|
|
BamboozleBob New user 9 Posts |
For the first time in my 35-year membership, I sincerely believe that the future survival of the SAM is at risk. I have two concerns about the SAM.
First, I am concerned that the SAM officers and administrators are not demonstrating fiscal responsibility. According to the SAM Treasurer, treasury reserves could be depleted within three years, as a result of the MUM going over budget by tens of thousands of dollars. ($40,000 in the last National Council Report published in the MUM.) Members are facing a dues hike to $65 in 2008. That increase was stated as required to fund the MUM. The new MUM is a terrific product! But requiring SAM members to support excessive spending is wrong, especially when that spending has continued for many, many months without budget restraints. Why was the MUM not required to follow a budget that could be supported by the existing $50 dues and advertising revenues? As a retired magazine publisher, I know that there are ways to control costs. However, almost NO publication could justify the expenses for publishing with the lavish production aspects of the MUM. I have created a blog that includes details and suggestions for controlling publishing costs for the MUM. My concerns about continued financial irresponsibility also are detailed in the blog. Secondly, I am very concerned that SAM members are denied information about statistical and financial information. I contend that those statistics must be available to any SAM member. Copies of correspondence are included in the blog to verify multiple refusals to provide information, such as total number of members, past year’s budget for MUM, current budget for MUM, performance to budget, actual expenses for MUM, etc. If you also share a concern for the future of the SAM, I invite you to look at the blog. |
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
To answer one of the questions posed in your blog: for many, the magazine IS what they are paying for.
John has done an amazing job and turned what was probably the least interesting magic periodical into a "must read." In fact, the reason I did not join the SAM for years was because I could not justify the cost of dues for the value received i.e. the magazine. Now that John has changed that, I have seriously considered joining. (Sadly, because of the manner in which certain situations were handled - or not handled - by the SAM National organization, I have refused to do so.) Nevertheless, the quality of John's magazine is getting to the point where I am almost prepared to sign up SOLELY FOR THE MAGAZINE. That says a lot. In fact, I know of at least two other people who have signed on solely for the magazine. So, the magazine is without doubt - to many - the primary reason for belonging to the SAM. Take that away (or scale it back) and I am sure you will see some thinning of the ranks. MUM is hardly lavish (well, compared to its predecessor maybe). MUM is finally of the caliber of most of the other major publications. (Now if we could just get the Linking Ring to step up its game!) The current incarnation of MUM is the most valuable asset of the SAM. As to the issue of numbers being withheld - the IBM went through a battle over similar issues. Good luck fighting that fight. |
BamboozleBob New user 9 Posts |
Thanks for responding. Yes, I agree that Moehring has created a wonderful magazine. I have said that many times to others and to him.
The design, layout, editing, accuracy, typography, feature selection, and the mix of subject matter . . . all are wonderful things that Moehring has accomplished. However, most of his editorial innovations still could be published with considerably less cost. Please refer to my blog to see many ways that the MUM could be produced with more economy. For one example, using full-color pages more sparingly would slash costs considerably. All pages carry information, regardless if the pages are in black-and-white or full-color glossy. Reducing page count is another obvious way to control costs. Most publishers use full-color sparingly, usually on the covers and scattered throughout the publications, but not on every page. A color photo looks nearly as nice when it is printed on white paper. Often, positioning a color photo on white paper makes it stand out better. But the cost to print several color photos is always MUCH less than the cost to have a 100-percent full-color magazine. When I published a monthly magazine, most of our full-color in the feature article sections was used whenever we had advertisers who paid extra for full-color ads. The use of color in advertising is a profit center for most publications Permit me to illustrate that point. Most pages are printed together in what printers refer to as signatures, and then those pages are folded and stapled into a magazine. Thus, when the job is taken to the printer, there could be four full-color pages, but they will seldom appear consecutively in the publication. The simplest example would be a 16-page publication with color on the front-cover, back-cover and inside centerspread. Think of a square divided into four equal quadrants. Two inside centerspread pages would be upside down with page 9 in the top left and page 8 in the top right. Then, page 16 (back cover) would be upright in the lower left, and page 1 (cover) would be upright in the lower right. Two larger sheets of paper are folded to make a 16-page publication. Most newsstand publications consider full-color covers a requirement, so that cost is already factored in. But an extra fee paid by color advertiser on the back cover usually pays for the cost of color in the centerspread. Let's say for example that an advertiser pays for a full-color ad on the back cover. Usually, that extra revenue gives the publisher extra profit to run the centerspread feature also in full-color, at no added cost to the publisher. Now, if two more full-color advertisers want the centerspread, the publisher picks up more profit. That profit can be used to increase the page count and/or use more color on other feature pages. However, the MUM is 100-percent full-color. There is no incentive for any advertiser to choose between black and white or color. The entire MUM is printed in full-color. How important is any membership organization’s magazine? If the magazine distributes information in a timely manner to the membership about the activities of the organization, the magazine has met its responsibility. If the magazine completes that responsibility with entertaining features, that is a terrific asset, but not a responsibility. For 35 years, I have belonged to the SAM. I did not join for the magazine. The MUM was never what kept me interested in being a member of the SAM. In some past years, the MUM was not the best of magazines. It was plain and amateurish. But now, approximately 100 years later, the SAM still remains as a premiere organization for its member magicians. I would propose that many people who primarily join MUM for the magazine would not continue their membership. Think about it, during past years, how many magazines have you subscribed to and no longer receive? The MUM does not have to compete with other magazines that are sold to the general public. Those magazines pitch their editorial to the general public. The MUM is the official printed communication for the SAM membership. The tradition of the SAM and its communication need to continue on for another hundred years or more. But it takes funds for the SAM to accomplish its mission. No organization or business can survive without cash. After considering all good intentions, at the end of the day, cash pays the bills. My goal is to see the SAM continue with enough financial reserves to fund the future of the organization. Hopefully, this communication and my blog will serve to assist that goal. |
MagiClyde Special user Columbus, Ohio 871 Posts |
One question I'm not seeing here is "when was the last time that SAM raised its dues?" You don't get growth without some form of pain.
Another concern that should be pointed out, whether BamboozleBob likes it or not, is the fact that many modern magicians are used to the full-color lavish productions that are Magic and Genii magazines. All SAM did was change with the times. I know of a few magicians that were prepared to quit the SAM until the new look of the magazine came out. One even told me that's the ONLY reason he became a member. The irony of all this is that while subscriptions to Magic and Genii are right around $50, many people are willing to pay that without batting an eyelash. MUM comes with a well established club behind it and the new dues reflect that. SAM is offering a "Renew before January and get a three year membership at the old dues" special. If money is a concern, I suggest rejoining now to save a little green.
Magic! The quicker picker-upper!
|
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-12-20 00:09, BamboozleBob wrote: This is where we disagree. MUM is competing with magazines sold to the general MAGIC public. While there are some people who are interested in joining the SAM because they want to belong to a club, many people do not care about club activities, politics, and games nor do they want to be a part of them. Now, the converse argument, which is a valid one, is that the magazine should be ancillary to the value of the club, and not the reason for joining - that to think otherwise is to miss the point. I can see that, but I find it problematic. Many people (and I am one of them) look at what we get for our money. I cannot see what value SAM (or IBM) membership at a National Level brings any person - aside from the magazine. Of course, if one's local assembly/ring offers value, that is another matter. But we all know there is no way to insure uniform value among all members nationwide. It is hard to put a dollar value on a club membership, but you can evaluate a magazine in terms of content and production value and compare it to similar offerings in the marketplace. So, I'm left to ask, for my national dues, what am I guaranteed to get? Well, there is only one answer...a magazine. For $65 I should be getting a magazine comparable to other $65 magazines in the field. John has taken great strides to get nearer the mark. Could money be saved without sacrificing? I don't know. But even if it can, I am not sure that it qualifies as a conspiracy nor does it deserve the heated treatment it finds here. |
BamboozleBob New user 9 Posts |
It's not actually about the dues. It's not primarily about the magazine.
It's about maintaining the SAM treasury reserves, and replacing the money removed from those reserves, as a starter. It's about finding ways to keep the MUM within its budget. And it's about monitoring performance to that budget. Going $40,000 and more over budget, in one report, does not demonstrate fiscal responsibility. Any SAM department that is operating way beyond budget needs to be brought back to within reasonable expectations. In this case, its the magazine. What's next? Let's not mention the magazine for a moment. Maybe I can make my point another way. Suppose, for example, that you go out to dinner with $20 in your pocket. But you want a gourmet dinner with all the trimmings, and that dinner runs close to $80. Where's that extra money come from? If you don't have it, you'd find something for $20, including tax and tip. That's the way life is. You spend what you have. You don't order the $80 dinner and then expect somebody to pay the $60 that you are short. You do get what you pay for. The $20 dinner probably was more than adequate for you. It filled you up. You were no longer hungry. You went home and watched TV without experiencing any hunger. Nobody at the restaurant stepped up and said: "Hey, order anything you want. You've only just got $20 to spend, but spend whatever you want. It's OK. Live it up. Get the best dinner you can find, with all the trimmings. We'll pick up any difference, even if it means we have to withdraw money from our savings account at the bank." Notice that we're not mentioning the other restaurants in the area and what they have on their menus, how they are decorated, and how much a meal there costs other people. Hopefully, I am making myself clear. The SAM dues, at whatever amount, are not the issue here. It's performance to budget and setting measures in place to make that happen. That's the first issue. The second issue, and perhaps the most disturbing, is that requests for statistical information were denied. Hey, this is a non-profit membership organization. It's not a sole owner proprietorship. Members should have the right to ask for and receive numbers of record, and that information should not be refused. I mentioned to SAM Pres Ibanez that, if I knew the statistical and financial information, maybe I could assure myself that all was OK. No response was received. I asked for the current number of paid members. Simple request, I thought. How many members do we have? After many weeks of delay, neither Pres Ibanez nor Treasurer Blowers would answer that question. PLEASE check the blog. It's a lot of information, I admit. The majority of what I wrote to Pres Ibanez were constructive comments to reduce publishing costs. In case you have not seen my blog, I retired after publishing a monthly magazine for 8 years with 55,000 copies, approx 7400 of those were mailed, and the balance was distributed through approx 1400 outlets. My annual revenues were approximately what the SAM receives from its membership dues. But I didn't lose money. Couldn't! Nobody was there to cover any overspending. Overspending was not an option. Each month, we printed and distributed those 55,000 copies by paying cash on delivery for the printing, postage and distribution. Also, it was a free-distribution magazine, so the ONLY income source was advertising revenue. Whatever was left over after the bills were paid, fed my family, so I watched all the costs closely. Because it was my money. Have you read copies of those e-mails in the blog? Please do, I think you'll see many constructive comments. If you still think this post is all about the dues hike, then maybe you didn't read the blog. If you still think this is all about the price of dues, then I need to rewrite some of the blog. Let me know after you check the blog, please. And THANKS for responding! Posted: Dec 20, 2007 2:21am Sorry, truthteller's post came in while I was working on my last post, which was intended to be the response to clynim's post. |
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
I have read your blog, as best I can. The format and reiterations make for very confusing reading. But I think I do get the gist of it.
The request for financial information is an entirely different issue, and one that the IBM went round and round with some time back. I do not know if you will get what you are after, there. There were lawsuits and politics out the ying yang. But, I still think you are overlooking that the increase in the quality of the magazine may (over time) lead to a greater number of members (because for many, that is the only reason to join) and a greater number of advertising dollars. Sometimes, to build, you must take a loss at the outset. Will the magazine recoup this investment? Time will tell. But I think it is a wise choice, and clearly the SAM did have the reserves to pay for it. Sometimes, we need to dig into our savings to improve our business. Seems like that's what they did. As someone who does not have a dog in the fight, all I can say is that the most valuable asset the SAM possesses is their magazine. For many, it is the only reason to join. If your real concern is the overspending issue, then I suggest mentioning the magazine will do your case more harm than good as it's the best thing the SAM has going for it, and the most reasonable for them to invest in. As a member (or potential member) I have to look at what I get for my money, and right now, the magazine is the only draw. Take it away and you may have more cash in your treasury, but you have a club that at a National level offers little more to a potential member. Brad |
BamboozleBob New user 9 Posts |
Hi truthteller, thanks for returning.
