SOS, DD
 

In another forum where most posters here never venture, some were complementing the "NEW LOOK" of AMA's magazine, Model Aviation. Of course I just had to bring the total item to light, expecially for those that just recently arrived into the realm of model aviation. :) Items being discused touched on the FAI programs, the "New Look" and a few other subjects that may be or not be covered in my response.
>>>>
1. The new "Model Aviation" is definitely a superior magazine. In that regard why is it not a profit making "Unrelated Business" as it was so intended to be back around 1977 when the mag. went commercial? Why does the membership have to support a commercial magazine within the realm of an Internal Revenue Code 501 (c) (3)? If Fly RC, MAN, FM, etc. had such an opportunity they too would be much much more informative to the readers. Unfortunately, MA under the "unrelated business" status of a tax exempt organization has YOU to pay the bills.

Don't believe it! Go read the annual audits. If you can read a very basic Financial Audit Report, it's all there in black and white.
[link=https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/10financialstatement.pdf]https://www.modelaircra...10financialstatement.pdf[/link]

Model Aviation costs YOU, an AMA member, twice or close to it, what the Public Liability Insurance program costs you. It darn well should be great! It has twice the staff working on it as there is working for membership.

As far as the FAI Programs, I don't care about FAI for myself, however if I had my way, FAI would be a top priority. Team members would be 100% First Class supported and all the News Medias would receive reports on how well they did. I stand strong for United States FIRST!
AMA is the U.S. Organization under the National Aeronautical Association, under the Federation Aeronautic International (sp ?) and should behave accordingly.

It seems that all the AMA and most of the membership want is to be just one big model airplane club. That is sad to me, but then I have been a modeler for almost 71 of my 76 years. It has been a way of life.
<<<<<

RE: SOS, DD
 

I would like it if the AMA broke even on the cost of producing a magazine.

RE: SOS, DD
 

I got no problem with the magazine , looks ok from here ........

In Fact , I got no problem at all with what I get for my $58 a year , , , For a bit of perspective , It costs me $60 every couple of weeks to fill my van with gas ......... Figured to a per day basis , the AMA is the least expensive thing to do with my hobby that I pay for ;)

RE: SOS, DD
 

Jeez are we beating this horse again, its dead leave it alone. Im with init4fun.


Vince

RE: SOS, DD
 

I was surprised to see the back section (district reports etc.) finally with color photos. Actually I was shocked

RE: SOS, DD
 

It is our club's official journal of record.. It is a good deal price-wise, for me any way, I get the old geezer discount. It is interesting, informative and a nice piece of very professional work. I agree with all of your responses so far. Stop beating a dead horse.

RE: SOS, DD
 

a dead horse would be a good thing for it to be. funeral expenses and it would all be over, instead of a million or so dollars a year drain of members dues.

RE: SOS, DD
 

Really? Really?

I am happy to receive the Mag/newsletter. In anything you do, you have to pay to play.

RE: SOS, DD
 

Tim
Uh, you are missing the point Hoss mentioned,
for the magazine to be a PROFIT item, rather than a burden to bear.
McDonalds aint charging its employees for the LOSS of selling burgers, they sell burgers to PROFIT. Perhaps you see that McD aint paying to play, but is getting paid... just as an 'Unrelated Business' of a non-profit can get paid to play too - and turn a taxed profit for the taxfree parent

Tim
What are your feelings on what post2 by Michael R. said-
"I would like it if the AMA broke even on the cost of producing a magazine. "

Is he wrong to want that?
Would I be wrong to want what he wants?

RE: SOS, DD
 

I also like the new look of MA but could it be that because the mag is geared toward being sort of a newsletter for AMA members that there is not the appeal
to larger audiances for the mag to have more sales volume.

RE: SOS, DD
 

Well, at least the thread is named appropriately ;)

RE: SOS, DD
 

+1 - See, we can agree on something [&:]

RE: SOS, DD
 

Indeed. Welcome to the 20th Century!! Magazines with color!! Amazing technology we have, truly awesome times. What's next? A man on the moon??

RE: SOS, DD
 

Is this a discussion for AMA members or AMA employee's? I thought this was a discussion about members who support the AMA by paying membership fee's.

