Bob Mitchell

I think the tripping point there is that AMA is required to distribute newsletters to all members, and can't guarantee that all members have internet access. Or at least that's what I've heard.

I'm probably showing my age here, but for some things I prefer a hard copy in my hands. Magazines and books is one of those. As Robo said, taking a laptop into the can with you just doesn't feel right somehow. I will admit to having done so, but only for an online poker tournament and a "visit" that just couldn't wait.

Last week while at the beach taking a paperback or a magazine down with me was better than dragging a laptop, even if I could have picked up the wireless out there.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Huh, dude you really need to take the time to call some of these magazines. Of course there are discounted rates for larger ads and full page spreads in all magazines, it's not a premium at all. In fact the smaller the ad the more relative costs per square inch.

Very true, this is why all magazines give incentives to increase your ad size, you increase your ad, you get a better price. It's volume based. Supply and demand in advertising ... that's it ... that's the formula.

He's DEAD wrong, dead as can be. The money comes from those who want to advertise. Magazines prices are ONLY set by those willing to spend, this is why mags like EAA CAN CHARGE 4 TIMES AS MUCH, they have a large audience willing to spend it, has nothing to do with them setting prices. If this theory was true then more people would advertise across more magazines ... what don't people understand about this? MA and AMA increases revenue for all magazines and retail outlets for creating product awareness ... period. Hoss is very very wrong.

Bob Mitchell

Well, I will admit that I'm speculating here, but it seems to me that your typical volume discount would be in play for advertising square inches as easily as for any other commodity.

The moaning sound you hear in the background is because I'm biting my tongue till it bleeds.

Well, that's one of the reasons I asked the questions in the previous message. I'm not sure that anyone posting hear has the actual facts as far as comparative rates is concerned, and if someone does it would be good if we all could see that. I'm also not sure how someone not intimately involved in the publishing industry could know positively that MA was at least partly to blame for the failure of other publications. Publishing is a competetive business and we're seeing a contraction of providers in many areas of the economy.

Again, I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here because I believe rates should be competitive unless there are some factors that prevent that such as lead times, etc., and I don't see a problem with pushing to have the magazine be self supporting or profitable.

That said, I don't think we or MA's management can or should ignore that the strictly commercial magazines have an income through subscription fees, and that earmarking a portion of our dues as such is a reasonable thing to do. If MA was operating as other publications do in the free market (as you and Horrace suggest that it should) it would have subscription income. It's not reasonable to expect it to operate as such, and at the same time expect it to operate without subscription income. MAN and FlyRC aren't given away for free. From an MA standpoint that would deal with all or part of the cash flow issue. OTOH, from an overall AMA standpoint it's "revenue neutral" since that amount just comes out of the general fund to be applied to MA. It's a paper transfer of funds and amounts to removing cash from your right pocket and putting into your left. Any increase in revenue would obviously be beneficial, regardless of which pocket it goes into.

Bob Mitchell

To 804:

Thanks for reminding us all of that. You beat me to the punch.

The point that I've been trying to make is that if we expect MA to operate in a free market/real world, we have to remember that other magazines operating in that free world have subscription income. It's a contradiction to ask it to be so, and at the same time exclude any (subscription) contribution from member dues when looking at it's cash flow. If one is going to compare MA to a commercial publication it must be an apples/apples comparison.

That doesn't mean that an increase in revenue from any source wouldn't be welcome. It would either reduce the subscription/subsidy (depending upon your point of view) or provide additional monies to the general fund.

I have wondered, though, why I see AOPA Pilot on some newstands, but not MA. Any ideas?

Hossfly

Bob, et. al. go read my reply to you in the sub forum. Maybe some history there will provide some insight.

HEY, I forgot that important option: MA on the newstands. That has always been a big thing to me. If they want new members, then go out and get them and quit JUST preaching to the choir.

MAN, sometimes FM, Fly RC and maybe Sport RC are out there before the eyes of all.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Our magazine has 150,000 subscribers whose subscription fees come in like clock work, pre-paid for the year, with no middle man.

