Hi Bob,
Thanks for your comments and your ideas on the magazine. I've copied and sent them to Rob Kurek.
Dave

Geez and you wonder why the average age is so high and it’s so hard to recruit younger members. This is the type of attitude that turns people away.

Let’s look at the word model:

1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.

Using that definition you’ve now alienated a large percentage of the members. Anything scratch built that is not a small copy of a full scale airplane is not a model. That quickie 500 the previous gentleman spoke of is not a model of anything full scale so therefore it is only a toy airplane. Should he then be excluded?

We talk about not wanting to limit new technology in our hobby. Isn’t an ARF a product of new technologies being able to mass produce a product? Should every full scale pilot have built his own airplane to be a real pilot? Not everyone posses the skills or has the time to design and built their own aircraft. Why do you want to exclude them?

I’ve seen some pretty nice ARfs and some pretty crappy ones. I’ve also seen the same of scratch built planes. So just because I’ve designed and built a crappy plane it is better? Ever scratch built a model helicopter, and I do mean scratch built? I have. It’s not easy but does that make me better than someone who hasn’t? I don’t think so. Oh sorry, it wasn’t scale so I guess it’s just a toy. Come on what’s the point?

I can’t speak for anyone else but I love all things that fly. I have just as much fun watching my kids fly paper airplanes as I do watching model turbines or sail planes. I marvel very time I travel on an airliner or watch an air show at what man has accomplished. Modeling encompasses a lot of different disciplines. Let’s embrace them all and enjoy them for what they are. This is a hobby after all.

Jay

Dave, as I wrote in the thread "More Model Aviation" the concept and operation of MA as it is, is a prime example of a very poorly managed business. Like any business subsidized by the government, MA subsidized by the AMA membership only leads the managers to accomplish little outside pomp and glitter.
Model Aviation as a non-related business must stand on its own. This can only be done by making the advertising rates competitive with the market. After all, MA has a captive audience of some 160,000 readers.
Fancy colors and glitter in the magazine simply do not justify an expense over and above its income.
I fully understand the needs of the magazine to address all model disciplines. Regardless of other inputs in this thread ARFs are a way of the world in modeling. ARFs, electrics, and turbines are the wave of the future. CL Stunt is not a relatively super popular activity, regardless if it's my favorite thing and obviously the MA Editor's.
MA should go with the trends and contemporary activities while paying token attention to the past and the forecast future.
Most of all MA should pay its way in the world through advertising rates, which don't simply go to pay the agent's commissions and the cost of obtaining the advertising. If the AMA EC produced as much RHETORIC about the losses and costs of MA as they produce about insurance, then those advertising rates would double overnight.

jay:

now, be a good boy, and go look up the word, sarcasim.

and please don't be overly trusting of my spelling.

Jay,
You went the wrong way with the conversation. There is a thread where the question is how to reduce the average age. It starts out with an assumption that is suspect, but probably valid in concept.

However, the ARF may address one possible solution and has contributed greatly to the growth the AMA has seen in the last decade or so. At the same time it can reasonably be held that folks who never built their own airframes are prone to be here today and gone tomorrow, and THAT is the downside of the ARF.

I have been jumped before, but I find it difficult to call a guy who buys a ready built airframe and hangs a radio and engine in it a modeler. He may fly well, he may have LOTS and LOTS of 'stuff', but unless he can build (even with poor finishes) I don't think he represents a modeler. That is NOT a bad thing, just like having red hair is not a bad thing. If YOU choose to make it a bad thing, I know many ARF only folks who would be willing to argue the point with you.

The implied issue of the thread is should MA have articles on ARF's. I think that subject can be left for other magazines as I find it an ineffective use of OUR resources to reprint the assembly manual of many ARF's.

Dave, by your numbers MA represents $6.45 of my dues. Which I will have to admit is a bargain even though I rarely read it. As our club’s newsletter editor I’ve calculated it cost us approx $.90 to print and mail a single, three page, edition of the newsletter to a member. For the AMA to send an entire magazine for $.54 is great!

