FACTS is not moving fast enough

Create a Post
W

Whynot

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Dec 16, 2000
Posts
1,277
Loc
North-East US
I fully agree that FACTS is taking on major issues. But if FACTS had chosen to launch its quest for framers support and recognition EXCLUSIVELY from The Grumbler's camp, hoping for a snow ball effect, I'm afraid that Nona is in for a total deception.
Grumblers, as proven so far, are extremely aware and responsible people but, in my humble opinion, they are no more than 100 active ones. The difference to 2116 members is comprised of pure records of people that once registered with TG (possibly under more than one name, as I did ;) ). Registered members are just a count of people that ever registered with TG, regardless how long they've lasted. Much like in a station, some come others leave, nobody is going to hang in there for ever, yet the place is crowded. If you want to verify my words, try to resurect older grumblers by calling their names on TG. Or send them private messages. See if they'll answer you.

For the best sake of all framers, I certainly hope that Nona will consider parallel avenues to TG as to enhance her chances to rally those 1000 "framers who care". In case she doesn't, I hope she will not blame grumblers for her failure because they answered her call wonderfully well and fast.
 
Cornel:

That sounds like a great idea. What "parallel avenues to TG" do you have in mind? PPFA's Hitchhikers list is already covered, and PFM is publishing some information in its next issue.

Personally, I think Nona shouldn't have to do all the work. You say you support the FACTS principles. How about making a few calls yourself? If you know of a way to help, then here's a chance to do it.
 
Don't forget FrameHead. There are a lot of talented and motivated people there as well.

The direct mail approach is probably the best way, IMO.
 
Jim,

If FACTS did not put all their eggs in one basket, as you say, then it is on safer tracks.

Jim, you asked for my input, here it is.

Jim, we both know that 30,000 dollars is not what it takes to elaborate and disseminate those standards that FACTS is so concerned with. If money was the main issue, I have little doubt that among LJ, Roma, La Marche, United, Wizzard, PFM and Décor you couldn’t raise that little and, by now, be well and far on your way to elaborate and publish those standards of proper framing. The names above did plenty to better the framing industry; hard to believe they wouldn’t care to do more and support FACTS in its quest for perfection.
FACTS is not fighting here (only) for 30,000 bucks but mostly for its “political” constituency (those at least “1,000 framers who care”). Unless opposed by the grands (?!), why would FACTS need its own constituency when working as a team of experts commissioned by some of the most respectable and powerful forces of the framing industry would solves all your money, exposure and recognition problems?

As of me “making some calls myself” I must tell you that I never sell something that I don’t fully understand. But if you are willing to sell my frames, I’ll be pleased to sell FACTS cause and bring money that counts from a few people who care. ;)

Cornel
 
Originally posted by American Choice:
...If money was the main issue, I have little doubt that among LJ, Roma, La Marche, United, Wizzard, PFM and Décor you couldn’t raise that little and, by now, be well and far on your way to elaborate and publish those standards of proper framing...hard to believe they wouldn’t care to do more and support FACTS...FACTS is not fighting here (only) for 30,000 bucks but mostly for its “political” constituency (those at least “1,000 framers who care”). Unless opposed by the grands (?!), why would FACTS need its own constituency when working as a team of experts commissioned by some of the most respectable and powerful forces of the framing industry would solves all your money, exposure and recognition problems?
Cornel
Click to expand...
Cornel:

You should read some of the other Grumble posts where these issues have been pretty well beaten to death.

FACTS subscribed from 1994-2000 to a philosophy of financing very similar to yours, and it didn't work. Why? Here are some reasons I know of:

1. FACTS failed to reach most framers because it concentrated on romancing the major funding sources. FACTS started from scratch in 1994, when no comprehensive standards existed. The manufacturers and suppliers said "Show Me", and FACTS did. It was important to produce viable standards, to prove legitimacy and that the concept is worthy. That was done very well -- most agree that the FACTS standards would be an excellent benefit for our industry.

2. FACTS figured that if the manufacturers and major suppliers believed in FACTS, then the general population of framers would follow. It didn't happen, because framers didn't understand the concept, or didn't even know FACTS existed.

3. So, here we had these wonderful standards that almost nobody in a frame shop knew about. The manufacturers and major suppliers were impressed with FACTS performance in developing standards and funded the work for a while, but then said "The general population of framers doesn't know about FACTS, so they must not be concerned about standards. Why should we support FACTS?"

Are you getting the picture?

You're right -- the $30,000 Nona Powers is raising is nowhere near the needed budget. In Chicago, we calculated that $80,000 would be the minimum budget for FACTS to continue, and $100,000 would be a reasonable first-year goal. We figured if suppliers could provide at least $50,000 to $80,000, then framers could pony up the difference. These are annual numbers, but Nona's trying to raise that money in two months, because those with deep pockets are watching & listening.

Nona's $30-per-framer appeal is to raise "seed money". It's the first step of funding, not the destination. Personally, I think if she collects $5,000 in two months, her point is made.

So, Cornel, are you in favor of comprehensive framing standards, or not? If you are, then there are lots of constructive things you can do to help. If you're not in favor of framing standards, why not?
 
Jim, I cannot be but on favor of whomever stands for the art and quality of picture framing and frame making. That being said, I confess to you that lately I have spent less and less time reading the Grumble and that may explain some of my possibly redundant points.
Wish you well.
Cornel
 
Create a Post
Back
Top