PPFA as part of PMA

[Kai Vanuffelen]

On the thread of the reorganization of boundaries, there was mention of the link between PPFA and PMA.
If anyone is interested, we can have a discussion about it.

If our association is to split from our parent, then we still need two or three fulltime staff, that need to be paid wages. We also need a building to rent, telephone, electricity, computers, furniture.

In order to pay for this and to maintain the same services we already have, our subscription will have to go up, meaning that some may find it too expensive and leave.

If PMA is interested, then PPFA can be bought out by another organization. this depends upon how much PMA initially paid for us and how much it is worth now. Organizations I can think of are Picture Framing Magazine, Profile Magazine or the Fine Art Trade Guild.

Do they have the money and interest to buy PPFA?
If the Guild buys us, then we may loose our CPF and MCPF programs.
They already have a framing competition and their own qualifications.

I wouldn't mind a joint venture with the Guild. They are internationally recognized, have been in existence for a long time, are independent and share the same interest in framing.

 

[David Waldmann]

On the thread of the reorganization of boundaries, there was mention of the link between PPFA and PMA.
If anyone is interested, we can have a discussion about it.

Yes, that was me and I am interested to talk about it.

If our association is to split from our parent, then we still need two or three fulltime staff, that need to be paid wages.

Not so sure about staff - I don't have any hard numbers on how many we have or what we're paying PMA for our portion. However, here is a statement made last July by John Pruitt:

By her own estimates, Elaine only spends 50-60% of her time on PPFA matters. Sheila’s time has been cut back. Nick serves several masters. We will need to rely, more and more, on our own members as volunteers.
​

That sounds to me more like 1+ rather than 2-3.

We also need a building to rent, telephone, electricity, computers, furniture.

Not in this day and age. The kind of work needed to be done by administrators of a trade organization can be done from a home office IMO.

In order to pay for this and to maintain the same services we already have, our subscription will have to go up, meaning that some may find it too expensive and leave.

Not so sure it would have to go up, again, because I don't have any numbers to throw around.

If PMA is interested, then PPFA can be bought out by another organization. this depends upon how much PMA initially paid for us and how much it is worth now. Organizations I can think of are Picture Framing Magazine, Profile Magazine or the Fine Art Trade Guild.

Who knows - maybe the PMA would be happy to give it away because they aren't making any money on it.

Even though association with PFM sounds attractive for a couple reasons (better integration of the annual meeting/convention/trade show as well as good access to non-PPFA members) I'm not sure that's the best for the PPFA because PFM is a for-profit organization (serves itself) and the PPFA is a non-profit trade organization (serves its members). While any good for-profit company (if they are looking to the future) will serve its customers, there is no requirement or guarantee that they will.

Without really knowing much about the FATG I would be more inclined towards that integration because (I presume) they have the same basic goals.

 

[Randy Parrish CPF]

If the Fine Art Trade Guild expanded membership to the US (and there are a few members here), your yearly dues would double for a framer and it looks like the benefits are about the same. I do think we could learn a few things from them though. I would more interested in expanding our membership there.

1. [TABLE="width: 100%"]
   [TR]
   [TD="colspan: 4, align: center"]MEMBERSHIP FEES 2014[/TD]
   [/TR]
   [TR]
   [TD]UK[/TD]
   [TD][/TD]
   [TD]20% VAT[/TD]
   [TD]TOTAL[/TD]
   [/TR]
   [TR]
   [TD]Artists, retailers, framers etc[/TD]
   [TD]£227.78[/TD]
   [TD]£39.06[/TD]
   [TD]£266.84[/TD]
   [/TR]
   [TR]
   [TD]Trade Suppliers, Publishers and Printers[/TD]
   [TD]£466.35[/TD]
   [TD]£86.77[/TD]
   [TD]£553.12[/TD]
   [/TR]
   [TR]
   [TD][/TD]
   [TD][/TD]
   [TD][/TD]
   [TD][/TD]
   [/TR]
   [TR]
   [TD]Branch/Subsidiary-all cats.[/TD]
   [TD]£117.48[/TD]
   [TD]£17.00[/TD]
   [TD]£134.48[/TD]
   [/TR]
   [TR]
   [TD]Chain rate Retailer[/TD]
   [TD]£473.98[/TD]
   [TD]£75.30[/TD]
   [TD]£549.28[/TD]
   [/TR]
   [TR]
   [TD]Chain rate Trade Supplier[/TD]
   [TD]£710.88[/TD]
   [TD]£122.68[/TD]
   [TD]£833.56[/TD]
   [/TR]
   [/TABLE]

266.85 equals $448.32 US dollars

 

[Mike Labbe]

wow, so $370 per year.

I, for one, REALLY appreciate the hard work that the folks at PMA do. They're doing almost the same amount of work as before, with a third of the staff(and in some cases, severely cut back hours). I am in email contact with most of them daily, and know how much work goes on behind the scenes. Much of it unpaid/volunteer/well beyond the call of duty.

If our association is to split from our parent, then we still need two or three fulltime staff, that need to be paid wages. We also need...

Rather than trying to break apart PPFA, perhaps we should focus on strengthening/expanding the reach of the organization - in a positive way? The organization can always use more members, volunteers, and participation. (at the local geographic(chapters/regions) and global levels(committees that work on projects to benefit all))

My personal opinion,
Mike

 

[Ellen Collins MCPF]

I was involved on the national board back when PPFA was independent and rolling in dough. We owned our own building in Richmond, had tons of staff and were generally living high. There were a lot of members then and the dues, as I recall, were $35 a year. (of course, I remember when Girl Scout cookies were 35 cents a box, so that tells you how numbers that looked large then look small now).

Then there were a series of events: fewer framer members, too much staff, a bad choice as to convention location, among other things. by then I was off the board and back to being only a chapter leader and as such was not privy to all that went on].

We started renting out part of our building to other businesses. Then we sold the building, and still we were bleeding money. When we were almost tapped out, PMAI offered to take us under their umbrella. (even at the time, I thought "Boy, wait until they find out what a contentious group we are. They may be sorry they ever bailed us out")

And then PMAI's member base started dropping off. They are certainly a mere shadow of what they were when we linked up with them. So it is belt tightening everywhere.

My point (well, it's about time) is that it is unlikely we could make it as a separate entity in our present format. I suppose that there is a chance we could be an all-volunteer group, but I am pretty sure that there is a lot more work to running such an organization than many of us realize.

 

[Gregory K. Norris CPF]

While an interesting academic exercise, Ellen is right. Just keeping up with one committee and doing it right is a major commitment. One of the first things most nonprofit organizations do when they get solvent is hire staff. It is nearly impossible to sustain an all volunteer organization, and impossible to grow it.

When I dropped out of PPFA the first time, we were still free-standing, but clearly in trouble. Dues had risen to the $300 range, and that was a deal-breaker in my young business. I felt the way a lot of posters have felt about the larger chapter areas: I was at least 300 miles away from the nearest chapter meeting and it just didn't make sense to me.

Looking back, however, my business would have grown faster, I would have felt less lonely, and I would be a lot more knowledgeable if I had taken the chance. When I started, there were 8 shops within walking distance; now there are none. Only one framer in my town would talk to me about even the weather. Although I didn't know it, the pie was already shrinking. I was the only PPFA member in town, and one of two in the state. There was no internet to speak of. (I'm beginning to sound like my grandfather!)

Just being able to talk to folks with similar businesses has been invaluable. PPFA gets a lot of credit for my steady growth. PPFA offers at least 10 times what it did then at 2/3 of the cost fifteen or so years later. If I had it to do over again, PPFA would be my first stop.

While PPFA may have been "sold" to PMA, they didn't exactly get a great business investment. If trade associations weren't non-profit, I shudder to think where all the PMA sub groups might be.

I think it is time to let go of the past and what might have been, accept what is, and look only forward. And I openly admit, I find that hard to do.

 

[David Waldmann]

I think it is time to let go of the past and what might have been, accept what is, and look only forward.

That is EXACTLY what my point is. If we were starting the PPFA today, would we align ourselves with the PMA? Forget the past, or even where we are. If we want to move forward the most important thing we need to see is where we're going.

 

[Kai Vanuffelen]

If PPFA is ever to going to become part of another association, we will be seeing the same problems as we are having now with PMA.
Perhaps the best option is to go it alone. Ask PMA what the procedures are for opting out and set up our own administration. Who knows, they may see PPFA as a liability and be glad to be rid of us.