So in reality MA is an operating marvel (at roughly1/3 of it’s allocation of $18.00) instead of the money-losing proposition it has been labeled in this thread? [&:]

Personally I’d like to see the stock on which MA is published changed. As an example R/C Report is printed on a non-glossy paper, unlike MA. And I’ll read R/C Report twice before reading MA. Publishing on a “newsprint� certainly has to be less expensive, plus once R/C Report’s glossy cover is taken off it’s suitable for recycling, again unlike MA. Since the purpose of MA is a newsletter for AMA members, the shinny glitz of full color glossy print is just unnecessary excess.

I agree Jim, that pot is black

JB If an arf is not a model what is it? I think the name of the mag is model aviation. now there is a mag called model builder. there is also a mag called RC flyer and RC report and I dont think that radio control has any thing to do with a mans skill to construct a model airplane from wood or glass or what ever medium he wishes to use .Its all about flying model airplanes. Thats just my thoughts on the hole thing!


Lonnie

Hey guys,
I am easy. Really I am.

Crownvic, please show me more than one ARF C/L model or more than one ARF FF bird available through any mail order house so I also can be a true believer that "arf'ing" is modeling. To put a point on it, ARF's seem to leave out those who choose NOT to R/C.

Until then I would prefer that MA be reserved for modeling (a.k.a. "building") education issues coupled with AMA information.

But that is just my opinion and I am partial to it.

Jim,
There's two ARF controline models that Top Flight has out, the Nobler and Flitestreak.
Brodak Manufacturing is working on several more U/C ARF stunt models.
Jon

Hi Horrace,
The concept that MA has to work under is that it has to be everything to everybody. It really needs to touch on every discipline and do justice to each. An impossible task at best. At the same time, I agree, it needs to be entertaining and relevant to the interests of the majority of today's members.

I think it was earlier in this thread that I wrote that MA should be operated as a viable business entity. The amount of member dues that goes to subsidize the magazine really equates to the "subscription cost". I don't know that MA could sustain itself without "selling" any subscriptions. I think I would be comfortable with whatever the number was as long as I knew that the magazine operation was being run as well as it could be.
Dave

Hi Bill,
I think it was at the beginning of this thread where I tried to explain the reference to $18 that appears in the magazine. I'm certainly not saying that member dues don't subsidize a portion of the costs of producing MA. If you'd like to see a better breakdown than what I've offered here it can be found in the 2003 annual audit in the member's only section of the AMA Website. On page 3 you'll find the general income and expense entries and on page 16 there's a breakdown of MA direct costs.

There was a time MA was printed on newsprint. I think there was a time when most of the major mags were. Which makes me wonder if there are other factors involved in determining the cost of production other than the type of paper the publication is printed on. In today's PC world I suppose we shouldn't ignore the environmental issues.
Dave

Hey Kid check out post #24 and see where I got $6.66 a copy. Dave Mathewson is a bright guy as demonstrated in this thread. He also handles himself very professionally.

Way to beat a dead horse from over 3 years ago dude!

it seems to clarify a lot of recent threads.......

Dead horse. This thread could have been created last week.

It's like a time capsule that you buried 4 years ago with that days newspaper inside only to discover the newspaper was printed last week when you open it 4 years later. I think they call that a "Twilight Zone".

I had no idea Hoss had this issue hiding under his pillow for so long, would have been nice to find this thread a few months ago, would have put the brakes on a lot of discussions.

Edit to add: Kid you do understand where that $18 pricetag comes from now, don't you? It's a made up number ... capice?

4 months, 3 years, it is a dead horse and good deal regardless. Shoot, even this month's MA has a letter to the editor bemoaning those who gripe about dues. It's all so crazy how the same few caus such a rukus over a few bucks or a magazine or what the prez says in his editorial.

Madness I say!

What,
other than the $6 MA subscription,
do the $30 Family tier give up that justifies the $28 dues drop when they forgoe the magazine?

We can clearly wee some folks pay $14 more for getting the magazine than without,
we see some folks pay $28 more for the magazine than without.

