Here we go again!  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> Here we go again!
Page: [1]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Here we go again! - 5/13/2008 9:01:15 AM   
Hossfly



Posts: 3680
Joined: 12/3/2001
From: New Caney, TX, USA
Status: offline 		http://www.modelaircraft.org/MembersOnly/financialstatements.aspx

The figures are there. The magazine now loses more money. Any Model Airplane Hobby Dealer reading this, would you please answer this question?

If the government came beside you and opened a business as you have, paid 12 persons to run the place, expected NO profit, and sold their merchandise below the fair market values, could you support your business? Just wondering! That is what an IRC 501 (c) (3) organization is doing to the industry's free market media.

'07 Model Aviation magazine direct costs $ 2,091,945
Does NOT include 12 staff members assigned to magazines which are included in the overall AMA expense of:

AMA Operating expenses 7,114,620

[i]Model Aviation magazine direct costs $ 2,091,945


DEFICIENCY OF REVENUE OVER EXPENSES FROM OPERATIONS (1,010,948)

Model Aviation advertising 1,005,434
Model Aviation subscriptions 55,470 (Hobby Shop sales, overseas sales, Club gifts to schools ,etc. NOT member subscriptions.)

'rithmetic: MA income ...$ 1,060,904

MA Direct costs ........................... $ 2,091,945

MA Cost to membership :................ ($1,031, 041)

Look at that: MA loss was 21,000 and change greater than AMA's net loss for '07. With a 0-0 profit-loss at MA, AMA would have turned a profit in '07 even with the reduced membership and those 12 extras.

Any ideas how to fix that along with a number of other items? Well, I do! Your call! Remember June 25, '08.




_____________________________

Horrace Cain.
AMA Life L-93, Leader and CD for 45 years

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
       Post #: 1

RE: Here we go again! - 5/13/2008 11:13:16 AM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 8972
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: online
quote:

The magazine now loses more money.
Holy headline, the MA always lost money if you want to call it a stand alone product for discussion purposes. But did you factor in the big leap in inflation we had this year, they are calling it over 5% down here on Wall St. Did you factor in the downsizing of print ad costs versus online? Did you factor in higher costs for products like paper which is also on the rise? Factor those in and see if MA lost "more" money.

quote:

If the government came beside you and opened a business as you have, paid 12 persons to run the place, expected NO profit, and sold their merchandise below the fair market values, could you support your business? Just wondering! That is what an IRC 501 (c) (3) organization is doing to the industry's free market media.
Depends on the bottom line profit and losses, not just the largest single line item pulled at random. Profit is determined after ALL the checks and balances are finalized. But even at a loss, if all the employees were paid and working capital was still in the pool, that doesn't constitute a loss if the "mission" has been accomplished. Well I've always received everything the AMA promised it would do ... did you?

Also show me 1 501 C3 with at least 150,000 members that does NOT publish a periodical filled with advertisements. They all do it and I'm sure the AMA's the only one running in a so called "loss". It's just the way things go in the membership based community sector.


< Message edited by STLPilot -- 5/13/2008 1:32:27 PM >

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 2

RE: Here we go again! - 5/13/2008 12:25:42 PM   
BillyGoat


 

Posts: 453
Joined: 5/19/2004
From: -, MT, USA
Status: offline 		If MA is supposed to be a “newsletter” for the membership I have never been able to understand why it needs to be printed on the high quality full color paper?

One place to start would be vastly reduce expenses and use the same print method as R/C Report.

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 3

RE: Here we go again! - 5/13/2008 2:32:58 PM   
combatpigg



Posts: 9259
Joined: 11/22/2003
From: arlington, WA, USA
Status: offline 		What's ironic about RC Report is that even though it costs less to produce than MA, it is usually of more value to read.

_____________________________

Led Zeppelin is NOT "old fogie" music.

(in reply to BillyGoat)
       Post #: 4

RE: Here we go again! - 5/13/2008 3:56:05 PM   
littlecrankshaf



Posts: 2072
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: here
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

It's just the way things go in the membership based community sector.


Hmmmm...membership based community sector. Wall Streetish talk for sure...kinda cute. Wonder how the PPP rag factors out for the PPP membership based community sector. Oh wait...it doesn't...just induced drag for us all in the membership based community sector.

_____________________________

Wow! Another epiphany…that is why the suckups suckup. Super sucking protection power. Yea baby.

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 5

RE: Here we go again! - 5/13/2008 5:03:02 PM   
Hossfly



Posts: 3680
Joined: 12/3/2001
From: New Caney, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

Holy headline, the MA always lost money

YEP, that is what I am speaking about.
quote:


if you want to call it a stand alone product for discussion purposes. But did you factor in the big leap in inflation we had this year, they are calling it over 5% down here on Wall St. Did you factor in the downsizing of print ad costs versus online? Did you factor in higher costs for products like paper which is also on the rise? Factor those in and see if MA lost "more" money.


Hey, man, I don't "....want to call it..." anything. I simply agree with the Auditor: "DEFICIENCY OF REVENUE OVER EXPENSES..."
MA's loss EXCEEDED the net loss of AMA. No loss at MA, then AMA would show no loss. I now have to adjust my expenses to cope with the rape of this nation by the fuel Czars and the big bankers, so why should AMA not restrict their operations, especially the IMO lowest common denominator of their mission, to turn a profit and regain support of the modeling media which is out there on the newsstands and could well bring new members into AMA?
quote:


Depends on the bottom line profit and losses, not just the largest single line item pulled at random. Profit is determined after ALL the checks and balances are finalized. But even at a loss, if all the employees were paid and working capital was still in the pool, that doesn't constitute a loss if the "mission" has been accomplished.