We have to bear in mind, that we have far fewer members, than what we did, when we joined with PMA and our membership will continue to decline, as fewer frameshops will be in operation in the future.

Our leadership can contact the Guild and see, if they are interested in taking us over or become a new organization. Language is not an issue here. The one organization will have hubs of members in North America, Australasia and Britain.

Publishing literature and administering exams is more cost effective to do with one organization then two separate ones. A PPFA separate from PMA will find it expensive to have books printed and exams to administer.

I suppose the majority of members will want to stick with the PMA as it means the fees will not double.

 

[Ormond Williams MCPF]

Our leadership can contact the Guild and see, if they are interested in taking us over or become a new organization. Language is not an issue here. The one organization will have hubs of members in North America, Australasia and Britain.

Would you really want everyone to pay double the membership fee?
How many current members so you think would be willing to pay more than they are now?
I think we all know the answer to that and I think we all know that membership would drop even further!

 

[John Ranes II CPF GCF]

If PPFA is ever to going to become part of another association, we will be seeing the same problems as we are having now with PMA...

Kai, What are you talking about? What problems with PMA?

If we have any problems with our trade association, it is with ourselves, shrinking numbers, lack of volunteer members keeping Chapters sustained, limited financial budgets...etc.

...Perhaps the best option is to go it alone. Ask PMA what the procedures are for opting out and set up our own administration. ...

Why in Earth would we want to do it alone? In what ways do you think we would benefit and how?

... Our leadership can contact the Guild and see, if they are interested in taking us over or become a new organization...

Why would you even suggest such a thing....the FATG has their own issues trying to retain membership. They sold their building in central London and now rent it back (sound familiar to those who have been PPFA members a long time?)

We are best to work within the framework that we currently have. PPFA's Convention tied to the largest framing show in the world, WCAF is now entering it's third year and appears to be a Win-Win for both organizations. Go talk to framers in Germany or Spain and ask what framing show they attend... Even the framing area at the Spring Fair (UK) has been shrinking next to nothing and attendence numbers diminishing in a huge wage over the past ten years.

Indeed we could start over, but why? Let's use our money and energy to positive promotion and not re-inventing the wheel.

John (PPFA and FATG Member, BTW)

 

[Kai Vanuffelen]

The ideas I had expressed were merely a result of reading comments on the thread reorganizing boundaries. Trying to find a solution to problems raised and by starting this new thread others have responded by writing about the past etc.

What I picked up was:

Other similar associations charge more for their yearly membership than the PPFA does.

Our membership database cannot be changed as we are part of PMA who operate a similar system.

The yearly membership of the FATG is about $300, which is the same as the PPFA was charging in yearly membership at the time we got bailed out by the PMA

These days as opposed to the past, PPFA as a separate entity does not need to rent an office, but can be done from someone's home. One staff-member is needed who is not juggling time looking after other organizations.

Despite charging $300 annual fee, the Guild is still in financial trouble. Chances are, they may need a parent-company to support them in the same way the PMA is a parent of PPFA.

Looking at the scenario in New Zealand, it is unwise to have two or three framing organizations operating in one country. One is ideal. The same applies to have two rival framing organizations in the world.

Creating larger chapters in the US may decrease membership as members find it harder to travel to events. The price of petrol is not the same as it was 20 years ago. Still the price of petrol in the US is half of what I am paying, so what are you complaining about?

Having hubs of activity is one idea raised instead of having chapters. This does not fit in with the structure of PMA.

Some suggested leaving the borders of chapters as they are even if some chapters lack leadership, do not communicate with members and the overall board.

Then there is the animosity between the US and Britain. Britain the former colonial power and the US its former colony now having surpassed Britain in many ways. If one framing organization is created, then the US with more members will dominate and British framers will lose their English way of framing. No marriage is perfect. There are always conflicts over money, in laws etc.

The same will apply to a possible merger in whatever shape between PPFA and FATG.
I'd say explore the options, make contact, look at the positive sides and not only at the negative sides.

 

[Randy Parrish CPF]

1. The yearly membership of the FATG is about $300, which is the same as the PPFA was charging in yearly membership at the time we got bailed out by the PMA

2. These days as opposed to the past, PPFA as a separate entity does not need to rent an office, but can be done from someone's home. One staff-member is needed who is not juggling time looking after other organizations.

3. Creating larger chapters in the US may decrease membership as members find it harder to travel to events. The price of petrol is not the same as it was 20 years ago. Still the price of petrol in the US is half of what I am paying, so what are you complaining about?

4. Having hubs of activity is one idea raised instead of having chapters. This does not fit in with the structure of PMA.

5. Then there is the animosity between the US and Britain. Britain the former colonial power and the US its former colony now having surpassed Britain in many ways. If one framing organization is created, then the US with more members will dominate and British framers will lose their English way of framing. No marriage is perfect. There are always conflicts over money, in laws etc.

1. Closer to $400
2. I have been to the PMA offices recently, they have been downsized a few years ago, knowing the area, I bet it's a pretty good value, and it could not happen from one person's home. There is certainly nothing frivolous going on there, I even offered to hang pictures up for them.
3. Could also create smaller and more chapter meetings, getting back to the basics and from the ground up approach.
4. A hub is no different than a putting a meeting around an area with a concentration of members which we already do, it semantics at that point.
5. Seriously? I draw the line at going to London for a chapter meeting.

 

[Ormond Williams MCPF]

If we are to continue with strange solutions to the issue of too many trade organisations, perhaps the FATG could be consumed by PPFA. That would make much more sense!

 

[Glenn Renick]

I think this discussion started when we discovered that the database supporting PPFA is maintained by PMAI and has some restrictions that make it difficult for members to select a chapter, rather than chapters being boundary defined. This hardly seems to be a limitation that should prompt giving up the advantages and shared support as a PMAI affiliate.

 

[David Waldmann]

I think this discussion started when we discovered that the database supporting PPFA is maintained by PMAI and has some restrictions that make it difficult for members to select a chapter, rather than chapters being boundary defined.

Actually, it originally came up because of budgeting reasons. I asked two questions:
1. What is the PMA doing for us today?
2. What is it costing us?

I didn't get any answers, but some of the same implications came up, so I asked them again. However, what Kai intended when he started this thread, I don't know.

This hardly seems to be a limitation that should prompt giving up the advantages and shared support as a PMAI affiliate.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. What advantages? What support?

BTW, I'm not claiming they aren't there - merely questioning what they are, as they are not apparent to me. Case in point - PPFA used to be forced to have their annual convention with PMA. I don't know how much work it was, but I inferred quite a bit, to allow us to meet in conjunction with WCAF rather than PMA. So that makes me question what other concessions are being made to our detriment.

 

[Kai Vanuffelen]

It is interesting to see the kind of figures and facts coming up in this discussion.
For example an annual subscription to the Guild for its members of $400 is too much.
They do have at least three staffmembers that need to be paid an if membership drops, then these fees go up to maintain the same services and pay all the bills.

That is what will happen, if PPFA is to split from PMA. Subscriptions will go up to pay for all the costs we now share with PMA. Some of us will not mind paying more, as it is on par with similar organizations.

Financial transparency as to where our subscrption goes to inside PMA is important to know.
The Guild being taken over by the PPFA? Fine, but without us being locked in with PMA in my opinion.

I actually like the structure of the CPF and MCPF Exams more than the GCF and three advanced GCF Exams. At least we have recertification.

Indeed there are benefits to being part of PMA as there are benefits to staying at home with one's parents well into adulthood. It does not make one independent.

Membership-database is restrictive under the PMA umbrella and may need to be addressed.

Someone can add another comment, so that I will not be the last to post to this thread.
I certainly know a bit more, than before about our relationship with PMA than before even if it meant ruffling a few feathers.

 

[Craig Sterling]

To all:

As you can see, I catch on quickly to threads! haha In most cases I should probably keep my mouth shut, but Ellen knows me too well. I was pretty mouthy when PPFA was bought out by PMA. Truthfully, I was not for the change, but I do realize that PPFA would not have survived if not for PMA.

I also agree with other posters, Elaine and Nick work very hard for PPFA. I haven't had much contact with them in recent years, except for dues, (Thanks, Nick), but I've also worked for non-profits in the past, and paid staff rarely work only the required hours.