You make some valid points if only the various magazines are being compared. You and I are viewing this topic with a different perspective. As a member of the SAM, I want the organization to continue and prosper. That's more important to me than any magazine. You're not a member, which might explain why the magazine aspect is that important to you. Also, you made a couple more points that I would like to address. >Could money be saved without sacrificing? I don't know. Money CAN be saved. You can believe that Truth so help me. Truthteller, please check the blog. Past correspondence that I sent (copies in the blog) contains many constructive suggestions that I spent a considerable amount of time preparing. You also commented: >But even if it can, I am not sure that it qualifies as a conspiracy nor does it deserve the heated treatment it finds here. After reviewing what I have written, I do not see anything "qualifies as a conspiracy." Nothing was done in secret. Look at the past copies of e-mail correspondence in the blog. I have expressed concerns to the movers and shakers in the SAM for more than one year. That has been documented. Since there was no response, I thought the SAM members had a right to know. (Very few of us take the time to read through the National Council Minutes.) Your other comment: >nor does it deserve the heated treatment it finds here Truthteller, I scanned what has been written by me. I regret that you interpreted my purpose as one to create a heated discussion. That was not my intention. However, I am learning that it could become heated, so THANK YOU for making me aware of that. Heck, all this started just because I made requests for specific information. The requests were written and sent by e-mail. One request was just to learn the current total membership number. When the requests were denied, I believed that something was going on that the movers and shakers in the SAM did not want members to know about. Also, FYI, I attended a local SAM meeting last month and briefly presented a discussion of this whole issue. The consensus opinion was that no SAM member should be denied information when requested, especially financials and membership numbers. Several in attendance mentioned they would write a letter to the SAM to emphasize that information should never be withheld to any member. |
Merlina Veteran user Maria Ibanez 367 Posts |
Greetings --
Please allow me to clarify a few things here for those of you who are following this thread. For months now I have tried to provide Mr. Gramer every item he has asked for. I have personally invited him to attend the National Council Meeting in Wakefield, MA this past November -- he declined the invitation citing a limited fixed income and his doubts that he would be permitted to review the books even if he attended the meeting. Mr. Gramer has also been informed not just by me but also by the National Treasurer that the books are open books and that he may come to St. Louis where the National Treasurer resides and look at the books to his heart's content. At that point the focus of his e-mails changed and he started complaining about color ads in the magazine, cutting back pages, quality of the paper, etc. ,etc. John Moehring is an editor extraordinaire who has done a phenomenal job with the magazine and who has received worldwide kudos on his work. He is a highly respected member of our Society of American Magicians and I would no more try to micromanage how he does his job than anyone else's. The S.A.M. has been a Society since 1902, making for a 105 year history and I can assure you that we anticipate being around another 105 or longer. We are financially in the black, and, the future looks just fine, thanks to the MUM, John Moehring and other programs and people of his caliber. It is a shame that Mr. Gramer is unhappy with the magazine and what it takes to run it and keep it going. As is the case with every one of the members of the Society, we value each of them and I for one try my hardest to answer their concerns and to assist them in any way I can, I have tried to do just that with Mr. Gramer but apparently to no avail; at this point, we have offered him all the information he has requested on more than one occasion, without his acceptance of the ways and means that this could be done. Let me state here and for the record that the figures have never been denied Mr. Gramer -- he has been told where he may view the record books and all the financial statements. A "blue book" is published every single Council Meeting and it is published up on the S.A.M. website for all to see, this blue book includes not just reports from the officers, council members, committee chairs, etc. but also the full financial statement and disclosure of the S.A.M. for the months since the last meeting. A mere request would get him copies of all of these blue books as far back as they are available -- he could read at his leisure in .pdf format all of the information he requests, as may any member who wishes to request it if it is a past report or a member who wishes to download the file from the http://www.magicsam.com website to their own computer. This information is also published in the MUM following the meeting. Hope this clears the air and addresses the issues raised by Mr. Gramer. Any member who has further questions may write me and I will respond to you personally. For those members who are concerned and really wish to get involved into the day to day running of SAM, raise questions, bring up issues, etc., etc., why not join the forum http://www.samtalking.com? This forum is admirably and fairly moderated by Neil Tobin - I am always on that forum and ready to respond to any and all concerns. Thank you for reading my response Respectfully, Maria Ibanez President Society of American Magicians |
Necromancer Inner circle Chicago 3076 Posts |
Beautiful response, Maria! And thanks also to the always well-spoken Brad (may I sponsor your membership application?).
Bob, I applaud your desire to make the S.A.M. more fiscally responsible; perhaps running for Treasurer would be a constructive plan of action? Best, Neil
Creator of The Xpert (20 PAGES of reviews!), Cut & Color, Hands-Off Multiple ESP (HOME) System, Rider-Waite Readers book, Zoom Pendulum ebook ...
|
BamboozleBob New user 9 Posts |
Thanks for responding!