Getting back to my point about ad rates for the mega outfits. The large spread is a better use of space, it is more efficient. They don't have to devote as much space [percentage wise] to contact information as you would with a small ad. More space gets used to display their goods. This is what makes large blocks of space in the most prestigious model magazine in the USA so valuable. The AMA can practically name their own price. If the mega advertisers don't like it, they have a choice between FlyRC or Better Homes and Gardens.

Hoss, MA already goes out to XX% of the people in our country who are interested in model aviation, I don't have a clue as to what that number is, but it is a finite number. I will bet that at least 75% of FlyRC and MAN sales go to AMA members. What is left over would be your "walk up" market for MA which looks to me like slim pickins. Space on the magazine racks always looks crammed, so getting MA on the racks might be a pretty tough sell. MA's presense on the racks would also dilute the market for the remaining model magazines, which could turn into a lose, lose, lose proposition.

KidEpoxy

CP-
Hold on, let me check something:
- MA is currently $1mil taken in, $2mil spent -
um, Yes CP, I do believe that.

Ooh oooh, Storytime:
Once upon a time,
according to (Able?), the 501c3 Rocket guys were letting their members choose between paper or electronic.
And they lived happily ever after.
The end.


STL mentioned that an online AMA magazine might fail.

FAIL? You mean it wont overspend by ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Here is a reality check:
If AMA went electronic, would it be a failure if it cost AMA $500k more than it took in?
Or would that a $500k boon for Muncie compared to the $1mil MA "fails" by each year.

Odd how running online a couple hundred $k in the red is a failure,
but not for MA, it runs $1mil in the red and is defended against fixing that problem.


. . .
Oh, bulk discount?
You mean like the 1mo/6mo/12mo rates?




Do we all agree that
A 1/4page 6mo ad is worth far more in a 140k copy mag than a 50k-70k mag?

It is not that hard for an interested individual to get a quote or just that from MA and some of the other mags.... if this wasnt Columbus weekend of course.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

No, the failure would be 150,000 AMA members would not receive a hard copy magazine to potentially pass along to a boy scout, that's the failure. AMA doesn't look at bottom line profit, they look at providing a mission, period. They are NOT FOR PROFIT, figure out what that means and you'll see the light at the end of the tunnel.

exeter_acres

My Feedback: (2)

no jump....just a simple question....
thanks for answering with a smile....

Have a nice day

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

KE, less of a loss is moving in the right direction! Allowing members to opt out of getting the printed magazine for a slight discount in membership dues would seem to benefit everyone involved. If a member does see a printed issue that he can't live without, then it would only be $5 to order. Nothing would change for those who want all issues of the magazine delivered. Pretty simple, just a check box on the mebership renewal form to make it happen. Like you've been saying, all it takes is the will to make this simple change.
The defeatist attitude is to sit back all fat, dumb and happy, then say that nothing can be done about the magazine...it is just destined to lose money.....leave well enough alone...to pretend that nothing is wrong.
The worst thing is to look at the numbers and deny that our magazine has any income from subscribers! We can't have a real discussion until everyone is onboard with the idea that our magazine has roughly 150,000 subscribers.

The Toolman

Sorry feller, I just get jumped on so often on this forum I assume that it was a jump that time also......


Here's yer smile sir

KidEpoxy

CP-
If one looks closely at the $1mil taken in
It is actually busted down to Ad Revenue and Subscriptions in the financial report pages.
AMA does indeed, actually factually list MA's Subscription Revenue for each year.

It is not 150k x $18
Nor is it 150k x $6
If anyone is guessing just 5-10% of the Advertizing Revenue, give yourself a cookie.

It is very easy for us here to see how much the Ad Revenue is compared to the Subscription revenue,
as listed in the very legally compiled reports, published in MA.



Again, we have the tire old argument that a NFP must lose millions of dollars on its unrelated buisness.

A. If we accept the misconception that it must run at a loss, $1.00 red is a loss just like $1mil red is.
If you are so commiteed to running MA in the red, do it at $1, dont hemmorage $1mil.

B. Time & time again we have to explain that MA is fully allowed to make millions of profit,
which it would be taxed on.
Oh no, some of our millions of income we dont keep. Boo Hoo.
Did I say millions profit for a 'minor' fucntion of the Org?
Well, if we run $9mil or $10mil thru each year, yeah... minor.