John Raines mentioned that he thinks we should not reinvent the wheel and should work within our current system (paraphrase). I agree with John. I think someone else mentioned strengthening our base. Truthfully, if PPFA doubled in size, we would have a fighting chance at not only surviving, but providing more benefits for our members. Would it not be great to see a thriving organization again?

One suggestion would be reaching out more to immigrant framers. Many of the framers in the DC Metro area are from Asian countries. Several years back, when I still had hair, I used to visit framers in DC inviting them to chapter events. At the time, I believe three out of four shops were owned by folks for whom English was a second language. Many of these folks were not familiar with PPFA. Many of these folks were distrusting of my visit/intentions. I don't think any ever showed up to a meeting.

I'm not certain the best way to break through the cultural barriers. One thought is to have open events as well as members only events. For open events invitations should go to all galleries/frameshops/artist supply stores, etc. in the area. Phone calls from local chapter members would also be a nice way to grow the membership or at least interest in PPFA.

Craig Sterling
PPFA-NCC

 

[Cathy Coggins]

What an interesting thread; dialog is probably a better word. Very thoughtful posts.

Craig Sterling, hello, how do you do? Don't know you yet, but like your style already. Going out to other frame shops and inviting them? On your own time? I should like to shake your hand. Your commitment level is inspiring.
Regarding different cultures and suspicion of motives, I listened to a TED Radio Hour talk over the weekend, in the car. It was real brain food. It was about the Subjunctive in English, and how it works with how we think and speak, here. And how in some cultures, in this case Vietnamese, it does not exist. My point is that possibly, some people, immigrants are perplexed by our fixation with conjuring alternatives to betterment, instead of just holding the course.

Well the core, this strong core in PPFA, are obsessed with betterment of the framer, the organization as a whole, and building from the member up, and from the top down, and the committees out, and the Chapters building out. For these reasons, among others, PPFA will survive; but thriving is the harder bit.

Here's the link. It is about 15 minutes long. Pour yourself a cup of coffee and have a listen. I found it fascinating. http://www.npr.org/2013/12/13/248195238/does-the-subjunctive-have-a-dark-side
Relevant? Possibly in an abstract way. But, I learned something about how different we all can be. And I thought i'd share it.

 

[Craig Sterling]

Hi Ms. Coggins.

Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate the compliment regarding commitment, but unfortunately for the past several years, PPFA has been on the back burner for me.

I was, however, referring to a period in the NCC past when we had a large enough board to have a VP for Maryland, a VP for DC, and a VP for Virginia. Several folks on the board visited local frame shops and introduced the owners to the benefits of PPFA. At the time, I was VP for DC and visited a number of shops near where I worked. Most of the shops I visited were immigrant owned and language was an issue.

Thanks for the link. I'll certainly listen.

Of course, Ellen, no matter what position held in the chapter, has always been an advocate for PPFA. Her blood must be PPFA positive.

Craig

 

[Joe Weinbeck]

I guess I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree because I cannot understand how not being connected to the PMA would help us. In my opinion, if it weren't for the PMA the PPFA would no longer be in existence. From what I understand PMA purchased us when we were having financial difficulties. We had those financial difficulties when we had many more members. Now, without the PMA, to run an organization like the PPFA we would have, as someone said, $400.00 annual dues. How many members would there be if we were paying that much a year, I know for sure there would be 1 less.

Ok, so as someone said, we do the outreach to get other frame shops into the PPFA. Aren't we doing that outreach now? Even with our dues as reasonable as they are now we have a problem getting new member for 2 reasons, 1 - there aren't that many frame shops anymore, 2 - the frame shops that are in existence don't have the extra funds for membership dues and all the other expenses that occur in the simple day to day operation of a frame shop.

Finally, what is the PMA doing for us? They are keeping the PPFA in existence. Because of the PMA our dues are kept low, we have a WCAF show, we get better prices on insurance, travel fees, hotels, etc. because we with the PMA & PPFA we have a large enough membership base to be able to get some of those cost benefits. We have a headquarters staff - do you really think we could afford a headquarters without PMA? Personally, I'm not totally satisfied with the PPFA, but, IMO we have a PPFA which I don't think we would have if it weren't for PMA. Go ahead and break off from the PMA and see how long the PPFA will stay in existence - IMO not long.

Just my $0.02 Joe