franklin_m

Their business model is failing. Despite AMA trying to court drones members for several years now, it's been a failure. And yet, you read this in the minutes:So you've been courting MR members for several years now, and it hasn't worked (declining membership revenue), and now you want to spend more? This is just putting good money after bad. And it's bad business. But he's not done spending our money:
Although one can argue the costs of a free digital magazine are minimal, that database is not. One big reason is that it adds a compliance cost. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires strict handling of information gathered electronically from minors, and it limits what you can and cannot do with it. FTC will take action to enforce, having done so already against Girls' Life, American Pop Corn Company, Lisa Frank, Inc., Mrs. Fields Cookies, and The Hershey Company (see note 1). The law requires a number of specific actions, all of which take staff time, and that means money. In some cases, record keeping may require additional technology, again more money. Money that is falling as membership revenue falls.

Lastly, as I'm working on my own business travel claim, it occurred to me that they probably spend a good amount of money just on board meetings. There's 14 members that don't live in Munice. If you assume airfare, cabs to/from airports, one night in a hotel, and two days per diem, conservatively we're looking at $1,000 per traveler. $14,000 a meeting, four meetings a year, and that's $56,000 a year. More of course if they're also funding the cast of characters that also seem to attend most meetings. Let's put this in perspective with the other "priorities" of the AMA. The EC spent 20% more on their own meetings than they spent on scholarships in 2015 (note 2). The EC spent 140% more attending their own meetings than they spent on flying site grants in 2016 (note 3).

This seems wrong. The EC spending more money on their own travel than all of flying site grants for the entire organization? That just fails the common sense test.

I suspect that the new generation, with a healthy distrust of organizations anyway, would be even less inclined to join if they could see these numbers.


Note 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childr...Protection_Act
Note 2: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2...sAnnounced.pdf
Note 3: http://www.modelaircraft.org/members...itegrants.aspx

init4fun

Hi Franklin ,

So the question here is ; Yes it does appear that the present business model isn't working . We're spending money to court folks who plainly don't seem interested . Beyond stopping the spending on enticing folks who aren't interested , and a bit of "belt tightening" of spending elsewhere (eliminating the plans for the indoor facility in Muncie just may be a good start) , what would you do to attempt to correct the deficiencies in the business model ?

Like Mike said earlier , of course I'd like to see the AMA continue well into the future . I think we all want that . What obviously can't happen is an accelerated rate of spending when the decline in memberships clearly indicates cost cutting as an act of self preservation should be part of the future plan untill (if ?) the membership numbers begin to grow again . Only one entity I know of seems to be able to pull off the amazing feat of continuing to spend more year after year even with reductions in the amount of funds available and sadly our AMA ain't even close to the US government in carrying that ball ...

franklin_m

First, we need to stop the membership numbers game. Someone who downgrades from an open/senior to a park pilot is hardly a victory. We need to understand why people are making this choice. Similarly, we need to understand why youth members are not converting. Both of these point to surveys of those fitting this criteria. In all cases, be sure to collect demographic info, location info, nearest flying field info, cost of membership in local club (if applicable), perceived quality of that field compared to the perfect field for their interests, member of more than one club, etc.

Second, for those who remain AMA, or who join AMA, we need to understand where they see value. I'm not a big fan of the organization touting BS like a laminated membership card as a "benefit." It's not. Let's talk tangible things. Maybe use a forced ranking system and/or multiple questions where they must choose a range of value between two very different benefits. In all cases, be sure to collect demographic info, location info, nearest flying field info, cost of membership in local club (if applicable), perceived quality of that field compared to the perfect field for their interests, member of more than one club, etc.

Third, they need to survey people actually using "Taj-Muncie" and compare that to survey questions above on the value. How many, how often, etc. My choice of words obviously hints at my personal beliefs, but I think it's imperative that we know if it's of value not just to those who use it, but those who don't. We need to know why.

Fourth, cost cutting. They need to look at their core mission and focus very hard, with a sharp pencil, on what activities directly support that mission. The problem as I see it is their relatively vague wording turns this effort into a "do everything" exercise. That tells me their mission statement is too broad. For one to be useful, it has to be worded such so that it's clear what you do, but also clearly segregate what you don't do. It should also be worded such that it's clear with respect to priorities of the things they do. I call it "If you achieve nothing else, what is the ONE thing that will be the last to cut?"

Fifth, survey club facilities. I'm a firm believe that people will join if they see that doing so gives them access to quality facilities. Map the fields (and facility types) vs. members. Pay special attention to the relationship between field availability and the demographics of the people who downgraded memberships or left the organization.

