Hossfly

Would you also be a $$$$ counter if AMA just sent these out and then raised the dues to cover the cost?

Neither do I.

You are members of an organization that uses the membership to further a cause not exactly related to true promotion of model aviation the hobby and sport. You, the rank and file membership, allow that use because you are subject to irritations such as the DVD thing, yet hide your heads in the sand when real issues are presented to you.

For example, AMA spent $2,026,479 in 2004 to send you the Model Aviation magazine. They spent $857,549 to PRODUCE the advertising of which they collected only $914,857, profit of a measly $57,308, to go toward the overall cost of that magazine. The net result was that $1,168,738 of your dues money was spent to provide a nest for EIGHT persons with a new position to be opened as soon as M. Ramsey arrives from Flying Models to become the new MA Associate Editor. 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.

Now combine the loss -- member dues expense -- of $1,168,738 in direct costs for the magazine and that 8 persons, soon to be nine, are employed to do the labor, with their salaries buried in the total salary/benefits of the total AMA workforce. Using that amount and that the MA staff consists of about 16% of the total staff, I estimate that the MA staff costs some $465,000.

The above 2004 Audit figures indicate that the magazine MA costs some $$$ 1,633,738 or $359,166 MORE than the $1,274,572 for Member Insurance. Now you tell me that AMA is just an Insurance company! AMA is well on its way to becoming a PUBLICATION company with you as the non-dividend stockholder.

However you people don't want a new CFO/EVP. Nope, you rather be taken down the primrose lane with the opportunity to P&M about these neat little diversions thrown your way.

Way to go AMA people!

__Edited to replace a 'too' with proper 'to'___________________________

Live Wire

Won't it get interesting if the big birds get there wings clipped and some one looses their none profit statice because they are screwing the public Funneling $$$$$$$$ to other out lets is just common practice to make a proffit

Hossfly

Unfortunately, Mr. Hawk, what they (AMA/MA) are doing is perfectly legal under the provisions of IRC 501 (c) (3). Thanks to many changes made to the Code during the years 1993-2000, charitable organizations can cover many $$ from the actual non-related business activities to that of the parent organization. Makes for some fat institutions around DC. (and Muncie [>:])

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

AMA is paying someone a $132,583 salary for this type of work?!?!?!?!?!?

I find that quite offensive.[:@]

Hossfly

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.

mvigod

Very interesting info here. I've always felt that MA should be opt-in like it used to be when I was a kid. there were 2 memberships if I recall. One for just insurance and the other for insurance + MA. If MA is currently a drain it should be optional. Like Hossfly notes though people had their chance to vote to change things and most didn't bother to fill out a ballot (which is another story...ballots IMHO should have been sent separately and not with renewals).

Live Wire

It looks like people really don't care it is only MONEY we complain more about what we get for a dollar rather than a $ lost in the system

scottrc

Hey Horrace, I have voted, and I have associated with my VP, and have watched the financial numbers and I feel that this promotion was short sighted. Are they really expecting a percentage of the DVDs to be paid for? I would pay for mine if they sent it as a "free will" donation and not full of fine print and direct marketing BS. That made me distrust this whole promotion and also put distrust in the AMA.

The AMA is so split between those who stick their heads in the sand and those you seek out personal gain, that many are getting an attititude of "why bother" and are getting tired of the overall prospective of the organization.

And to the issue of voting, how many don't use a ballot, but instead use their pocket book by renewing their memberships, getting new members, and making donations?

There are a few of us in between who really want an organization that is focused on protection and promotion of model aviation.

Hossfly

No real disagreement here, Scottrc. To the best of my understanding, the DVD thing was/is -- a private venture with AMA realizing a commission on sales. Personally, I think AMA's entering such a venture as any kind of partner is definitely less than the symbol AMA should maintain.

Something here is less than clear to me Scott. Are you saying that I am into personal gain by seeking elected volunteer service with AMA? There is NO PERSONAL GAIN in being an AMA EC member other than perhaps some imaginary "status" that some do seem to enjoy. There are definitely a few perks, however if one really is there to accomplish more than seat-warming, it's really hard and often very frustrating labor.
Those that don't want to be there could well assist those that do simply by VOTING.
That type of 'vote' simply says "everything's OK." There are fewer each year.
2000 165,365
2001 170,754
2002 173,420
2003 168,075
2004 163,709

Only the BALLOT can redirect the current AMA EC. You have a new VP. Interesting to see where he will be at this time next year.

Problem is we are so few. [:-]

Didn't mean to pick on you Scottrc, however you did ask the perfect questions in that other thread for me to use to lead into the points I wanted to make about AMA's total waste of funds and opportunity. In addition old suspicious me can easily perceive a willful and planned method to establish a Publications Unit that can make a plushy position for a select few without any risk to those enjoying that position.


Edited to add a t.

scottrc

Hey Horrace, I didn't mean to come across like I was being picked on, I was just trying to better explain my points that you have asked clarification on. After looking at this months issue of MA, I am really getting a better understading about how they want to branch off as a publishing company in a seperate cost center and still try to be under the non-profit umbrella.

The issues are more and more adds and less AMA related, individual information. Many say that the magazine is, or was, boring, well, most newsletters and annual reports are. AMA is just trying to liven up their required report to gain the attention of more potential readers. However, how far can they go before either they are a profit making publication, or publishing a whole realm of materials that may no longer be within the original scope of the organization.

So they lose money on the magazine, still pay salaries, and up our dues? Again, we will just not pay our dues. So many pilots will rather risk flying un-insured than put up with a bunch a nonsense such as a "newsletter" that is being published against the members will. The same goes with other "Joint Ventures" that may become profitable for the marketer and salesman, but still be cash losses for the AMA and its members.

Horrace, not all the EC and employees are doing a poor job. I understand there are many committed individuals who put countless hours into trying to please all of us in the peanut gallery. I commend you for trying to putforth an effort to sacrifice your hobby by turning it into a job.

Scott