$210,177 Supply Souvenir & Merchandizing Sales 2005
$126,280 Supply Souvenir Costs
STL, are you saying this NFP violated something by turning a profit on selling crud?

We are not required to run our rates below what they are worth.
We are not required to run MA at a loss.... and certainly not at a $1mil loss.
We are not required by the Fed, as a 501c3, to print the 'newsletter'

Bob Mitchell

I read your response and will reply here so others can comment or chime in.

Poor phrasing/puncuation on my part, ended up asking the wrong question. Should have worded it this way......Why, in your opinion, are they fighting either making the magazine profitable or at least increasing revenue? Care to comment on that?

I don't question the numbers. You may not remember but in posing similar questions to Mark Smith my estimate was ~1.5M. My comment to mark was that based on those numbers the actual cost to me for MA was about $10 per year. You can call it either a "subscription" fee or a "subsidy", but IMO that is my cost. Using your numbers would render a slightly higher annual cost, but close enough for discussion purposes. I think up to that point we are pretty well in agreement, are we not?

One wishes that you could somehow find a way to eliminate the childish little insults that you seem unable to avoid. They really don't diminish anyone but you.

Here's where we begin to differ, I think. IMO MA is certainly worth $10 (or even $15 which would more than cover your slightly higher cost estimate). That's a bargain compared to what I pay annually for both MAN and FlyRC. I understand that the AMA "official" cost is $18, but using the auditor's numbers and an either your's or my estimate of staff overhead it is obviously lower than $18. One can call it a subscription and then MA at least breaks even, or a subsidy, with a loss. In EITHER case it's cost that could be reduced if MA had higher revenues, regardless of the source. (Or lower costs.)

For the subscription/subsidy to drop to $0, MA would need additional revenue of $1.5-$1.7M (or the same in reduced overhead or some combination of both). Given that advertising and subscription revenue was ~$1.1M I doubt the entire difference could be realized in advertising revenue alone. That would require a 150%-170% increase. So IF ad rates are below competition, that alone wouldn't make up the difference. I don't have a background in publication, so I really don't have any idea of the staff required to publish such a magazine, but it wouldn't be out of line to request the Publications Director to develop a zero based budget and defend/justify his budget. A budget which ABSOLUTELY include all costs, including staff. Year end and any interim financial reports should also properly allocate staff costs.

So, the way I see it, I'm getting an excellent magazine for a reasonable cost. You see it as a subsidy that should be eliminated. In either event I think we both would like to see revenue increase or costs decrease to put more dollars into AMA's hands.

I do believe strongly, though, that it's wrong to expect or believe that MA should be break even, let alone profitable without some sort of subscription income from AMA members. It's wrong to compare MA to compete with other commercial without any souce of subscription income. I seriously doubt that MAN or FlyRC would be viable ventures without their subscription income. It's not a fair comparison unless that is included.

The ease of that depend entirely on current ad rates, I think. I haven't seen any figures posted here that are convincing of a significant discrepancy with going commercial rates. There have been some boilerplate numbers posted, but I strongly suspect that advertisers who buy several pages of space are paying the same per inch rate as someone who buys a small fraction of a page. I'm not saying rates ARE competetive for the same reason. I just don't think we know. We do have some indicattion, though that they are reviewed for competitiveness.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Absolutely not, don't put words in my mouth. Who cares how much they made in revenue, the bottom line numbers do the talking, not the line items that yourself and Hoss love to point out. The AMA is a mission provider and when they make profits to the people that do most of the legwork then let me know. Why are you constantly trying to look for a conspiracy in the AMA every single day of your life? No, 41 year old kid epoxy, the AMA is not corrupt and they've never proven to be.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Bob, I think we are troubleshooting a circuit with more than one problem. First step is to remove variables. In this case, that would be to reorganize the accounting so that the magazine's income and expenditures are clearly shown to be their own. If they are truly receiving $18 a head X all of us, then that is the way it should read. Like you say, a zero balance budget should be submitted. They have been at this long enough to know what their anticipated costs will be for production, shipping and also inflation. At this point you can start looking at the food chain of salaried magazine employees to decide who is doing what and how much they are needed. Judgement about personell can be reserved until the very end of the clean up process.
Our "malfunctioning circuit" should start to look like something with a comprehensive budget and accounting, but now it is time for the minor adjustments.... Ad rate increases and distribution options for the membership. These items are not the "cure all" but I think some savings and gains will be realized. MA can write it's own rules about ad rates. Like I said before, if our mega-clients don't like the new terms, there aren't too many other magazines of this sort for them to display their products in. In this case, "the one who loves the least is in charge of the relationship".

