Hello Dave;

Would you please explain the reason that the last dues increase resulted in $6 (60% of increase) being diverted to member subscription expense for AMA's unrelated business entity, Model Aviation magazine?

Previous to the dues increase, $12 was the allocation. After the effective dues increase, the allocation became $18. All documented monthly in the MA page 6 in the informational section.

Dave

Just to follow up on HC's question a bit and I realize you may not have the info handy but if you know or anyone else knows just for reference...How long had the allocation been $12 and what was it before that?

Anyway I for one really appreciate your involvement here and you definitely have my respect. I think you have been a great asset to your district and I will be looking forward to seeing you seated as the big guy for AMA.

Mark Humphries
Tyler Texas

Hi Horrace,
This one will take some research. I see the change took place with the April 2003 issue of MA. Give me a day.

Hi Mark,
While I'm getting the answer to Horrace's question I'll find the answer to yours.

Hi Horrace and Mark,
US Postal Service Regulations stipulate parameters for organizations like ours when selling subscriptions to non-members. One of those parameters is the relationship between the non-member subscription price and the dollar amount of member dues allocated to receiving the magazine as a benefit of membership. The rise in the number that Horrace refers to is for the most part a reflection in the adjustment of the cost of a magazine subscription to non-members that rose from $24 to $36. This brought the cost of a subscription to a non-member more in line with organizations similar to ours. The annual audit in the member’s only section of the AMA Website gives a breakdown of the cost associated with producing our magazine.
For reference (and this will answer Mark's question) the following is a review of past dues increases and the dollar amount of dues allocated to the magazine and the non-member subscription price. The magazine was first published in 1975. Sorry I can't get this to format the way I'd like but the numbers across are 1. Year, 2. Annual dues, 3. Amt. allocated from member dues to MA, 4. Non-member subscription cost.

Yr. / Dues / Allocated to MA /Non-member cost
1975 $17 $7 $12
1979 $25 $8 $16
1982 $30 $9 $18
1987 $40 $9 $18
1991 $40 $10 $18
1994 $42 $10 $18
1997 $48 $12 $24
2003 $58 $18 $36

Dave

so, basicly, the member cost of mag listed in the mag is a BS number to satisfy postal regulations, and has no real direct bearing on actual cost of production to the members?

that is kinda what i take from all the above.

Dave

Thanks much for taking the time to answer our concerns. It seems to me that a balance has been maintained through out the years for the most part. Also one thing that seems apparent to me is the AMA has done a great job in keeping the costs to the members at an unbelievable value through out the years.

Thanks again, Mark

When are they gonna make MA an OPTION?? Of the 3 mags I recieve, it's the one I very rarely read. I'd much rather pay $40, recieve no MA and spend that $18 on RCReport. JMHO

punkindrublik

punkindrublik,
Unless the rules at the IRS get changed, that is not going to be a cost effective solution for the AMA.

You guys kill me sweating 18 bucks a year over a magazine sub. The price we pay for insurance is still the best deal going. I apreciate what AMA gets done for my miniamal payment.

multiply 18 by 25 years, an arbitrary length of time that a member would continue to pay dues........ that amount is enough for a while new set up for your plane. Granted its 25 years, but at the same time, thats $ going some place other than where it should stay.

Hi Punkindrublik,
I haven't heard any talk in the four years I've been here about making MA an option. Frankly, it it were made an option, based on the numbers in the annual audit report, the reduction in dues would be closer to $6.25-$6.75. That number would then be further reduced by the necessity to provide the non-subscribing member with some type of organization "newsletter". Of course, these numbers are extremely arbitrary because we don't know, for this discussion, how many members would continue to receive MA and that would impact the bottom line.

I do think MA should be operated as a well-run business entity with the intent of having the least amount of impact as possible on member dues.
Dave

I dont think it's the $18 dollars that we are sweating. It's the fact that we aren't given a choice.