Yes, Ms. Ibanez, you did offer to permit me to examine the records if I had the time and enough money to travel from my home in Michigan to Wakefield, MA, or to St. Louis, MO. That represented a great deal of time and money for me to receive just six or seven numbers. Maybe, if those requested CURRENT numbers had been received, and if the numbers made sense, all of these concerns could have been laid to rest months ago. (Most of us don’t get our expenses paid to attend National Council meetings.) The numbers requested were basic numbers that could have been transcribed onto no more than 12 lines in reply. Possibly, it could have been accomplished in 10 minutes time, which would have been a lot quicker than the time that has been consumed to bring this issue to where it is today. Please remember, I asked for numbers such as: total membership count (a number), budget for the MUM (a number), performance to budget (number), etc. What's so secret about the current membership number? Would you require every advertiser to hop a plane to find it in the Blue Book, whenever they inquired how many copies of their ad will be printed? Maybe so. I don't know. However, if an active member cannot receive that number, an advertiser also should not. You also stated in your post to this forum that the National Treasurer informed me that the books are open books. That's news to me. Do you have any documentation to show that? During all this correspondence, Treasurer Blowers has NEVER responded, at least not to me, maybe to you, but not to me. Rather than wade thru all the Blue Books to find these few numbers, I merely asked for current up-to-date ones. If I wanted to learn more about those numbers, and if there were continued concerns, I might have gone another step to review stacks of National Council Minutes. Some of the requested numbers are NOT contained in the Blue Books either. I checked. Also, any Blue Book is a past record. I wanted to know current numbers. Was the MUM continuing to lose money in $40,000 chunks? Only current information would have showed that. Take for example the total membership count. How many members do we have today, not a few months ago when the report was written, not when the last membership tally was recorded, not last year, not what was projected if all members renewed, but today? John Moehring is a top-notch editor. I have said that all along. My past documented communication will verify that. Don’t insinuate that I have said otherwise, please. Also, he is the editor. He is not the publisher. The SAM is the publisher, so the ultimate fiscal responsibility, when all is said and done, rests on the shoulders of the SAM, not on Moehring’s. Editors always try to deliver as fine a product as they can. Moehring has shown that he is more capable than the majority editors. I served as an editor and publisher for many publications for more than 40 years, so I believe that I am qualified to make that statement. But at the end of the day, when all is said and done, the publisher allocates budgets and determines the amount of available revenue for each any every individual issue of the publication. If the MUM exceeds it budget repeatedly, then that responsibility should ultimately rest on the shoulders of the SAM to maintain fiscal responsibility. Also, Ms. Ibanez, as the SAM National President, you are also the primary person to represent SAM as publisher. Is that correct? If Moehring designed an issue of the magazine without remaining within the budget for that specific issue, he might have discovered after the magazine was printed that there was nothing left in the checkbook to mail the magazine out to the membership. That would be a wakeup call to remain within budget. (Believe me. I’ve been there. I know.) Please review what I have written to you, to John and to the individuals who posted in this forum. It's not about the magazine. It's about money, budget, managing spending and performance to budget. Also stated by you herein, you interpreted my remarks about the magazine only as complaints. Yes, there were a few complaints, but very few. However, the complaints focused on budget, cost and performance to budget. Also, those opinions were offered only as conjecture, since my requests for the statistical numbers were denied. In my correspondence, I attempted to open a discussion about multiple ways to reduce publishing costs. You interpreted that as criticism. Maybe so, but it was constructive criticism. I attempted to suggest methods to reduce costs for each cost item mentioned. My past correspondence verifies that. (Maybe I missed a few. But I believe certainly that you did not want to read any more . . . myself included . . . I should add.) Regarding your invitation to express opinions by posting them on samtalking.com, I DID. I posted the identical information that I posted here. So far, I have not seen my post on samtalking.com. However, I did see a new post on that forum that was submitted a few hours after mine. Would you please check into that? Maybe the moderator was busy with other things. Also, only SAM members can post on samtalking.com, which is the way it should be. However, the Magic Café has provided a forum for receiving posts on SAM topics. That's why I posted here. I wanted to reach SAM members, and the Magic Café has an established track record on the Internet, whereas samtalking.com is a newbie. One of the persons (Brad) who contributed several posts to this forum herein is not a member of the SAM. At first, I was tempted to thank him for responding, without posting any replies to what he posted. But it was very interesting to see the importance that he places on the MUM as a magazine. That stands as testimony to Moehring's achievement. However, Brad stressed that the primary value that he anticipates from joining the SAM is to be able to get the magazine mailed to his house. Everybody is entitled to an own opinion. And if he does not see any value in the SAM that goes any deeper than its monthly magazine, he can believe that. However, if the magazine represents all there is, if membership in the SAM has no perceived value, then the SAM has failed to communicate its purpose and mission to Brad, and possibly to many others similar to him. Brad wants something in return for his money spent. Right now, he wants the magazine. Hopefully, he will want more. In fact, I would consider sponsoring Brad as a member to the SAM. He’s a feisty young man who is not shy about expressing his opinions. And he is a magician too. Maybe Brad places high regard for the MUM, because he is featured on three pages of the Dec. 2007 issue of the MUM. It's a wonderful honor to be featured in the pages of an exclusive member-only magazine, with the history of the SAM. I can understand how he must feel toward the importance of the magazine. Also, since Brad serves as a reviewer for Magic Magazine, one would assume that he holds high regard for magic magazines. However, Brad, and probably others like him, misses the point when he values only the magazine. (Brad, please, I’m not pickin’ on you; I’m basing much of this on your valued opinions, which you volunteered.) SAM membership dues support the entire organization. The other public magazines, which he named as competition, do not support annual national conventions, an international network of local assemblies, a code of ethics, a good cheer list for sick members, and a listing of members who died (not just big name performers but the average guys too). As I continue to stress, it's not about the magazine. It's about preserving the SAM. It's about budget, controlling costs within budget, and performance to budget. Also, since you have chosen to respond in this Magic Café forum, maybe you can explain how the 3-year $150 advance will make things right. The MUM has gone over budget by tens of thousands of dollars and the SAM treasury reserves were tapped to replenish that deficit spending. With the present $50 dues, the MUM has not been self-supporting within its budget allocation from the SAM operating fund. That’s its track record. How then will the 3-year advance membership dues for $150 improve things? If $50 dues did not provide an adequate amount of money now, today, how then could $50 dues be adequate enough during the next year and the two years that follow? Costs most certainly will increase. Postage will increase, just to name one expense item. Was that $150 package deal designed just to help the SAM tread water for the next three years? If so, then Treasurer Blowers will have been proved correct. The SAM reserve treasury will be depleted. How sad that would be. Regardless of any affection that one might have for the long history of the SAM that began decades before us and hopefully will continue long after us, the reality is that bills need to be paid. There must be a more than adequate amounts of money for the SAM just to keep the organization running. I'd like to be assured, when somebody flicks the light