Originally Posted by
Hydro Junkie
What I see is they are looking for a scapegoat. My reasoning is this:
- The powers that be are in danger of losing their cushy jobs due to declining membership and don't know how to stop the trend
- By hiring someone with a marketing degree, they think that person will be able to come up with a marketing plan that will attract those that don't know anything about model aviation or the problems with drones and the FAA
- They are betting, foolishly in my opinion, that who ever they hire will be able to bring in enough "new blood" to offset the salary they're being paid. Did anyone besides me notice that there was no mention of a pay range in that ad?
- If the person hired doesn't get that increase of members the EC is hoping for and the membership keeps falling, as it is now, they can shift the blame to the person they hire, leaving themselves with clean hands and no "egg on their faces"
I see this as a "self preservation" move that was designed to make the EC able to say "We did everything we could" in the event the AMA keeps losing members. It doesn't do anything to address the real issues:
- Unsound fiscal planning and budgeting
- Failure to discontinue programs that are not "self sustaining"
- Failure to provide value for the money they are charging for dues
- Inept management and failure to require performance out of the office staff
- Failure to negotiate in "good faith" with congress and the FAA
IF the powers that be were to address the issues, I can see the AMA being around for many more years. As things are being run right now, the AMA will be gone as an entity within the decade, if it lasts that long
So, the way to correct the current trend of deficit spending and budget problems is not to tighten our belts but to try to bring in more members. Where are these new members going to come from? Those who are true model aircraft enthusiasts, I believe, are well aware of the existence of the AMA. Many join to be able to fly at local clubs or to have the insurance and many do not because they have perfectly viable rural areas they can fly at and have no need for what the AMA is offering. Then there are the droners, not folks that build multirotor drones for racing or flying LOS but the long range FPV type who are interested in the photography hobby or are simply thrill seekers that want nothing to do with rules and regulations and certainly have no interest in flying at the same club site taking video of the same scenery week after week. The first group, modelers that fly in rural areas and don't need club fields or insurance, would only be attracted to join by giving them something of value for their membership. The second group who would not want to join no matter what we do, we should not even WANT to attract into our organization as members because if we were to bring in these FPV long range risk takers we would have to stop saying that our members are not the problem.
Hobby shops and manufacturers have tried to attract people into the hobby for some time. If you even still have a hobby shop near you have you noticed their stock changing over the recent years? The one closest to me used to have a nice selection of planes, ARF, RTF, balsa kits and balsa along with the materials and supplies needed to build and finish them. They used to carry a decent selection of helicopters as well though nowhere near the selection for planes. Go into that same hobby shop today: One parkflyer, one UMX plane, a coaxial indoor helicopter, almost no parts and.... shelves upon shelves of mutirotor, self stabalized drones. If the hobby were growing do you think these hobby shops would have abandoned these lines of products?
Hydro, at least you will still have your RC boating hobby when the dust settles from all this regulation. Perhaps it is time for me to look into something other than model aircraft as well!
I could be wrong but I believe we are trying to solve the wrong problems with this move. I would really like to hear the opinion of others on this.