I would love to see MA subscription being an option or best yet - get rid of it altogether (I never read it, just too boring and out ot touch for me - plus I don't really have time to read magazines). Getting something I don't want is frustrating - making me pay for it is even more frustrating. Since is represents 31% of my dues I think I have a right to object to it. I would rather pay $40 and not have MA or pay $45 and get an email newsletter. By forgoing the payment and then having access to all news on the website or via email would be a far greater asset to me than any magazine. I actually might read the news if it came in my email or was on the web

I think its time to get up to today's standard. MA is a money losing proposition, paper and distribution costs on mass media is skyrocketing so that will only mean higher costs in the future. Cut the cord now and you will save the AMA (and its members) a lot of $$. Going to a once a year newsletter and putting everything else on the web just makes good business sense.

If State Farm, Progressive, and Aetna can go paperless, so can the AMA. We deserve it.

Like someone else said - its not a matter of the $$, but of business principle. I don't care too much if the insurance costs me $58. I do care if I have to throw out $31% of the premium to get the other 69%.

DP

DP

Hi Crash and DP,
There was a time, back in the seventies I think, when MA was an option. The non-subscribers were sent instead "AMA News". I'll try to research the number tonight but my recollection is that the reduction in dues only amounted to a few dollars. It would be interesting to see, in those member organizations like AMA that make their publication optional to their members, exactly what the difference in dues amounts to. I, admittingly, only belong or have belonged to a few like EAA, AOPA, NSSA. In each of those organizations their publication is part of the total membership package and is not an option. If any of you know of one, post the link and I'll go take a look.
Thanks,
Dave

Hi Dave - thanks for all the info and your willingness to investigate.. hope its not too much of a pain! I understand the optional part - bottom line is if the AMA still has to produce the magazine for those who want it it won't make much of an impact if you make it optional for some as the main cost in the magazing production is art, setup, presswork, etc It does not matter much if you make 100 copies or 100 thousand - the fixed costs remain. The paper, ink, etc is not the most expensive part of production. Postage, people and distribution (postage) is.

My proposal is to get rid of MA altogether and go with a yearly black and white newsletter and put everything else on the web. I would bet you would get a lot of support for that and save the AMA a lot of $$ as well.

The goal of a non-profit is to run efficiently with as little overhead as possible but also to deliver the maximum benefit to its members. Lobbying Washington, fighting legal issues for modelers, and providing some basic liability umbrella coverage are benefits. Selling us a magazine and/or being in the magazine publishing business is not a benefit - it's pure overhead.

My opnion anyway..
DP

Dave;

Most of the other organizations I belong to post the newsletter to a website for all to view or download as they choose. As an option any member can pay a premium to have a paper newsletter mailed to them. Remember the AMA Newsletter, containing only AMA business, would not be that many pages, especially if each District VP put his monthly message on his District's website.

Hi Dave,

I think that MA provides a great service. Of all the magazines that I buy or receive, it is the only one that I read cover to cover and study a number of articles. I think that I can carry the burden of a NICKLE a day for all time to come.

Changes I’d like to see:

I would drop out of it is all the beginner stuff that was recently put in. That stuff doesn’t change much from year to year, so could be bundled into a separate publication and sent ONCE to new members.

I would also ignore articles on ARF’s. There is plenty of focus on this aspect by the non-modeling modeling press. Absolutely boring!

Get more into the leading edge or bleeding edge of technology in all phases of competition. This has always been where the future of the hobby develops.

Keep up the great work.

Bob Dible
AMA 41701

I too feel that MA is invaluable to ALL members, even if it doesn't focus solely on your narrow area of interest in the hobby.

The magazine's physical presence has a psychological effect: With it sitting there on the coffee table or on your bench, you're more likely to pick it up and read it. Logically, more people are likely to be aware of the goings-on in the AMA. If you've got to actively surf to a website from month to month to get your AMA information, you're less likely to do it. Heck, you can't bring your computer with you when you go to "do your business" and that's where a good share of R/C magazine reading is done

I believe an analysis of the numbers was done here on RCU, and it turns out that the ACTUAL cost of the magazine is a measly $7 per member per year. This is cost to produce and mail the magazine, minus advertising revenue, then divided by the total open membership of the AMA. I'll tell you right now from experience, our club of 100 can't publish a 6-page, 6-issue newsletter for $7 per member per year. With the AMA newsletter material taking up 40+ pages in every MA issue, and spanning 12 issues per year, there is no way the AMA could publish it for less than $7 per year.

