Earlier this week I emailed Dave Mathewson with some questions I had concerning the Park Pilot Program. These are questions I raised/posted in the "Make It Up in Volume" thread a couple of weeks or more back. I received a return email from him last night suggesting that we speak on the phone as he was traveling to Muncie today from his home in New York and had several hours to kill in the car while enroute. He called me just after lunch today, and we spoke for about 20 minutes. Obviously I don't have a "transcript" of the conversation, but here's a synopsis:

1. What is AMA doing differently this year to improve on last years disappointing membership results (only ~1100 PPP members)?

- More advertising to be placed in electric flyer type publications
- Work with additional equipment suppliers to include AMA PPP information in the boxes, logos on the boxes, etc. Due to the fact that much of this is made overseas there will be some lag in seeing this show up in/on boxes in the hobby shops or purchased online.
- Promotions at the hobby shops, specifically making copies of the PP magazine available to the shop owners to be given away or included with purchased equipment.
- PPP promotions to be a part of the general membership drive scheduled to kick off on or about April 1.

2. What, if any target has been established for PPP membership in '09?

- 2008 membership reached ~1100. Membership needs to reach ~5000 for the program to break even. Target for '09 is a 300% increase over '08, or ~3300 members. This is an aggresive target and will be difficult to reach.

3. How long is the EC willing to carry the program if it remains as not self-supporting?

- Speaking for himself, and not the EC, Dave indicated that there has to be some "serious discussion" at budget time this October concerning the future of the program, or even carrying it into 2010 even if the membership targets for this year are realized. Although he didn't flat out indicate that he wanted to see the program killed if targets weren't reached by the end of the 3rd quarter I believe that he's leaning that way. That's MY interpretation of the conversation.

My impression is that he and the EC are committed to playing things out this year, and evaluating where things stand prior to beginning the budgeting process for 2010. If you feel strongly that the program should be killed (and that's where I am at this point, barring some really unforseen membership numbers) then IMO the thing to do is to start lobbying your DVP in late August or early September of this year. I wouldn't just stop with your own DVP, either. They may not represent you directly, but they all have a vote.

Dave is a straight up guy. I am sure he will guide AMA in the right direction. Thanks for the info.

Bob, for the time being DM is the only one in Muncie that I actually have any trust in. I have exactly "0" trust in cherry or smith. I believe they are only in it for the prestige and/or power.


Ron

I think it will be interesting to see what happens this fall with the program. I don't believe that I've ever seen or heard anyone discuss specifc performance targets for the program prior to this. If those targets aren't met, and the program is funded again for 2010 I'm going to be very disappointed in the EC.

Those answers sound about right to me, sounds businesslike, can you imagine that?

Ron, to all their opinion, but the last thing that Jim Cherry is is power hungry I believe. He loves model aviation and could be working with industry and commerce, and has. Life could have a whole lot less hassles working in Florida than in Muncie, but he took on the challenge. I have worked with him during the Nats and some other activities at the International Aeromodeling Center, and he has been full service for us, LSF. I think that he is a sharp guy and good modeler.

Marc

Good job Bob.

Its great to finally hear a 1k/3k/5k Sink Or Swim cut-off.

Perhaps I'm misreading your comments KE, but I did not hear a firm committment that the program would be ended if '09 goals are not met. That's not what he said, nor did I in my message There was no "yes I will work to kill it" if this year's goals aren't met. My impression from what he said is that he is leaning that way, but he did not go on record as saying such. I'm reading between the lines a bit, and indicated such in my message.

oh, not a problem
I'll just modify that line-

Its great to finally hear even a rumor about a possible 1k/3k/5k Sink Or Swim cut-off.



sadly, even a rumor of business savvy responsibility is better than
Open Ended Moneypit cause Muncie is always right,
You cant change the AMA,
Anyone that doesnt unconditionally support it is a AMA Hater
type dogmas

Thanks for the post, over the years I have had nothing but great interactions with Dave.

Out of curiosity, did he know you were going to post this info online before hand?

Yes, he did.

Good evening Bob.
Good questions, good answers. It is good to hear him acknowledge that the program is treading on thin ice.
It's good to hear that there is some kind of performance goal.
I think his break even number is a little bit modest if he is including last year's shortfall.
The ad they are running in Model Airplane News is a good one. It lists the reasons for joining...but I think they are harping to the wrong audience by using mainstream model magazines.

Toolman,
With your strong feelings will we see your name on a ballot at some time in the future?

Nope, after this season I'm out of ama. The only reason I re-upped this year was or little club had to have 5 to get their charter. Hope they get at least 1 new guy this year.....
Where we fly, I can fly without the ama. The owner has more Ins. than he needs, an I have enough for what I need.


Ron

I believe that his break even comments were meant from an on-going standpoint and not the numbers needed to recover last years expenditures. Again, my interpretation.

A 300% increase would mean you added 3 times your current number of members.

2,200 = 100% increase (doubled membership)
3,300 = 200% increase (tripled membership)
4,400 = 300% increase (quadrupled membership)

Minor point, but I see this mistake made all too often.


Typo fixed. Happy now Hoss??

Original 1100 (doubled) = 2200 + 1100 again = 3300 + 1100 again = 4400

Minor point, but I MAKE this mistake all too often. [:-]

edit: other mistakes. []

Good point. I took it to mean a tripling of membership from 1100 to 3300. I used the 3300 number a couple of times in the conversation and Dave didn't take exception to it, so either we both were making the same mistake, or he was being coy.

In any event, he felt that reaching 3300 this year would itself be difficult.

Mitchell: Let me review some of your comments from your original post with my emphasis added:
For one thing, any new business venture has Start-Up expenses. Those expenses may well be a long time in recapture. For a real business, there are options to use what would be tax monies to assist in that recapture. AMA is not a real business in that specific area. If the program proves successful, then recovering Start-Up may well take 5 or more years.