Who is going to tell the $30 Family ama members that they are only saving $6 ?
Cause telling me the $30 folks are saving only $6 off the $58 aint cutting it.

They are not paying just $6 for MA, they clearly will pay $28 more for the sole purpose of getting MA... or what is that long list of goodies they give up to account for the other $22 savings of $30 Family


Besides, using the numbers from last years Aug & Nov MA
2005 MA Direct Cost $2186k
2005 MA Advertizing $992k
2005 MA Subscribtions $62k
How MA did in 2005 : $1132k LOSS

2005 Average MA subs copies sent: 131.6k

so if we divide $1132k LOSS by the 132k MAs sent to us
averaged out MA getting member cost $8.57
regardless if they really paid "Free", $14, or $28 to get MA

You see your doing it again. That is the COST. The financial statement with PROFIT and LOSS is listed on AMA member site, take a looksy.

Sorry but you can't fight the facts anymore kid, the magazine NET cost about $6-7 per member per year. Sorry but I'm going with Dave Mathweson on this one, he was smart enough to earn his title as AMA President.

Another vote of support for information & articles related to the art of modeling in MA instead of ARF reviews, belated product release news & recurring beginner info. I like the magazine & get at least color scheme/ project inspiration out of it.

Your getting close Kid, but every AMA member subsidizes every other AMA member regardless of whether or not she/he takes the magazine. This is no different then you or I subsidizing the Museum, club charter in Bagdad, Texas, our award winning AMA Team or any other benefit that some members use and others do not.

Yes, $30 family members subsidize the magazine. Think about it, if their insurance NET COST is $10, what's the other $20 for? Youth members subsidize the magazine, even the $1 guys. Affiliate members subsidize the magazine. Welcome to membership organizations, all for one and one for all!

Once again, Dave Mathewson is correct in his math and most especially, his logic. MA's net cost is divisible by the entire MEMBERSHIP, not magazines shipped. But at the very least you've discovered each member is not paying $18, that's a relief. You should take a few books out on them pizza deliveries. (I know what you really do, do.)

Thank You, STL, for bring up this VERY OLD THREAD. I wish to analyze post #36, DM's reply to my 2004 question.
Look at Dave's first two sentences in his reply. Total BS, because I had already stated the basic same thesis in par.4 -- highlighted. There was no need to tell ME what I had already said to him. Simply a typical bureaucrat's answer: just restate the problem. [:'(]

Now look at his 2nd paragraph. What a crock? First, "MA should be operated as a viable business entity." Then he goes into "subscription cost". The AMA member receives the mag. as a part of the membership. "SUBSCRIPTIONS" as detailed in the accounting system only apply to Hobby Shop orders and non-AMA subscribers.
Now, "I don't know that MA could sustain itself without "selling" any subscriptions." [:-] H_ll, he doesn't even know what subscriptions means in the accounting for AMA income. Besides MA DOES NOT sustain itself. The member-dues sustain MA.

Now the crowning blow: "I think I would be comfortable with whatever the number was as long as I knew that the magazine operation was being run as well as it could be."

Just what the devil does ".... as well as it could be." translate to? In my simple mind, it translates to, "Anything "Team Kurek" ( stealing KE's terms) wants to do is fine with me as long as I am not bothered with any details."

That reply back in 2004 well planted in my mind that DM had not bothered to become in-depth informed within the AMA actual operation. OR if he had, he liked the bureaucracy as it was/is and I don't expect to see any significant changes in the current bureaucracy within the next three years. Maybe a few band-aids here and there, but nothing significant is going to happen when it comes to AMA standing out as a desirable organization to be a member of.

Thanks again STL for bringing this item to the forefront.

It just boggles my mind that you came up with all these conclusions from all that. You've missed every single point your President was trying to make.

If MA moves out from the LEGAL method of unrelated business for a 501C3 as a standalone product the net cost to each member will go from $6-7 per member to just a regular price of any old magazine. MA is subsidized by the members in the ballpark of 50% ONLY because it operates as a 501C3.