Now, nobody has investigated whether the IRS would consider a "virtual" newsletter satisfactory for fulfiling the requirements to be a not-for-profit organization. Since the laws were almost certainly written before the Internet, I highly doubt that there is a provision for online newsletters. Their definition of "publish" almost certainly involves paper.

Frankly, I think if we got rid of the glossy magazine, and with it all the advertising revenue, AMA dues would probably go up in the end. Like it or hate it, MA is probably the most effective and fiscally responsible means by which they can disseminate knowledge, and maintain status as a not-for-profit organization.

MA goes in the trash the same day it is received, at least at my house.

had to quit using it to line the parrot cages, PETA threatend to sue me fer being cruel to the birds.

Down heah PETA stands for "People Eating Tasty Animals".

Thanks Bob, I agree wholeheartedly and think you have hit the nail on the head. This is a MODELING organization and as much as it seems to pain some of us, the term ARF does NOT denote modeling.

damn, i gotta agree with jb on 2 things, in one day<G>


it is Academy of MODEL aeronautics, not Academy of READY TO FLYERS aeronautics.

and since words do have meanings, maby we should start to weed out those that do not belong in our group of MODELERS.

A sad short story about the state of modeling.

A few years ago I went to the local club field to test fly a new Quickie.

What’s that model?

Gave him a name.

Who makes it?

I did.

Is it an ARF?

No, I built it from scratch.

Who makes the kit?

I built it from scratch

What do you mean “scratch”?

I designed it, I cut the wood, I cut the foam, I bent the landing gear, I put it together.

Why? Can’t you just buy them?

Yes, but not this one.

Why bother with building when you can buy them?

Because I can, and because the design is better than ones you “buy”

Ugh?

Hi DP,
MA was first published in 1975 and was an option until 1979. In 75,76,77 the non-subscriber's dues were $5 less than those that took MA. In 1978 the non-subscriber's dues were $4 less. In 1979 MA was no longer an option.

I guess it would be interesting to do a cost analysis. If the production costs are pretty much fixed, as you suggest, regardless of the number of copies printed it seems as though if there are fewer copies printed the production cost per copy would be higher. Postage and distribution cost I think would roughly be the same per copy regardless of how many copies were distributed. Does it make sense then that if fewer subscriptions are sold, the actual production cost, per subscription, would be higher? This is a question, not a statement.

Assuming the audit report paints an accurate picture of the magazine operation, in round numbers, it appears as an expense of roughly $1,000.000. Divide the million by, say 155,000 (figuring that not all youth memberships or 2nd family members receive the magazine) and that works out to about $6.45. So the question becomes could we create a black & white "newsletter" including paper, ink, printing, postage and the labor to put it all together for .54 per copy? I don't know.

Do you think we might do better if we tried to reduce the operating "loss" of MA by increasing, as an example, non dues revenue from things like adjusting advertising rates, improving subscription sales, etc. I agree with everything you say about the goals of a non-profit organization. It's just not as black and white to me that doing what you suggest is going to have the result you're expecting. The only way to really know would be for somebody to sit down and actually crunch some numbers. Does any of this make sense or do you think I'm missing something?
Dave

Hi Vette,
I'm assuming you're talking organizations similar to ours? Let's look at your idea of posting the District VP's columns on their websites. I kind of like the idea since it would remove the one page per month space limitation we have now. Leave the rest of the AMA News section intact. That opens the door to other possibilities. That would free up XX number of in the magazine. I'm assuming some of that space could be sold for advertising and some could be used for feature articles. We also have to comply with certain guidelines there too, but let's assume that's an option. We also know that the majority of our members think there is some value in the magazine so I don't see it going away all together. Seems like there's a possibility here for a win/win situation. The members who like the magazine will be happy and at the same time we ease the strain on dues revenue. Certainly hypothetical what ifs, but food for thought.
Dave