Now you come here to report a discussion where the main points are "I believe...", "....my interpretation...", etc. You do well in that you identify such. Very good indeed. However your report is nothing factual, just conjecture.

In that respect, I also have an interpretation: Mathewson is only telling you what he thinks you want to hear, nothing specific, and all changeable with the next breath. You come back with your fantasies and they make some folks feel good about something that has nothing to support anything except just more whitewash, which is rather muddy in actual color.

This program is Smith's baby. You and yours supported Smith in his step to the next AMA Pres. where he and another prime AMA executive running a loss operation will show you the real AMA direction. I'll wager you a case of your favorite drinking whiskey against a case of my favorite beer that my interpretation comes to pass well before your interpretation does.

Edited to add: You say, "I wouldn't..." When I hear you say, "I did not..." then you just might gain some credence to your "interpretations".

Knowing what he knows now [DM], I wonder what he feels should have been done differently?

You don't need to be "Nostrodamous" to be able to see that sales figures aren't a good indicator . You've got to get out there and beat the bushes to do your own "open air market analysis".

The PPP comes about 40 years too late....those were the days when you saw kids outside on the streets and the playgrounds playing sports until dark. Kids who were taller than they were wide even! [X(]
There was basically no model aviation of any kind where I grew up and it was always considered a rich man's game anyway. A PPP type program introduced to the schools sure would have beat gluing together popsickle sticks in "art" class.

Gee, Horrace....thanks for you comments. They are what I have come to expect from you; direct, to the point, no repeating of obvious points or any hint of condescension or patronizing comments.

Yes, I think my comments made it clear that I understand that.

I would have preferred an email response so I could have just cut and pasted what he had to say, but that's not what happened. I took pains to make it clear that I was not putting words in his mouth, which is entirely appropriate. Conjecture? Some, to be sure. You can take it or leave it as you see fit. Some will find it useful, others will just write it off. Your choice.

Over my lifetime I don't think I've ever voted for a candidate where I agreed with all of his positions, on all subjects. Have you? I wasn't a PPP supporter when I voted for Mr. Smith last year. In any event my support for him wasn't really support for him as much as it was......well, you know.

Horrace, as I said, some will find the comments useful and informative, others will not. I will say that "gaining some credence" from you, or from anyone for that matter is not why I posted them and is not on my priority list.

Now, I hope you have a good day and that you get some decent flying weather there in Texas. This weekend was warm but very windy here. Monday was good then it went south again and doesn't look good for the next several days. I'm anxious for it to finally turn. I've got a new plane almost ready to maiden.


[/quote]

If this were a one man show with DM calling the shots,
I think the info DM got would be real good news.

But we know DM is just 1 vote of the EC,
and it will do no good for the thing that got started with 2 No votes
to lose a bid to kill the moneypit with now 3 No votes.
<if we can still count on the original EC opponants / non-endorsers>

Any chance of getting MarkS to sign on with DM on this?

There were a few in my neighborhood who had at least one attempt at flying small control line stuff with Cox or Wen-Mac .049s. This would have been around 1960. I don't think I even knew that radio control or AMA even existed. I remember having a light blue colored plastic version of something that was supposed to resemble a Dauntless. Had a spring starter on the front and was almost impossible to get running.

That was pretty much it for me until last year when my wife told me I had to find something to do to get me out of the house. A fall off a ladder a couple of years ago and the resulting broken shoulder put a huge damper on my golf swing.

As a disinterested observer, I think too much, too soon, is what I hear. If I were a PPP pusher, I would be thinking in terms of maybe a 5 year trial period. I'd have interim goals and do market analysis to see what I needed to do to meet or exceed those goals. To talk of dumping a program after only one or two years seems to me to reflect an expectation of failure, and concern for cutting losses, rather than expectation of success.

Jim, I don't think you should take the conversation between Bob and Dave to reflect anything other then a simple conversation about the topic.

Jim, I respect your comments, and will say that in the year that I've been posting here, and a member of the AMA my opinion on this has changed quite a bit....for a couple of reasons.

First, by the end of this year AMA will have spent close to $500K on PPP. Add another 3 years and it will top $1M. Given the lackluster results from last year, targets for this year that fall short of a break even situation and that by Dave's admission will be difficult to reach, I'm of the opinion that additional funding for 2010 will probably amount to throwing good money after bad. I think those funds could, at least in part, better server the membership by being directed towards acquisition and retention of full scale fields. I think last years PP membership numbers indicate that this particular approach isn't going to be successful, and I think AMA leadership is beginning to recognize that...or at least to acknowledge that they are recognizing that.

Second, one of the things that became quite apparent to me shortly after I joined AMA, my club and this board is the degree that different factions have developed within the RC community. Stick and scratch builders that look down their noses at those who fly ARF's; gas/glow flyers that look down their noses at anything that's electric or non-ply and balsa, etc. A two tier membership such as that created with the PP program sets up another "us vs them" scenario and in the long run I think it will serve to further polarize the organization.

That said, I think it's a good idea for AMA to reach out to younger folks who are buying less expensive, lighter and slower equipment. I suspect that the average age of AMA membership has significantly increased over the past couple of decades, and some new blood is needed to replace those of us that are "leaving" (to put it delicately). OTOH I've also heard it said that perhaps AMA should be reaching out to us boomers who are or will retire in the next few years, who may be looking for a hobby to fill some of what used to be work time, and may have some disposable income to spend on it. Given the current economic conditions that may not work well right now either.

Jim, this is not a knee jerk reaction on my part, but something to which I've given a fair amount of thought, and as I said, my opinion has changed over the past few months. I'm sure that there are a least a couple of folks here who would attest to that.