Sixth, cut missions. Just go look at the website. If someone or something hasn't been updated in six months, people probably don't care about it. Stop doing it. Ideally you'd then turn this into cutting staff (overhead). But if nothing else, do less but concentrate on doing it really well. Cut spending at Muncie and direct that money out to the organization's "front line" - local clubs.

Seventh, mishap data. Start collecting mishap data as a condition of sanction. Nothing fancy, but it's clear from the PA case and Congressional testimony that we don't have a lot of credibility as compared to airlines, FAA, and others that come with hard data. AMA may believe that they're safe, but we need to prove it. I have intellectual difficulty with their constant "80 year safety record" drumbeat. What members are flying now is so fundamentally different than what was being flown even 20 years ago. As one major mishap investigation found, complex systems fail in complex ways. Just 25 years ago, most aircraft were FM modulated, a few channels, and very simple systems. Today we have turbines, fuel controls, multiple servos, complex wiring, sensors, different vibration profiles, new materials, software in the plane and in the radio, gyros, data busses, etc. Just a couple days ago a jet went in badly at Florida Jets. Pretty clear it was in trouble from liftoff, moments after supposedly passing a control check. Pilot mentioned stuck flap, but looking at enlarged screen captures, sure looks like they're down and then up (as should be) in multiple frames. "Complex systems fail in complex ways." The 80 year record is built on simple systems, not complex ones.

Eighth, improve where people actually fly. Assuming the data shows what I think it will, work on improving the fields closest to the maximum number of members / potential members. Muncie isn't close to anyone except the folks at HQ and true believers who don't care about how far away it is. AMA's strongest selling point is membership is a gateway to facilities nearby. If the facilities are crap, why join?

Ninth, bring some credibility to Government Affairs. We've got two rookies doing that. One of them admitted on camera that the 107 test was really hard. I'm sorry, you're in a professional aviation business, and if you think that's difficult, you're in the wrong work. They also need to get out of the whack a mole at the local level. Concentrate all resources on state and federal.


This is off the top of my head, but it's a start.

Hydro Junkie

How about cutting travel cost reimbursement? Skype can be used for meetings for pennies rather than thousands being spent on travel. HELL!!!!!!!!!!! R/C Unlimiteds has all of their board meetings via Skype with people joining in from all parts of Washington State. Why can't the AMA board do the same thing? Would save them time, money and give them more time at the flying field rather than driving to and from the airport, sitting in security lines, sitting in boarding lines, sitting on planes they can't fly and waiting for food in Muncie. Sounds like a WIN/WIN/WIN to me

franklin_m

Hydro, in reality there's no good reason except that "it's the way we've always done it." Which brings me back to my earlier comment that the way they run this organization is more suited to a local bake sale than an organization responsible for millions in assets. What just drives me nuts is how much they spend on meetings vs. flying site grants. It boils down on what they spend for themselves vs. what they spend for all of us. Yes, there's all the soft skills type stuff - but what we, the "unwashed masses" see and use most is the field(s) close to our homes. It isn't "Taj-Muncie" and it's certainly not their frequent flier mile accounts.

Hydro Junkie

Anyone have any updates on this as now I'm curious as to how things are working out

franklin_m

I haven't seen anything. But they've not had a meeting yet since the announcements.

On another front, I sent Rich Hanson an email asking for copies of the PPT that Gary Fitch presented in open session. Rich hasn't so much as provided the professional courtesy of a response.

rcmiket

Next meeting 4-1and 2. Than figure 45 days to get the minutes posted. I'm not sure if the minutes on the site will contain more "info" than the past at this point. Now you can get "complete" copy for 5 bucks which I've never done.

"A complete copy of the approved minutes of any quarterly Executive Council meeting is available to any AMA member on request. A copy of the most-recently approved minutes will be provided at no charge. Council meets quarterly, and minutes from a given meeting are approved at the following meeting.
Additional copies, or minutes from other meetings, are $5 each (shipping and handling charge). Requests may be submitted to AMA Administration by telephone, via fax, or in writing. For telephone requests, dial (765) 287-1256, extension 231; fax requests use (765) 741-0057. There is a $10 minimum for credit card orders."


Mike

flyinwalenda

My Feedback: (5)

Pay to see them?
Just post them online. Set up a members only area that can be viewed only when logged in and put them there.

rcmiket

You'd think but the part that I don't understand is the " of the approved minutes" so are they edited for content?

Mike