I don't have any problem paying over half my membership fee's for a magazine. IMO that mag is better than the ones on the newstand and is costs less to boot. Or at least what I would pay per month from the newstand. Iwon't buy the commercial ones except when they have a specific article I am intrested in. Those rags are like dogs, all they say is ARF, ARF, ARF!

Though the last AMA mag was horrible, not only full of ARFS but also all or almost allelectric.

RE: SOS, DD
 

Color still costs more to print. I don't see the need for color AMA news myself.

RE: SOS, DD
 

I don't think McDonalds ignores the money brought in fom customers when figuring their "profits". Your supposition would have us ignore the money brought in, and earmarked as such, through dues.

Must be a slow news day to drag this topic up from the grave.

RE: SOS, DD
 

Its hard to miss the point. I dont think for the AMA Model Aviation Magazine that it can be a commercial money maker. It was never intended for that purpose. Its the AMAs way of communicating with its members, and keeping the membership informed of all aspects of model aviation. This constant assault by Hoss is getting OLD!! The same old schtick by Hoss time and time again, is boring, like a broken record. He has set him self up as a Pseudo Spokesman of sorts, and beats the same old Dead Horse in one way or another again, again and again. Yes its getting old. So how about giving us all a break from this. I dont care, and I am sure the majority of others dont either. The $58.00 a year for this hobby is nothing compared to what we spend on the hobby itself. Yes we get it, now leave us alone.


Vince AMA 7051

RE: SOS, DD
 

Kbob
no, you TOO are missing the point-
The magazine was not to be an additional burden the members have to pay
(you DO recall how it was shilled as a 'free' benefit for sooo long)
but a money maker for the org.

The org making money off its dues is NOT 'a money maker'... its just dues and a burden on those dues.




Could you answer the question I put to Tim
(heck, I would love to see EVERYONE answer it)

KBOB- What are your feelings on what post2 by Michael R. said-
"I would like it if the AMA broke even on the cost of producing a magazine. "
Is he wrong to want that?
Would I be wrong to want what he wants?

RE: SOS, DD
 

i really dont care for the magazine the ama makes sone parts so small you cant read them and its the same old stuff all the time i can do with out it

RE: SOS, DD
 

Vpres
cite source

Where did you read that?
(a source from that period, not someones interpretive restrospeculation)
When did we get the magazine, and who in this thread was on the EC back around those times

RE: SOS, DD
 

  :)

Uh, how about making it online so it's not such a huge drain? The Luddite 5% who don't own a computer can share whatever it costs to print.

I agree we've been too long in holding the AMA to what was initially promised - a FREE magazine. This is how big organizations work: promise something then, as time marches &amp; memory fades, change to what's convenient for the org. We are then just like the frog in the pot...

The minimal upgrades to the mag were 10+ years overdue IMO. It shouldn't take so long, shame on US.

For those who 'can't be bothered, it's fine the way it is, don't beat a dead horse,' etc., such complacency is the problem.

Occupy AMA !  Shaking up the status quo is good, and in this case it might save us some money.

RE: SOS, DD
 

Right on. MA is for AMA members and, therefore, is paid for by AMA members. So what? I could care less if they had color and I especially dislike all the ads. But then again, I haven't read an article in it for years - it's just some excess paper to throw away once a month. I joined AMA to get insurance and find a local group of guys to fly with. Everything else is fluff - expensive fluff.

RE: SOS, DD
 

$58 is nothing (and this coming from someone on SSDI). I've been looking into model rocketry and found the fees for those national associations are $62/yr for NAR (National Association of Rocketry) or $72/yr for Tripoli (high power rocketry assn). Add in membership fees for local chapters and the AMA and my RC club dues become cheap by comparison. All include magazines but the other two don't come remotely close to Model Aviation for quality of publication or content.

I like MA. It's one of the few magazines I get that's read cover-to-cover every month.

RE: SOS, DD
 

Since the AMA is a non-profit club, the magazine is not allowed to make a profit or we would be faced with ungodly taxation issues. It is our official journal of record. It reports official club news to the members. It is paid for out of our member dues and advertising. What is your problem? The magazine is great, it is useful, informative and fun.

RE: SOS, DD