Like KE mentioned, if all of the above doesn't solve the short fall entirely, at least it is a start.
Hoss will be making a huge break through if he can get the AMA to acknowledge that there is a problem to begin with. Kind of like getting an alcoholic to admit the same.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

You would suspect to be wrong. They most certainl pay A LOT less for bulk space in an ad. The rack rates for MA and any other magazine are published online, look them up. You will clearly see that smaller ads cost a heck of a lot more per sq in in RC and every other magazine on the planet. Why do you keep wondering about this .... just to say it? Look it up.

It's real easy to simply say that MA could simply charge more money in ads and heck maybe you'll win a campaign if people buy that theory .... but everyone wants world peace too and that also is a pipe dream. When MA starts charging a fair subscription rate, about $20 more than your subsidized dues, then you'll prolly see profitability .... until then read it and pass it along.

Stickbuilder

Hey there Hot Rod,

Which issue of Model Aviation will you be passing along? You don't receive them (since you are not an open member), and you can't vote on any of the issues at hand. So why are you flapping your gums about that which does not concern you? Or do you just enjoy reading what you have written? I sure as He** hope so, because no one else does. If you are so astute, then why don't you become a member, and then you will have a say in these matters. Oops, I forgot, you work or worked (past tense) for a Wall Street Financial House. Nice job there too.[:'(]

Bill, AMA 4720

exeter_acres

My Feedback: (2)

ahhh... I wake up on a grey, rainy, and overly windy Saturday with a 401k value of -$42 and I see these smiles........

and now I know the day will be great!

(honeslty I was just asking.... I don't read all the posts in this section as it sometimes needs to be titled the "lets beat the horse just a bit more" section... )

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Huh? Now the stock brokers and money managers are the bad guys? And here I thought it was the folk that decided not to pay their mortgages started this mess. You do not know of what you speak ..... again.

KidEpoxy

Yeah, sometimes it really looks that way.

But Bob is allegedy a newcomer,
and STL continues to repeat stuff we have already corrected him on,
so it will continue to be a horse beatin zone as we repeat the same story over & over.



As for Ad rates
If we try adjuating the ad rates to fix at least part of the problem
it will either Help, Hurt, or have no effect.

If it Hurts,
we can simpley go back. What Muncie changes they can change back. We are stuck 'trying out' PPP for how many years because it might help... well, this has a far better chance of helping and is far less divisive & precedent shattering. Unlike PPP, this should have a very visible & tangible metric as to its effectiveness, on both ad revenue and ad counts before & after.

If it Helps,
Great.

If it has no effect
then it wasnt so bad and we are no worse off.


I just hope the Muncie plan isnt to run the PPP mag a million dollars in the red too,
but its ad revenue per copy seems to be insane vs MA, like 25x.
How the heck is that going on?

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

OK no more repeating ... proof is in the pudding. You can get any rate card from any magazine online. As you can clearly see with MA and the rest, the more you buy, the less it costs in real estate. Yes, supply and demand based. End of that discussion.

Oh and why do you think the numbers are odd, don't end in 99 ... because these prices are based on last quarters sales, that's the ONLY flippin way to price out ad space. Hoss' quesswork on where prices should go has nothing to do with it, nothing. Tell me kid have you every purchased ad space before ... do you have any practical experience or are you just touting?

Bob Mitchell

I agree. Until the accounting is set up to truely show all the details it's difficult to know whether there is several, one or no issues. In one of his early messages Mark commented about a new controller being brought on board who would be instituting improved accounting practices. This should be one of those improvements.