That is the government's way. Not mine, because I cannot run to the Federal Reserve and type in new numbers to increase my spending, or to the printer and print more green, pink, or blue paper money and still be allowed to walk the streets. You wall-street folks can do that, but not we over-taxed middle classes, that have to bear the burdens of such. We have to adjust our expenses to less than income or lose something.
quote:


Well I've always received everything the AMA promised it would do ... did you?


Absolutely NOT! When I was a DVP, and the MA mag really was getting started in the commercial world, I was promised by the ED, the supporting DVPs, the publisher/editor that MA would SOON be a money making Unrelated Business and provide adequate funds to cover many AMA programs. Let's see, that was in 1979-82 era. Promise Not Yet Fulfilled!

quote:


Also show me 1 501 C3 with at least 150,000 members that does NOT publish a periodical filled with advertisements. They all do it and I'm sure the AMA's the only one running in a so called "loss". It's just the way things go in the membership based community sector.


I am not interested in what "others" do. Just AMA.



_____________________________

Horrace Cain.
AMA Life L-93, Leader and CD for 45 years

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 6

RE: Here we go again! - 5/13/2008 5:56:22 PM   
Sport_Pilot



Posts: 7451
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Acworth, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

But did you factor in the big leap in inflation we had this year, they are calling it over 5% down here on Wall St.


It varies month to month but currently it is just under 4%. It hasn't been at 5% since the early 90's. 5% is nothing it has been over 12% or so in the 80's as I recall.

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 7

RE: Here we go again! - 5/13/2008 8:05:40 PM   
mscic-RCU



Posts: 926
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: New London, OH,
Status: offline 		The bylaws state to send a newsletter to its members. So lets do that like most clubs do. Send via email an informational newsletter and then see how much the costs drop. I'm with Hoss, this has all been addressed before. So we need to change it.

(in reply to Sport_Pilot)
       Post #: 8

RE: Here we go again! - 5/13/2008 9:18:14 PM   
CowboyLifesaver


 

Posts: 407
Joined: 7/7/2005
From: Sun Valley, NV, USA
Status: offline

I now have to adjust my expenses to cope with the rape of this nation by the fuel Czars and the big bankers.





The fuel Czars have a D next to their name, not a CEO next to it. The bankers can get away with anything because of said fuel Czars.

_____________________________

"What size engine is that???? You''ve got some serious thrill issues." Desert Lakes Fly''n Group Revver #165

(in reply to Hossfly)
       Post #: 9

RE: Here we go again! - 5/13/2008 9:44:07 PM   
STLPilot


 

Posts: 8972
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: online
quote:

That is the government's way. Not mine, because I cannot run to the Federal Reserve and type in new numbers to increase my spending, or to the printer and print more green, pink, or blue paper money and still be allowed to walk the streets. You wall-street folks can do that, but not we over-taxed middle classes, that have to bear the burdens of such. We have to adjust our expenses to less than income or lose something.
A balanced spreadsheet is the govt's way doing things, they run their books on checks and balances?? ... err far from the contrary. The Fed (we) are over 10 trillion in debt where as the AMA has excess cash on hand.

When I was manufacturing model airplanes the largest expense was covering. That too is largest line item on the P&L statement and can weigh in at about 50% of the entire products cost to produce. Sure that number really stood out on the list and the ONLY solution was to use Chinakote. Sure it's done sometimes, but then you've just cheapend your entire product line, much like you would do if you cheapen MA's perceived value. And perceived value means more to a consumer than the product itself.

Also so many want MA dropped altogether. Well then certainly they would expect reduced fees as well. So you reduce fees $10-$15 more? Well what did that accomplish except reduce overall revenue and profits at the same time reducing value. I'm with the President on his ideas of how the magazine should be run, he's right on the money, literally.

< Message edited by STLPilot -- 5/13/2008 9:45:28 PM >

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to CowboyLifesaver)
       Post #: 10

RE: Here we go again! - 5/14/2008 3:39:37 AM   
s3nfo


 

Posts: 452
Joined: 1/9/2002
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Whatever you say Mr Quixote.



_____________________________

Jerry N
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 11

RE: Here we go again! - 5/14/2008 7:21:21 AM   
busted2props


 

Posts: 168
Joined: 1/15/2002
From: here, , USA
Status: offline 		Heck, if we can drop MA and with my upcoming senior citizen discount (should we get one), I might get my AMA for almost free, or at least the fees will be down there with the PPP. Ya think? Let's make MA optional again!

Well, why not? It is losing money. Oh yeah, I forgot, AMA is a non-profit organization (org)....Not a losing money org!! Seems to me they need to make a little profit for lobbies and the like. Ya think? What about that wonderful flying site they have at Muncie? Who maintains it? Free labor? I think not! Is Ma really worth the high dollar paper? I forgot who related to RC Report, but I would like to see their publishing costs next to MA!!! Bet it won't happen!






< Message edited by busted2props -- 5/14/2008 7:28:34 AM >

_____________________________

Send Lawyers, Guns and Money!

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 12

RE: Here we go again! - 5/14/2008 4:46:03 PM   
JUGFLIER


 

Posts: 943
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Muscle Shoals, AL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Also so many want MA dropped altogether. Well then certainly they would expect reduced fees as well. So you reduce fees $10-$15 more? Well what did that accomplish except reduce overall revenue and profits at the same time reducing value. I'm with the President on his ideas of how the magazine should be run, he's right on the money, literally.



WOW.

(in reply to STLPilot)
       Post #: 13

Page:   [1]
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> Here we go again!
Page: [1]





Jump to: