- Joined
- Nov 5, 1997
- Posts
- 3,831
- Business
- The Frame Workshop of Appleton, Inc
Ever since the announcement of affiliation of PPFA with PMA, I've honestly been sitting on the fence. Being involved with the organization on committee level has not really been advantageous, in helping to make the decision.
I think for most of us (PPFA members), we feel that we are "Surrendering" some of our identity but in truth, we're simply entering a stronger "Union".
I've decided to vote YES for a number of reasons. I think that these were best summed up in the following E-mail posting made to the Online Exchange today. This was posted by Derek Vandenberg of Big Fork, Montana who along with six others recently returned from a visit to the PMA headquarters in Jackson, Michigan.
Derek is a highly respected framer and successful business person. I've posted the following with his permission.......
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Before I bore you with any preamble, let me first say this: I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE PPFA/PMA MERGER! Based upon some the information I now have, I strongly believe that an affiliation with PMA is absolutely the best thing that the PPFA can do at this time. If you are at all concerned about the future of the PPFA and its place in the framing industry, please read this message!
Okay, remember me? I have been, for the past several weeks, one of the strongest critics of the affiliation. I've said that PMA and its members have nothing in common with us, that they're primarily technicians, not artists. I've said that such a relationship would distract us from the business of picture framing. I've criticized the possibility of the PPFA participating in a PMA trade show. I've thrown about words like collusion, deception, and hidden agendas. Let me say again (anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that admissions like this are really hard for me) that I WAS WRONG!
I along with six other framers from around the country, just returned from PMA headquarters in Jackson, Michigan, where we spent two days there at the invitation of Bruce Aldrich, PMA Senior Operations Officer. Besides me, there were Kerry Wilson and Gene Ausili, well-known PPFA chapter leaders; Heather Cairns, PPFA board member and successful Canadian retailer; William Parker, respected educator; Mike Yager, knowledgeable Texas framer and educator; and Jay Goltz, industry leader and magazine contributor. (One can only assume that I was there because I'm such a known loudmouth!) Reading through this list, you may notice that all of us have been skeptical of the proposed merger, some
of us quite vocally. Well, no more.
Here, in a very condensed version, is what PMA has to offer the
PPFA:
PMA is a non-profit, professional trade association management organization. It simply doesn't matter that we share little in common with the other sections. The name, Photo Marketing Association, Is a little confusing. All of the sections, like PPFA if we vote "yes", simply operate under the administrative umbrella of PMA. We still have our board, we still have our own staff (more on that later), we will still be the PPFA. Yes, individual members would be members of PMA, but the sections do not share membership. (Just because you're a PPFA member doesn't mean that you're a DIMA member, for example.) Perhaps a fair analogy would be that of government; PMA is like a state, and PPFA and the other PMA sections are like cities. We share some county services and facilities, but belonging to Los Angeles doesn't mean that you also belong to San Francisco; you're both California. Does that make sense? The best part of this is that PMA has the background and the people to support our staff, and to help train our board to
operate effectively. These guys can provide us with the tools to go anywhere we want to!
Unfortunately, one of the real issues here is resources. When I say that, please understand that it has nothing to do with PPFA's current financial state of affairs. As John Redmond has said again and again, PPFA is solvent, and will continue to be so, despite some rather large outflows -- like the Opryland settlement -- in the near future. However, for me, the crux of the matter is this: the PPFA does not have the revenue -- and thus, the manpower -- to continue to play an influential role in the framing industry. Stated another way, it's just not possible to run a successful trade association on revenue which is primarily derived from membership dues. When the PPFA was in the trade show business, we had the financial clout to do our jobs effectively. Now, the money is spread too thin to do much good. In simple terms, we're not gonna die, but we're not going to grow much, either. With PMA, however, our opportunities for growth and influence in the industry are huge. Why? Because PMA's annual budget is nearly $23 million, compared to PPFA's roughly $1 million. PMA derives nearly $17 million annually from its trade shows, and because the association is non-profit, this money is generated for the members' uses. That, in a nutshell, is how PMA can afford to lower PPFA's dues and still help us offer more member services. A volunteer board of PPFA members will be much more capable of realizing their goals with the support of PMA's staff, its knowledge, and yes, its money.
If we vote to join PMA, the PPFA can continue to lead the industry, serving its members and fulfilling their needs. If we don't, the options are not quite as promising. I have gone on the record as saying that we're perfectly capable of "fixing" the PPFA internally. While I have no doubt that we have members who are both willing and able to get the PPFA back on track, I'm ultimately concerned about execution. Speaking for myself, I have a lot of ideas and a strong desire to help the PPFA, but I also have a business to run, as do most of you. PMA can devote more to the PPFA than I can, because that's their job! Volunteers with the best of intentions simply cannot be effective without a strong skeleton of support, and the staff cannot effectively operate without the direction of a strong board. With PMA, the tools are right there! Further, these guys ran into some of the same problems we're facing now SIXTY YEARS AGO! And they're still here, so they obviously figured it out. Why not use their experience and ability, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel on our own? The choice is so simple...
Okay, what about all of the collusion and deception that I used to dwell on? It is, in reality, nothing more than this: the PPFA board, when voting to endorse the affiliation, also chose to take a very low-key approach to "selling" the idea. I think this was a huge mistake. Trying to avoid "cramming the idea down members' throats" is a decent idea, but the result is that there is next to no information coming from the board about why members should vote "yes." So I'm supposed to support the idea just because the board says so? I don't think so! If the membership, or even just the Hitchhikers, had been provided with the information and the explanation that the seven of us who went to Michigan now possess, we would all understand that this is nothing to be afraid of, and that it's an absolute NO-BRAINER! If an informational document had been prepared and sent out back in June, as soon as the board voted to endorse the affiliation, all of those nasty rumors that I helped to spread would have been laid to rest. I'm sorry to have to criticize the board, but they made a mistake that has done all of us a disservice. Let's hope that it's not too late to fix it...
A quick thought, that doesn't really fit anywhere else, so it goes here. What's in it for PMA? More members, meaning more clout to develop better services for all of the members. And, the possibility of more trade show attendence and revenue. That's it. They're not trying to teach one-hour photo shops to become framers. They're not trying to steal our educational programs for their other members. They're not trying to slide framing vendors into their trade show so their other members can get stuff at wholesale. Think about it -- if PMA members want to become framers, what's stopping them now? Some of our biggest vendors already go to their shows, and it's not like framing knowledge and training is only available to a select few. Any idiot who wants to hang out a shingle and be a framer can do so! Do you want to get into color film processing or camera repair? You'll have to join that respective PMA section and pay those dues to get into those educational programs, just like Joe Average off the street. Same goes for other PMA members and the PPFA. Simple as that.
Is this a perfect deal, with no flaws? Of course not. The hardest part (for me) about the whole thing is that the capable and loyal PPFA staff, almost all of whom have been asked to stay on, would have to move to Michigan in order to keep their jobs. That's a difficult choice to make, and a horrible position to be in. Still, beyond that, I cannot find any down sides.
You will shortly be getting a couple of things in the mail. One is the ballot information, which is rather confusing and legalese, because it sort of has to be. Before that arrives, however, you should be receiving something else. PMA has prepared a brochure, explaining in a simple question-and-answer format, the whole enchilada, so to speak. Before the final piece was printed, the seven of us were given the opportunity to proof it, and we made a few alterations so that things would be a bit more clear. I stand behind it as a complete and accurate document that should answer all of the questions that many of us have expressed about the proposed affiliation. It's the document that should have been sent to the members way back when the proposal was first floated; PMA prepared it when it became apparent that the PPFA wasn't going to. But hey, hindsight is always 20/20, right? At any rate, please read everything carefully, and if you're not sure, ASK! It's important to the future of the PPFA that we all make an informed
decision.
Now that I've dropped this bombshell on you, I must report that our computer is sick, and will be in the shop for a few days, so I will not be following emails until Tuesday or so. However, I will reiterate that you can always post to the Hitchhikers so that John Redmond can answer
your questions. Or, call PPFA and talk to him. Or, email any of the seven of us who went to Jackson -- the others are in the Who's Who, or PPFA will have contact info. Or, call me -- 406-837-7329 -- with the understanding that I may have to call you back when we don't have customers here. PMA's Bruce Aldrich agreed with the seven of us that it is not appropriate for him to monitor and respond to queries on the
Hitchhikers, so you won't see him here. But, you can call him -- 517-788-8100 -- and ask him anything. He'll answer candidly and truthfully. He's a great guy, and someone I look forward to having working for the members of the PPFA.
In my usual sarcastic way (I think I'm funny, despite what Christine tells me) I have to say that I have not been bought off or paid to say any of this. In fact, my flight was horrible, the hotel lost our rooms, and the waitress at breakfast was surly. Beyond meeting some good people, it wasn't a lot of fun. Still, I'm glad that I went.
Thanks for reading through to the end...
Respectfully,
Derek Vandeberg, CPF
Frame of Reference, Bigfork, Montana<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I encourage every PPFA member to examine carefully the details and support the future of our association with a YES vote.