switch, that the electric bill has been paid, and the lights will go on. ANOTHER central question is in order, and hopefully the last question for you to respond to at this time. (Do I hear some cheers?) If the MUM spending, or any other SAM departmental spending, continually goes over budget and keeps eroding the SAM treasury, how then will those other potential losses be replenished? Some national conventions have lost money, for example. Nobody wanted them to result in a loss, but they did. Where then would money come from to recover that kind of loss? National conventions are a long-standing tradition for the SAM. I attended several national conventions for each of the magic organizations that I belong to. The conventions are wonderful, not only for the superb entertainment but to renew acquaintances with many friends in an atmosphere of camaraderie that can never be comparable to a few people sitting alone in their homes reading magazines. It’s not just about the magazine. Bob Gramer Posted: Dec 20, 2007 4:53pm Neil, Thanks for responding. Also, thanks, but no thanks about the treasurer job. In my opinion, treasurers do not set budgets. Treasurers pay bills and monitor performance to budget, so that money is left over. That’s not the kind of stuff that I like to do. I have functioned best in what some refer to as artistic pursuits, having spent many years as a photographer, writer, editor and publisher. I earned MA degrees in journalism and photography, not MBA degrees, I can assure you of that. Statistics courses were significant threats to my attaining academic honors, so I sweated them out, believe me. For example, when in business, I hated to balance a checkbook. I was the proverbial businessman who took his monthly receipts to the accountant in a shoebox to have them recorded into a database into all their various categories. BUT, I do know about publishing and distribution. Been there; done that. Been there; done that a lot. Also, I learned know how to manage expenses, so a substantial profit resulted. Each individual issue returned a profit, and I learned how to make that happen. (Note that I did not say make that possible. I made it happen.) Permit me to give a true-life example. When I worked as an editor for a major corporation, I never paid the bills, so I always pushed for money to print more pages, etc. Cutting the page count hurt me deep down inside. It really did. However, when I owned my own publishing business for eight years, when monthly ad revenues fell below expectations, I scrambled to find editorial pages to delete. You know, I always found things to cut when I was paying the bills. And it didn’t hurt to do that any more. When newspapers make references to all the news that fits, they mean all the news that fits between the ads. Only after I published my own magazine and fed my family with the earnings, did I understand that. I sincerely hope that you will read my reply to Ms. Ibanez. Also, I hope that you will wade through the material in the blog. Maybe, just maybe, you would not have been so pleased with her response if you had reviewed what has transpired during the past many months. But, regardless, Neil, you’re entitled to your opinion. Yep, the blog contain lots of stuff to read. But I spent many hours of thought to suggest some cost-control methods. Also, please see what was written about the economy of scale. There’s more to that topic too. Usually, more ads justify more pages. More pages attract more readers. However, and this is a biggie, advertisers don’t care about the page count or the editorial features. Other than knowing if the magazine has content to interest their customers, they don’t care. Here’s what matters to advertisers: What are the numbers? How many copies are printed and with what frequency? How many are distributed, to whom and to where? Do other advertisers get results? How soon can you forward the last 12 issues, so we can tally if they really do keep coming back to advertise each month? Why are your prices so high, and can they run an ad cheaper than your rate card states? To conclude . . . I still maintain that all of this fuss might have been absolutely unnecessary if the information that I requested was given months ago. Why in the world are the statistics and numbers so closely guarded? Neil, that question brings out the journalist in me, so it was time to plant my feet firmly and dig in until I found the answers. And yes, I agree with you and others. The SAM members should receive an excellent monthly magazine. But I contend that magazine should have as many feature pages and eye-appeal as existing budgets will allow. Posted: Dec 20, 2007 5:10pm To clynim and Brad, You young fellas kept me up late last night. But I appreciated the opportunity to chat with you. And look, today something happened. Pres. Ibanez posted her comments. Unfortunately, the numbers requested were not posted (yet). But hopefully you'll read thru my late night responses to you two and review other posts that I have written today. I think most of what is relevant to this forum discussion is posted here and in the blog. Brad, should you want to start your own magazine, much of that recipe is contained in the blog. I don't believe in withholding information from other magicians. Some do, but I don’t. Had you two not responded as you did, this forum discussion would not have been noticed, so thanks for that! Best, Bob PS And, Brad, if you are seriously considering starting a publication, my best advice is . . . don't. Keep your day job; it's probably more secure. |
hugmagic Inner circle 7655 Posts |
I do not have a lot of time to answer every point that has been raised here but I will offer a couple thoughts of my own.
I have been a member for 27 years. Two years ago , I became a life member. So I obviously believe that this organization is going to be around. I am also an advertiser. I have been since day one, every month, since John took over. I had advertised prior to that time but not on a regular basis. Has it helped my business..yes. Are the rates competive for the number of issues and members reached?...yes. I have run a color ad every month. John scatters the ad throughout the magazine instead of front or back loading the magazine. That helps the advertisers and encourages people to read the entire magazine. Another point is the for the most part the dues do not support the national convention. The national convention primarily is funded by the registration fees, program ads, dealer fees and public ticket sales. All ..I repeat all major magic conventions are hurting.... IBM, SAM, Abbott's, etc. There are far too many conventions being held nowdays. You can go to one or two every weekend all year long. Also the lecture circuit has been expanded. There is no need to go to a convention to hear or see a lecture. They travel the country, have dvd's or are on the internet. Major retooling is a must on all national conventions. Declining membership is a problem is SAM, IBM and many other fraternal groups. People would rather just talk on the internet. Again, retooling is being attempted in many directions but it is also just a sign of the times. MUM is a major reason people join the SAM. Linking Ring proves the same service for the IBM. I think John has a very good handle on the magazine as it exists today. Publishing techniques has greatly advanced in the last 5 years. I worked newspaper for 20 years and the same has happened there. The prepress prepreparation for the magazine is no longer done by several people. For the most part, it is accomplished by one or two people who can do wonders with the computer. No longer needed are cameramen, plate makers and strippers. Proofreaders are a thing of the past. I think as long as the ratio of advertising to copy is keep consistant I have no problem. I do not want to see an overload of advertising just because an extra $100 or $200 can be grabbed. I think the access of the Blue Book online as a PDF file is a great assest. I, too, do not have the time or money to attend the meetings. I did not even get to the meeting in Dallas this past year though I was there as a dealer. I think this furnishes important information to members in an efficient, cost effective manner. I just wonder how many people really read it though. Or how many read the assembly meeting reports. I read every assembly report, every ring report (in the IBM) every month. I always have. But I know many do not. Are there problems with SAM? Sure. What group does not have problems nowdays? But I still all in all, the council and powers that be are doing a good job in difficult times. Remember all these people have real jobs and this is supposed to be a fun hobby not a vocation. Richard
Richard E. Hughes, Hughes Magic Inc., 352 N. Prospect St., Ravenna, OH 44266 (330)296-4023
www.hughesmagic.com email-hugmagic@raex.com Write direct as I will be turning off my PM's. |
BamboozleBob New user 9 Posts |
Richard, Thanks for posting!