Here are the downsides some of which were CLEARLY directed by our President in this thread: MA will lose the HUGE shipping break they get from the USPS as a 501C3. They will also lose subscription base, which will increase production costs. They will have to lower advertising rates even further due to the lower subscription base. Your theory of MA keeping rates low, on purpose, is 100% bunk. And Hoss I've been advertising and suggesting placement for more then 12 RC companies for the last 4 years, I know legitimate and marketable ad rates in this business. And then of those all that free content people DONATE to the AMA, gone. Whose going to donate their free time for to a for profit company, unless they are looking to get a free plug on a company self made review like you see in the other magazines? And then comes all your standard business, operational, accounting costs and risks. And then of course, if the company is formed as a C corporation, DOUBLE TAXATION.

Oh after all that, the AMA would have to produce something to ship out to the members each month as a mail piece, so they are right back where they started. Like Dave said, there was a time that MA was opt-in only. But as the magazine found ways to reduce costs as a combined NFP/unrelated business entity and it no longer became a viable option TO THE MEMBERS AS A BENFIT. Any investment advisor ON THIS EARTH would have told the AMA to make that particular move and I'm sure whatever advisor they used told them to make this move and it WORKED.

I am TRULY amazed at you this time Hoss, unreal. Every single benefit that a 501C3 can legally operate is being utilized to save members money, while offering a benefit.

Hoss
I'm gonna give DM a break on the bit about MA running in the black & 'Subscription' terminology
He at least came out & said it, MA should run a more viable bottom line, and just getting folks to admit that is a giant step forward for AMA. As for 'Subscription cost'.... well, we know the pittance MA currently pulls in via real Subscriptions is almost not worth pursueing, so I dont mind so much that DM defined what he wanted to talk about as subscription cost, he even put it in quotes to show it was a term he was coining.... I let that slide, I knew what he meant even though he was borrowing a term in use.

I would like to see more info on this Postal Requirement to lie about MA costs, that is interesting & doesnt get much chat round here.


As to you quoting STL about DM calculating the 'subscription cost'
did you do that to show where DM used ball park numbers to get a ballpark answer? Nothing wrong with that, DM made it clear the figures were his estimates so I'm not gonna pick on him for that. Or did you put that reference to DM Post#24 to show the method/formula DM used to get that number? How DM clearly stated he was using 155k as the member number because he was deducting the Youth & Family ( the No-Magazine Folks), just as I used the 2005 No-Magazine number.
so, If Hoss doesnt mind me getting a quick review in for the masses playing along at home,
DM used $1mil loss / 155k ( excluded the no-mag folks) = $6.45 estimate
KE used 2005 1.132mil loss / 132k (2005 MA avg subs sent : like DM excluding no-mag folks) = $8.57
...... If folks would like to complain about DMs formula for calculating the averaged cost to member, then they should complain to DM about it & not me for using DMs formula with 2005 non-estimate numbers.

Oh Hoss, one meore thing,
You can freely use the Team XXX phrase without attrib, I dont mind & wont jump on you for stealing my schtick [8D]

Tell me what do the $30 family members pay for? What do the affiliate members pay for? Kids? They pay for membership dues and help subsidize ever facet of the AMA. They are as much as part of the AMA and pay for things they don't use, not different then anyone paying the full rate. In fact what does a $30 member really get at all??

However Dave's math was off, but so was yours. He ballparked 1.0MM against 1.132MM. 1.132MM against 155k MEMBERS, works out to $7.30 per MEMBER cost, which is what he used in his analysis, which you are obviously comparing your analysis too. If the AMA moved to a independent for profit entity for MA, say BYE BYE to that number, even at $8.57.

Oh an in regards to the Postal Service, they want to know your operating COSTS tier as an NFP for your magazine to determine your rate as an NFP sender of mail. They don't care about your profit and loss. But that's THEIR requirement, they set the benchmarks and rules for that policy. Just like the AMA runs MA under the 501C3, they have their reasons too. I'm sure the more money they "say" they are saving for NFP's the more FUNDING they get from the Feds. Oh and the USPS is a not for profit company too. But I'm sure you'll argue about me on that fact.