John
------------------
PPFA member since 1978
The Frame Workshop of Appleton, Inc.
www.theframeworkshop.com
Appleton, Wisconsin
jerserwi@aol.com
--------------------
[This message has been edited by John Ranes II, CPF, GCF (edited August 17, 2001).]
I think for most of us (PPFA members), we feel that we are "Surrendering" some of our identity but in truth, we're simply entering a stronger "Union".
I've decided to vote YES for a number of reasons. I think that these were best summed up in the following E-mail posting made to the Online Exchange today. This was posted by Derek Vandenberg of Big Fork, Montana who along with six others recently returned from a visit to the PMA headquarters in Jackson, Michigan.
Derek is a highly respected framer and successful business person. I've posted the following with his permission.......
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Before I bore you with any preamble, let me first say this: I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE PPFA/PMA MERGER! Based upon some the information I now have, I strongly believe that an affiliation with PMA is absolutely the best thing that the PPFA can do at this time. If you are at all concerned about the future of the PPFA and its place in the framing industry, please read this message!
Okay, remember me? I have been, for the past several weeks, one of the strongest critics of the affiliation. I've said that PMA and its members have nothing in common with us, that they're primarily technicians, not artists. I've said that such a relationship would distract us from the business of picture framing. I've criticized the possibility of the PPFA participating in a PMA trade show. I've thrown about words like collusion, deception, and hidden agendas. Let me say again (anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that admissions like this are really hard for me) that I WAS WRONG!
I along with six other framers from around the country, just returned from PMA headquarters in Jackson, Michigan, where we spent two days there at the invitation of Bruce Aldrich, PMA Senior Operations Officer. Besides me, there were Kerry Wilson and Gene Ausili, well-known PPFA chapter leaders; Heather Cairns, PPFA board member and successful Canadian retailer; William Parker, respected educator; Mike Yager, knowledgeable Texas framer and educator; and Jay Goltz, industry leader and magazine contributor. (One can only assume that I was there because I'm such a known loudmouth!) Reading through this list, you may notice that all of us have been skeptical of the proposed merger, some
of us quite vocally. Well, no more.
Here, in a very condensed version, is what PMA has to offer the
PPFA:
PMA is a non-profit, professional trade association management organization. It simply doesn't matter that we share little in common with the other sections. The name, Photo Marketing Association, Is a little confusing. All of the sections, like PPFA if we vote "yes", simply operate under the administrative umbrella of PMA. We still have our board, we still have our own staff (more on that later), we will still be the PPFA. Yes, individual members would be members of PMA, but the sections do not share membership. (Just because you're a PPFA member doesn't mean that you're a DIMA member, for example.) Perhaps a fair analogy would be that of government; PMA is like a state, and PPFA and the other PMA sections are like cities. We share some county services and facilities, but belonging to Los Angeles doesn't mean that you also belong to San Francisco; you're both California. Does that make sense? The best part of this is that PMA has the background and the people to support our staff, and to help train our board to
operate effectively. These guys can provide us with the tools to go anywhere we want to!
Unfortunately, one of the real issues here is resources. When I say that, please understand that it has nothing to do with PPFA's current financial state of affairs. As John Redmond has said again and again, PPFA is solvent, and will continue to be so, despite some rather large outflows -- like the Opryland settlement -- in the near future. However, for me, the crux of the matter is this: the PPFA does not have the revenue -- and thus, the manpower -- to continue to play an influential role in the framing industry. Stated another way, it's just not possible to run a successful trade association on revenue which is primarily derived from membership dues. When the PPFA was in the trade show business, we had the financial clout to do our jobs effectively. Now, the money is spread too thin to do much good. In simple terms, we're not gonna die, but we're not going to grow much, either. With PMA, however, our opportunities for growth and influence in the industry are huge. Why? Because PMA's annual budget is nearly $23 million, compared to PPFA's roughly $1 million. PMA derives nearly $17 million annually from its trade shows, and because the association is non-profit, this money is generated for the members' uses. That, in a nutshell, is how PMA can afford to lower PPFA's dues and still help us offer more member services. A volunteer board of PPFA members will be much more capable of realizing their goals with the support of PMA's staff, its knowledge, and yes, its money.
If we vote to join PMA, the PPFA can continue to lead the industry, serving its members and fulfilling their needs. If we don't, the options are not quite as promising. I have gone on the record as saying that we're perfectly capable of "fixing" the PPFA internally. While I have no doubt that we have members who are both willing and able to get the PPFA back on track, I'm ultimately concerned about execution. Speaking for myself, I have a lot of ideas and a strong desire to help the PPFA, but I also have a business to run, as do most of you. PMA can devote more to the PPFA than I can, because that's their job! Volunteers with the best of intentions simply cannot be effective without a strong skeleton of support, and the staff cannot effectively operate without the direction of a strong board. With PMA, the tools are right there! Further, these guys ran into some of the same problems we're facing now SIXTY YEARS AGO! And they're still here, so they obviously figured it out. Why not use their experience and ability, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel on our own? The choice is so simple...
