porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

lol, psychoanalysis from the sidelines. Goes hand in hand with chronic complaining. I've yet to see anyone claim to be perfect here, or close to it...that might be your own issues that are coming through in your tea leave readings. Just a continuation from the same from folks who try to focus in on individuals rather than topics or issues. I seem to be your huckleberry this week, oh well.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

You're trying real hard, repeatedly, to set up a me versus him thing. You believe what you want to believe, and if you want to support Franklin's every comment and every statistic, so be it. I'm not sure why you want to continue to try get in the middle of any discussion I have with Franklin and set yourself up as some type of debate moderator. I'm not saying this to start some big argument, really, but c'mon already.

I've already said Franklin's stats, number sets, metrics etc might be factually correct on their face. But one data set taken and run through a program to try to back into a preconceived notion isn't impressive to me. Paired up with a 10 plus year campaign of anti-AMA rhetoric, the credibility of the projections of loss and failure and ruination run hollow. It's not much different than Mike's comments over the past 13 years....AMA is an insurance scam, the membership number are slipping, the EC doesn't know what they are doing, we're losing control etc etc etc. I've never said they are wrong to have their opinions (yet I seem to get castigated for having my own), I'm just saying they were absolutely wrong about the dire condition of the hobby.

As for stats and figures, and projections of financial health and vitality, I have two choices. One is to take the word of someone who admittaedly has a bone to pick with the AMA, and has indicated he will work very hard to use his contacts and abilities to make life difficult for the AMA by various means (lets' not forget the data collection for personal injury lawyers, an issue you were silent on along with his other threats I might add) .....or a group of folks who took the time to get involved on behalf of the hobby and membership, ran for office, and have been doing a thankless job for years. Oh, and paid outside accountants and auditors. I think I'll go with them.

The hobby is as strong as ever, vibrant and expanding, membership is growing (something Franklin won't acknowledge), and other than the registrations, the hobby is just fine. If you fly commercially, well that's a different story.

franklin_m

I don't think I ever said membership wasn't growing. What I questioned was how many of them are actually paying memberships, and it what category of membership (Open, Senior, Youth) are seeing the growth.

franklin_m

You're talking membership, and it may be true that "memberships" have not been constantly falling. What I'm talking about is "membership fees" as reported to federal government on legal IRS documents.

Of note, I just found IRS info going back to 1997. Of course the IRS forms have changed twice in the period 1997 -2014, and there was a period around 2007/2008 where AMA changed how they reported membership fees on the forms.

franklin_m

This raises an interesting question. What year would TimJ and/or porcia like me to use as a baseline for financial comparisons? Is it fair to go all the way back to 1997, or should we use something more recent? 2003? 2004? 2005? or even more recent?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I would say 1967. The Summer of Love.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Anyone else looking forward to the announcement from the White House today? Guess who is there from the AMA......

rcmiket

This is my concern. Over the last 5 years (according to the Aug..2016 AMA magazine pg. 144)

"188,000 members. part of that youth memberships...............a all time high of 50,000. Five years ago .......slightly lower than 11,000". Is this the growth were talking about?
Just how we they turn these 39,000 into paying members when the time comes?

Mike

franklin_m

In deciding what year to use as a baseline, I did a little digging, and AMA raised dues in 2003. That probably makes 2002 and before as a baseline an apples to oranges comparison. So, if AMA raised dues in 2003, when does the collective group think all of those would have been absorbed in the numbers? The 2004 FY financial data? Or 2005 FY data?

I'm inclined to say 2005, and here's why. If the dues were raised in 2003, that would have been put into effect in 2004, but not all FY 2004 dollars would be at the new rate. It wouldn't be until FY2005 data that all membership dollars would have been at the new rates for the entire year.

So, concur / non-concur w/ using 2005 financial data as a baseline?

franklin_m

Good for them. Seriously. Should be quite an experience to be there for the photo op.

franklin_m

If you can get data that far back, fine. Unfortunately, my data goes only to 1997. Also, due to the dues increase in 2003, implemented in 2004, I'm suggesting 2005 as a baseline since that's when all dues for the whole year would be at the new rate.

init4fun

...

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

I would like to add a plank to the boat before it sets sail.... an option to pay less for a membership that excluded the magazine.

TimJ

That is a tough one. If you can go back to 1997, I would love to see a baseline from 1997.

Then, I would think that a base line starting at 2006 would be best for a secondary chart. I believe 2006 or 2007 were the best year for membership in the last 10 years.

init4fun

...

TimJ

The interesting thing I notice in previous investigations I've made, is membership hasn't really gone up or down too many times in large mass. Which is why I laugh when I hear from the seasoned citizen crowd that the hobby is dying I just laugh. What has changed is the form of the hobby and what people choose to do within the hobby.

franklin_m

I'd argue for a 2005 baseline, as the fee increase should have been fully implemented by then. Can you remind me how renewal dates worked in 2005? Was everyone renewed on the same day or each person on the anniversary date of joining?

I can do 2005 and 2006 baselines. More than two will probably make for a confusing graph.

I'm at work for the next two weeks (client site, 7 days a week), so I'll fiddle with the info as I have time.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yup, that's absolutely part of the growth. Isn't that a great thing? Would you rather see the AMA let a kid in for free....or do you think it's better to try to market to them some other way and bring them into the fold? How do they go about doing that exactly? Advertise on Twitter, do some Snapchatting? Perhaps adverstise in Teenbeat (is that still around). They have a built in potential membership and revenue stream with the free memberships. And when you factor in the real "cost" associated with this free membership...it's a drop in the bucket.

As usual, I haven't heard a specific plan to grow the membership, just more complaints about what the AMA had done (in the past). How do you build membership with youths today. You work at a hobby shop that sells drones, you should have a better than average understanding of how this should and could be done. Give away fixed wing kits? Free flight? How about the popular control line aircraft. How exactly would you promote new youth memberships?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Not a bad idea. Not something that any of the candidates have mentioned. Keep in mind the magazine is a profit center for them...they are making money at it, so I don't know that they would want to decrease that. You can opt out of getting the magazine if you want, fyi, but currently don't get a discount for doing that.

TimJ

The magazine is also the organization's newsletter, so opting out may require more work and expense such as newsletter staff, which would increase operation expenses of the AMA.

init4fun

...

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I don't think it's a requirement of any non-profit per se, but many orgs will want to get information and updates out to their membership.

init4fun

...

TimJ

Roberts Rules of Order dictate that a financial report should be made available to the members. By law all 501 C3 organizations must make their financial reports public yearly.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

To clarify, I look at newsletters in one way, and the financials in another. No doubt they have to post the financials, I was talking about the more generic term of newsletter, like what clubs etc put out.
Yes, speci