anyone by what I'm saying so be it I feel the AMA should be held accountable the same way we are held accountable in our every day lives.THe AMA is here to serve us the membership.DO THEY?

The hobby and the AMA are in great shape. They have weathered challenging times before, and will again in the future. I'm hoping you have a chance to ask Tiano what he plans to do specifically to reverse this horrible trend with membership and fees that you've noted above.