Okay, what about all of the collusion and deception that I used to dwell on? It is, in reality, nothing more than this: the PPFA board, when voting to endorse the affiliation, also chose to take a very low-key approach to "selling" the idea. I think this was a huge mistake. Trying to avoid "cramming the idea down members' throats" is a decent idea, but the result is that there is next to no information coming from the board about why members should vote "yes." So I'm supposed to support the idea just because the board says so? I don't think so! If the membership, or even just the Hitchhikers, had been provided with the information and the explanation that the seven of us who went to Michigan now possess, we would all understand that this is nothing to be afraid of, and that it's an absolute NO-BRAINER! If an informational document had been prepared and sent out back in June, as soon as the board voted to endorse the affiliation, all of those nasty rumors that I helped to spread would have been laid to rest. I'm sorry to have to criticize the board, but they made a mistake that has done all of us a disservice. Let's hope that it's not too late to fix it...
A quick thought, that doesn't really fit anywhere else, so it goes here. What's in it for PMA? More members, meaning more clout to develop better services for all of the members. And, the possibility of more trade show attendence and revenue. That's it. They're not trying to teach one-hour photo shops to become framers. They're not trying to steal our educational programs for their other members. They're not trying to slide framing vendors into their trade show so their other members can get stuff at wholesale. Think about it -- if PMA members want to become framers, what's stopping them now? Some of our biggest vendors already go to their shows, and it's not like framing knowledge and training is only available to a select few. Any idiot who wants to hang out a shingle and be a framer can do so! Do you want to get into color film processing or camera repair? You'll have to join that respective PMA section and pay those dues to get into those educational programs, just like Joe Average off the street. Same goes for other PMA members and the PPFA. Simple as that.
Is this a perfect deal, with no flaws? Of course not. The hardest part (for me) about the whole thing is that the capable and loyal PPFA staff, almost all of whom have been asked to stay on, would have to move to Michigan in order to keep their jobs. That's a difficult choice to make, and a horrible position to be in. Still, beyond that, I cannot find any down sides.
You will shortly be getting a couple of things in the mail. One is the ballot information, which is rather confusing and legalese, because it sort of has to be. Before that arrives, however, you should be receiving something else. PMA has prepared a brochure, explaining in a simple question-and-answer format, the whole enchilada, so to speak. Before the final piece was printed, the seven of us were given the opportunity to proof it, and we made a few alterations so that things would be a bit more clear. I stand behind it as a complete and accurate document that should answer all of the questions that many of us have expressed about the proposed affiliation. It's the document that should have been sent to the members way back when the proposal was first floated; PMA prepared it when it became apparent that the PPFA wasn't going to. But hey, hindsight is always 20/20, right? At any rate, please read everything carefully, and if you're not sure, ASK! It's important to the future of the PPFA that we all make an informed
decision.
Now that I've dropped this bombshell on you, I must report that our computer is sick, and will be in the shop for a few days, so I will not be following emails until Tuesday or so. However, I will reiterate that you can always post to the Hitchhikers so that John Redmond can answer
your questions. Or, call PPFA and talk to him. Or, email any of the seven of us who went to Jackson -- the others are in the Who's Who, or PPFA will have contact info. Or, call me -- 406-837-7329 -- with the understanding that I may have to call you back when we don't have customers here. PMA's Bruce Aldrich agreed with the seven of us that it is not appropriate for him to monitor and respond to queries on the
Hitchhikers, so you won't see him here. But, you can call him -- 517-788-8100 -- and ask him anything. He'll answer candidly and truthfully. He's a great guy, and someone I look forward to having working for the members of the PPFA.
In my usual sarcastic way (I think I'm funny, despite what Christine tells me) I have to say that I have not been bought off or paid to say any of this. In fact, my flight was horrible, the hotel lost our rooms, and the waitress at breakfast was surly. Beyond meeting some good people, it wasn't a lot of fun. Still, I'm glad that I went.
Thanks for reading through to the end...
Respectfully,
Derek Vandeberg, CPF
Frame of Reference, Bigfork, Montana<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I encourage every PPFA member to examine carefully the details and support the future of our association with a YES vote.
John
------------------
PPFA member since 1978
The Frame Workshop of Appleton, Inc.
www.theframeworkshop.com
Appleton, Wisconsin
jerserwi@aol.com
--------------------
[This message has been edited by John Ranes II, CPF, GCF (edited August 17, 2001).]