I'm pleased that you are getting good results from your ads in MUM. Any statement from an advertiser that the ads are working is like gold to an ad salesperson! I'd like to address one point in your post about the National Convention. Losses are covered by the SAM treasury. From the Dallas National Council Minutes: "Similarly, Mrs. Blowers will do the Louisville convention audit and give a report at the fall meeting, as well. This is a convention in which we lost $14,000." Richard, maybe it was handled in a different accounting ledger, but it still represents a loss for the SAM. I did go thru the National Council Minutes and the Blue Books last night. (You must have read my thoughts.) However, only a few of the answers to my original small list of questions were found. But I do believe that what I found will verify that there are items that the SAM, the publisher of the MUM, should address. Today, I am posting the results of what the review of the SAM records show. I invite you to reciew that post. Posted: Dec 21, 2007 3:02pm Yesterday, I did find some of the numbers that I had requested by reviewing the National Council Minutes and Blue Books. (My comments will be in ALL CAPS, following the information found in the SAM record.) ----------------------------- Finally, after months of asking for the total number of SAM members, it was documented in the Wakefield National Council Minutes. In November 2007, according to Editor John Moehring, the total paid distribution for 2007 was 5,893 copies of the MUM. THOSE 5,893 COPIES REPRESENT MORE THAN 1,000 LESS COPIES THAN THE MUM ADVERTISING RATE CARD, WHICH STATES 7,000 COPIES. HOW DO WE RECONCILE THAT DIFFERENCE TO OUR ADVERTISERS? THEY THINK THEY ARE PAYING AN AD RATE TO REACH 7,000? FINALLY, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS TO PRES. IBANEZ HAS BEEN ANSWERED. To reduce costs, due to declining ad sales, Moehring stated that he reduced the page count by 8 pages for September and October by deleting a half signature (8 pages). That savings should represent $600 per issue. TO MOEHRING’S CREDIT, HE TRIED TO REDUCE COSTS BY DELETING A HALF SIGNATURE. (HOWEVER, WHEN I WAS A PUBLISHER, THE AMOUNT OF FULL SIGNATURES USUALLY DETERMINED THE COST DIFFERENTIALS. IF YOU ADDED A HALF SIGNATURE, IT COST NEARLY AS MUCH AS A FULL SIGNATURE. THE ONLY SAVINGS WERE IN PLATE AND COLOR SEPARATION CHARGES. HOWEVER, IF YOU REMOVED A HALF SIGNATURE, THE COST DIFFERENTIAL WAS MINIMAL. BUT WE PRINTED ON WEB OFFSET. THE PROCESS USED FOR THE MUM MIGHT BE DIFFERENT.) Other cost-savings solutions were presented, such as changing paper and postage. --------------------------------------- If members thought that the 3-year advance dues would be somewhere in an escrow account to be held in reserve until needed during the subsequent years, then you need to read the following: In the Wakefield National Council minutes, under the heading National Treasurer Mary Ann Blowers, the following sentence was written: “Although these advance renewals do not officially come into the treasury until January 2008, she stated that she used those funds to make up the difference of $20,000 – she did not want to go to the stable Reserve account while it was earning a great return.” THOSE 3-YEAR ADVANCE DUES WENT TO PAY THE CURRENT BUDGET DEFICIT. I WOULD ASSUME THAT IF YOU ALREADY PAID THE 3-YEAR ADVANCE MEMBERSHIP, YOUR MONEY HAS VANISHED, WITHOUT EVEN A PUFF OF SMOKE. CHECK BACK THRU THE BLOG TO READ THAT THIS WAS ONE OF MY ORIGINAL QUESTIONS TO PRES. IBANEZ. NOW, WE HAVE THAT QUESTION ANSWERED. ---------------------------------------- From the Austin, National Council Meeting . . . “The Treasurer reported that although expenses are under budget, income is down from anticipated MUM advertising. Monies had to be transferred from the reserves, and at our current rate, the reserves will be depleted in three years. There was much discussion how to curtail this problem. (skip a few lines) The only other solution available was an increase in dues. Basic dues structure will be $65 . . .” NOTE THAT LACK OF ADS WAS BLAMED, SO ARE SAM MEMBERS PAYING $65 DUES TO SUBSIDIZE LOW AD RATES? ----------------------------------- From the Dallas National Council Meeting . . . “National Treasurer Mary Ann Blowers. Highlighting her report, Mrs. Blowers shared the good news and the bad news. The good news is that the 9-month budget for this FY showed we were $153 to the good. The bad news was that, to achieve this, we borrowed $25,000 from the reserve account. There were a couple of areas not coming up to what was originally budgeted. Problems primarily were member dues and MUM advertising. She had also run a ten-month budget as of the end of March. In those 10 months, we are short $6,700, so we will need to go to the reserve account again to meet March expenses.” ADD THOSE TOGETHER. THAT’S $31,700 FOR WITHDRAWLS FROM THE RESERVE ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THAT’S JUST FOR 10 MONTHS OF THE FISCAL YEAR. THERE ARE TWO MORE MONTHS TO GO. Returning to the Dallas Minutes: “MUM Editor –John Moehring. Following a brief round of applause, Mr. Moehrig stated that although his report was in the Blue Book, he felt the need to expand on the budget aspects. He is spending more than he is taking in. He stated that he has not been able to sell as much advertising as had been budgeted for.” (The remainder of this section suggested ways to cut back on expenses.) OK, THE NATIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES SHOW THAT ADS ARE NOT PAYING THE BILLS. NOW, CHECK BACK TO THE BLOG DOCUMENTS TO SEE THAT WAS A PREDICTABLE OUTCOME. LOW-PRICED AD REVENUES FOR A VERY LIMITED CIRCULATION (5,893) WILL NOT JUSTIFY A FULL-COLOR 100+ PAGE MAGAZINE. NOT NOW. PROBABLY NEVER. IF YOU WANTED PROOF, HERE IT IS IN THE NATIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES. ---------------------------------------- From the Louisville National Council Minutes . . . This is the meeting that closes the fiscal year. Excerpts from the Treasurer’s Report to the National Council: “EXPENSES – Without the transfer from reserves the expenses would be over budget by $19,433.86.” Excerpts follow from the Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual (fiscal year June 2006 – May 2007) (NOTE: TO SAVE SPACE, ONLY CATEGORY TOTALS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS POST) INCOME/EXPENSES FISCAL YR Budget % over Budget MUM Advertisements 122,008 162,000 - 39,992 COSTS FISCAL YR Budget % over Budget TOTAL Editor Costs 156,261.09 157,800 -1,538.91 MUM Print & Mail FISCAL YR Budget % over Budget TOTAL MUM Publ 167,535.12 170,000 -2,464.88 LET’S BREAK THAT DOWN TO SEE THE AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENSES FOR 5,893 COPIES. STAFF EXPENSE $13,021.75 PRINTING & MAILING $13,961.26 AVG MONTHLY COST $26,983.01 COST PER COPY $4.57 INCOME FROM ADS $10,167.33 REVENUE PER COPY $1.72 MONTHLY LOSS $(-16,815.68) TOTAL LOSS PER COPY $(-2.85) (EACH MONTH) THAT’S AN APPROXIMATE ANNUAL LOSS OF $(-201,540.60). QUICK FIXES COULD BE: SLASH PRODUCTION COSTS, INCREASE AD RATES, GET MORE ADS, AND/OR GET MORE MEMBERS. RIGHT NOW, SAM MEMBERS ARE SUBSIDIZING AN UNREALISTIC LOW AD RATE, GIVEN THE EXPENSE LEVEL THAT THE MUM HAS ESTABLISHED. (EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT RAISING AD RATES IS MORE DIFFICULT THAN HAVING YOUR HOUSE TAXES REDUCED. YOU CAN TRUST ME ON THAT.) ------------------------------------------ From the Dallas National Council Minutes: “ . . . Mrs. Blowers will do the Louisville convention audit and give a report at the fall meeting, as well. This is the convention in which we lost $14,000.” THIS IS INCLUDED TO DOCUMENT OTHER SAM TREASURY ITEMS THAT HAVE A LOSS. (BASED ON THAT LOSS, THE SAM COULD DROP THE PRINTED MAGAZINE AND PUBLISH ONLINE - AND HAVE 14 CONVENTIONS - TO LOSE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.) OK, I’M KIDDING. BUT IF YOU WANT TO ATTRACT MORE MEMBERS, THROW A BIG PARTY. MAGICIANS WILL SHOW UP, EVEN IF THEY DON’T GET THE BOOKING. OK, I’M KIDDING AGAIN. |
Father Photius Grammar Host El Paso, TX (Formerly Amarillo) 17161 Posts |
Ok, Bob, so your contention is that the SAM is not being fiscally responsible and this is primarily being done in the area of failure to control costs of publishing MUM. That MUM should be cut back in number of pages each month and less color being used to bring MUM within a "budget".