It seems to me, that based on the published numbers, and a reasonable estimate of staff costs, the published $18 subscription allocation is high.

Such a budgeting process is not an overly burdensome process, IMO. In a previous life I've done it many times and it forces one to build and be able to defend their budget one line item at a time. I'm not sure what the AMA budgeting process looks like, and it may already be done that way. If not, it should be.

Or, it could turn out that the circuit is performing just as it should, once all the "measurements" are taken. The size or even the presence or absence of a problem with MA can't really be determined based on current accounting practices.

Remember though, from my point of view it's unreasonable to compare with or expect MA to compete with similar commercial magazine such as MAN or FlyRC without allocating some of our annual dues being applied as subscription "revenue" to the magazine. Based on Horrace's and my estimate of staff costs, it seems that allocation should be around $10-$13 to make MA a break even proposition. Given what an annual subscription to either of those costs, it seems to me that I'm getting a good magazine at a very reasonable cost.

That said, if ad revenues can be increased, and/or staff costs reduced I beleive that AMA leadership is obligated to do so. Regardless of whether you look at it as subscription fees or a "subsidy", doing so would result in additional dollars in AMA's hands.

Regardless of one's views on MA, I think we can all agree that it should be run in a businesslike manner with all appropriate steps being taken to maximize revenue, minimize costs and continue to produce a professional product.

Slight change of direction here. I've been receiving MA only since the early part of this year, so I can't compare a hard copy in my hands with a copy from 5 or 6 years ago. I have looked at some of the latest issues available in the digital archives, and it appears to me that the magazine has made some pretty good strides in the past 8 years or so. Of course that's based on my general level of knowledge about the hobby. Somone with a different expericence level, or with interests in free flight or soaring for example might not come to the same conclusion. Everyone would like to see more in the magazine that relates to their particular interests or experience level.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

KE, maybe we should ask some guys who represent those hobby industry companies if raising ad rates is a good idea?
Maybe some of them can show us the official price book that controls how much MA can charge?
Maybe someone can lead us to the magazine [identical to ours in readership and content] that we should base our rates on?
Maybe Moses will come back from the mountain with the fee structure etched in stone?
Maybe some of these guys simply believe that the AMA should just strive for mediocrity? After all, the same value system worked for several decades in the Soviet Union.

For anyone who is interested in seeing a model magazine that exudes class, creativity, talent and efficient use of resources.....check out PAMPA's magazine, "STUNT NEWS".

Bob Mitchell

We could put them on the publications committee and let 'em negotiate advertising rates.

Might be a conflict of interest, though.

KidEpoxy

Model Aviation promotes the sport of flying
models and the Academy of Model
Aeronautics (AMA) through the
dissemination of scientific, technical, and
general information.

Model Aviation covers the full spectrum of
model aircraft including Radio Control, Free
Flight, and Control Line aeromodeling with
monthly columns, features, technical, and
“how-to” articles. Reader demographics are
used to determine the contents of each
issue. Radio Control activities are
emphasized, but all aspects of the hobby are
covered.

More than 96% of the AMA membership
subscribes to Model Aviation. Most
individuals who do not subscribe are
members of families who receive the
magazine.

Model Aviation has more than two times as
many subscribers as any other modeling
magazine. While other magazines depend on
newsstand more than subscription sales,
Model Aviation is delivered directly to the
homes of more than 96% of our readers
every month.

Model Aviation’s circulation has grown
steadily since the magazine’s founding in
1975, with a 2005 circulation of more than
135,000. Call for current circulation figures.

That is MA telling potential advertizers that MA has "more than two times as many subscribers as any other modeling magazine.", and boasting about the members getting it rain or shine or want it or not. Does MA consider this just stray details to be buried deep in their 7 pages of Rate info? No, that is the first column of the first page of information. Maybe they think having twice as many copy is important, important enough that 6.5pages of info plays second fiddle to it.

Having such a massive number of copy is a huge selling pint.
Because it iw really worth more than having a low copy count.
The ad rates should reflect that MA has like 2x the copy of the competition, locked in a non-optional subscription.


"More than 96% of the AMA membership subscribes to Model Aviation"
Not like they have a choice