But why is this being discussed in this forum instead of one of the SAM forums? I would venture that you would reach far more SAM members in one of the SAM forums than you will here. So far all I read into this argument seems to be your opinion that you would make a better publisher/editor of MUM than the incumbents. And I can be better coach and quarterback than any in the NFL sitting in my chair at home in front of the television set. It is easy to critisize, and a whole different story when you are sitting in that chair, and I don't care if you are in the same business. As a SAM member you have a right to express to the national council your concerns for the organization, and have a right to express it to the membership as well, but why this public forum? It probably isn't your intent, but you appear to come across to me as a malcontent who has some bone to pick with SAM and are more interested in maligning the organization than you are in fixing the problem. When you want to fix problems with an organization, you address it to the organization, to its membership, to its officers. You use the political process of that organization to address problems and bring change. You don't take it to a public forum and rant. I want fiscal responsibility by the SAM as much as any member, but the way you have presented these arguments here have only led me to believe that you have some other agenda.
"Now here's the man with the 25 cent hands, that two bit magician..."
|
BamboozleBob New user 9 Posts |
The financials at the bottom of my info just posted were organized in columns. Seriously. Somehow, the computer gremlins made the columns go away, so I wanted to explain that there are column headings about the numbers. If cannot follow that in the post and you want proper-looking tab-separated columns, let me know.
Don't think I can add them here as columns. My blog is long enough already, too. I could fax a hardcopy to you. You could private message me with your fax phone number. Don't put in this or any public forum. Posted: Dec 21, 2007 3:39pm Photius, thanks for responding. Yep, I did what you proposed. Took all the steps. Look at the documented e-mail correspondence in my blog. Responses were NOT received. I called Ms. Ibanez also on the phone. Still nothing received. I attempted to post this topic for discussion in the SAMTalk Forum. Somehow, it never showed up online for anybody to see on SAMTalk. I also sent a reply to another person's SAMTalk post regarding the $65 dues. That post never showed up either. Computer glitches or censorship? Dunno. I registered on SAMTalk and was accepted. I receive email digests. I can log on without a problem. Again, I went thru the proper steps. I attended a local Assembly meeting to discuss this issue. People in attendance were supposed to send in letters. Did they? And do you think they received a response even if they did send the letters? Hopefully, you will agree that I have attempted to wade thru the proper channels. I agree that this is a matter for resolution by the SAM. But the SAM movers-n-shakers take on the role of the proverbial mushroom farmer. (And if you don't know that one, private message me to receive it.) Some people who responded to this forum are not SAM members. I would prefer hearing only from SAM members. But this is a public forum. And Magic Café probably reaches more SAM members than you might think. Also, since I noticed your collar, I can wish you a Merry Christmas! Posted: Dec 21, 2007 4:16pm One quick thought, then I'm going offline maybe for the remainder of the day. (Do I hear cheers?) If the ads in the MUM are not a profit center, if the ad pages actually contibute to the financial losses for the MUM, then, how about having just two pages in the MUM that have listings of magic resellers with their websites and their postal addresses. Also, put links to their websites on the SAM member-only site. Have I gone off the deep end of the pool? Maybe, but stay with me for a moment. The members who are online can go to the advertisers' websites. Members who do not have computers can request the advertisers' catalogs. Say, charge advertisers $1,000 or maybe $1,500 for the listings for one year. Those listings would only take a page or two page in the MUM. Right now, SAM members are subsidizing the low ad rates, since the cost of printing the MUM (and ad pages) doesn't produce positive revenue. That could easily eliminate one full 16-page signature from the MUM. Maybe more. Hey, I enjoy reading the ads in magic magazines as much as anybody. But if you need to cut costs, that's a way to do it. Yep, it's a radical suggestion. But somewhere in that idea might be a modified version than would work to the advantage of the SAM membership. Today, there are many publications that are entirely online. They do not have a printed version. Seriously, they don't. |
rick727 Regular user Houston, TX, USA 188 Posts |
I am a new member and have only received two editions of MUM so far. I enjoy the printed magazine much more than if it were an on-line magazine. I may be old-fashioned, but I like a physical magazine much more than an e-zine (BTW - I am 44 years old and have been using computers since 1979 so I am definately not a techno-phobe).
My only complaint is that there are 4 magazines competing for my dollars - MUM, Linking Ring, Genii, and Magic. There is a 5th if you consider the new Reel Magic Quarterly. "Street Magic Magazine" has no chance to earn my dollars - I made a mistake and bought the first one and I will never buy another one. I subscribe to MUM because of my membership. I buy Genii from brick-and-mortar shops (I travel a lot for business and try to visit magic shops wherever I happen to be). Please don't stop printing MUM. Thanks, -Rick
Practice what you present.
Present what you practice. |
BamboozleBob New user 9 Posts |
Rick, thanks for posting!
First off, I was not 100-percent serious with the e-zine proposal. I posted the comment about the e-zine to start some brainstorming of thoughts to solve the problem. Hopefully, other members will contribute theirs too. Some remedy is required, now, not later. Before now, everybody seemed to be thumbing thru the pages of the MUM without considering the consequences to the SAM organization. Maybe they still will, as long as the SAM treasury holds up. I contend that the SAM should be fiscally responsible, and the MUM should have a realistic budget, given that only 5,893 copies are printed monthly. That's what this is all about. Just like you, I enjoy magazines. In addition to the magic magazines, I have approx 10 more that I read monthly. Magazines are portable and convenient, especially for those times that you sit around the doctor's waiting room and in the car while your wife is in the grocery, for a couple examples. I absolutely want to keep on getting the monthly copy of the MUM, like I have for the last 35 years. That's not easy to give up that tradition. However, if costs cannot be kept within reason, maybe an e-zine would be worth considering. Then, the feature articles could continue to be as lengthy as they are now, pictures could be the same sizes or even larger, video clips could be added (so we can see performers do their thing), etc. After looking at the numbers that I was able to glean from the National Council Blue Books and Minutes (posted here yesterday), it's obvious that something needs to be done to correct the situation NOW. The ad revenues seemed to have reached a certain level, now after a couple years of publishing the new-n-improved MUM. From past experiences in publishing, I observed that publications will peak out. The numbers of advertisers will not increase much. It's a mentality thing with advertisers. If EVERYBODY is advertising, the ALL want to be a part of the game. If only a few advertisers continue and there is no major increase, then that publication goes off the advertiser's radar screen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will convince them otherwise, once their minds are made up not to consider the publication any more. Time and time again, I have see that is the situation. However, with $1,500 annual business card size ads in a printed MUM (that had the advertiser's website and address) we probably could convince 50 or 60 more advertisers to begin advertising. Do the math. Print two pages of those listings and drop 50 pages of ads. Monthly printing and mailing costs would decrease, like right now. You could receive print ads from those advertisers that want to have that exposure in the MUM. BUT start charging them increased ad rates that are realistic, so that the financial bottom line is in the black, every month. Whatever happens, something must happen. The same-o-same attitude needs to change. Photius, Here's the answer to your question, when you asked why this discussion was not kept out of public forums and only presented to SAM members. Remember when I stated that I attempted to post this exact same forum topic on SAMtalk? The official word is that SAM members cannot participate in this discussion. Yesterday, I received the answer, which follows: *********** Dear Mr Gramer, As you have just joined SAMtalk and you have never posted before, you may not realize that SAMtalk does not accept posts involving conflicts and private disputes. Based on your post and weblog, it appears that you are having a dispute with the Treasurer and President. I would suggest that if you wish to view the Treasurer's report, simply go to the SAM website and take a look at the Blue Book from the National Council meeting. If you feel that you are being treated unjustly, please contact the Ethics Committee (contact information also on the website.) SAMtalk Committee *********** If you review my blog and the many posts, I have tried to present the facts as completely as I thought possible. In some cases, that desire to be complete has been overwhelming, but I wanted everything to be available for all to see. Put all the facts on the table. The SAMtalk Committee interprets all this discussion as conflict and private. They label this topic as a dispute. To them, it's not regarded as an invitation or investigation to formulate a solution. One might think that comments and inquiries from SAM members have no importance and are not worthy of consideration or response, at least when fiscal responsibility has been challenged. All I can say, about the SAMtalk ban, is to read the blog. Read my comments in this forum. See if I have not held the SAM in high regard. See if I am not trying to focus attention on fiscal responsibility and on the product, the MUM magazine. You be the judge of that. Also, there has been no name calling. NO individual was blamed for decisions made. I did name those who did not respond to questions. Editor Moehring's product has been praised. The publisher, the SAM, should bear the ultimate responsibility for allowing the SAM reserve treasury to be placed in jeopardy. Not one individual created this financial problem. It was a decision made by the movers-n-shakers of the SAM. Apparently, the SAMtalk Committee rules that SAM members cannot make those decisions. |
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Bob,
Do you really believe that business cards sized ads will pull in the same kind of attention or business as the full or half page color ads? I don't know how you work, but I know that those little black and white ads in the back of any magic magazine (some 1/8th and 1/4 of a page) NEVER get read - at least by me. I am sure those advertisers get something for their investment, but I suspect it's little more than making sure their contact information is accessible for those who go looking for it. (I have read them when I was trying to find someone's phone number.) As a reader of many magic magazines I can tell you that the full color, full and half page ads, scattered throughout the entire magazine are eye catching, work to sell products better than tiny "info only" ads, and are a reason people like their magazines - a lot of people look through the ads first! (Then they go to tthe reviews to read about the new products.) People want to see what's new, what's hot. They want pictures. They want to imagine themselves performing the latest miracles. It's like getting a new Sears Christmas catalog every week! A listing of names and websites will NOT bring in the money. I can appreciate that you want to help. I can appreciate that you have had many years in the publishing business. But I can tell you, you clearly do not understand how modern magical marketing works. Your suggestion is just plain dumb. Sorry, gotta call it like I see it. Let's get down to business: What's your "real" problem? You know, the real issue that's sticking in your craw. Look inside, come to terms with it, then say it honestly. Then people might be able to help change things in a manner which really helps. If it's just financial management, take out an ad in the MUM and post the letter stating your concerns. Or, send a letter to the National Council. Or, write up a proposal and submit it a a board meeting. I would hope that the SAM would allow it to be read or printed. Perhaps if you re-wrote your inquiry for SAMtalk and resubmitted it as merely a request for information, or a statement of concern, it would not be perceived as a "conflict." See, when I look at your writings - which are often nearly indecipherable - I see someone that feels that they have personally been wronged. That doesn't happen when a club you belong to spends a little more than you wanted one year. Sorry, Bob, it just doesn't add up. So, for the sake of everyone, and in hopes that something can be done to set things right for you, what's the real problem? Brad "who can look at things objectively because he doesn't have a dog in the fight" Henderson. |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Society of American Magicians! » » SAM and MUM - Funding the Folly » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.28 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |