"I'M boycotting the AOS"

[Call_Me_Bob]

Originally Posted by ronaldhanko

I've complained about some things in the past regarding the AOS, but I think they need a bit of defense here. I think their awards system is invaluable, remember how much their magazine meant to me when I started in orchids - I read everything including the ads, learned where to get plants there, and gleaned huge amounts of information. They are suffering as most periodicals are, from the fact that there's so much info available on the web and are having a difficult time adjusting to that. I think it would be a huge shame if we lost the AOS. We'd lose the judging system (at the shows as well) - all volunteer, by the way. We'd lose the body that coordinates and keeps track of the local societies and their shows. We'd lose their magazine.

i really agree with you ron.

[epiphyte78]

Regarding the award system...it's not relevant because people who enter their orchids for AOS judging have to pay for any awards that they win. So as long as people continue to pay for their AOS awards the awards system will continue to exist.

The $65 cost of membership covers the cost of printing the magazine. Given that it wouldn't cost anything to post the articles to an AOS blog the cost of being a member would be reduced to practically nothing.

On one hand we have Group A....a relatively small amount of people who pay $65 to receive the printed magazine. And on the other hand we have Group B....everybody with an interest in orchids and access to the internet.

Group A consists of around 12,000 people. Group B consists of around how many people?

What's the logic in needlessly limiting access to the articles?

[cb977]

Isn't it wonderful to live in a place where we can make our own choices as to whether we want to support any particular or organization or not?

I choose to support the AOS...my choice and it doesn't have to be explained to anybody

[kavanaru]

Originally Posted by cb977

my choice and it doesn't have to be explained to anybody

[ronaldhanko]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

Regarding the award system...it's not relevant because people who enter their orchids for AOS judging have to pay for any awards that they win. So as long as people continue to pay for their AOS awards the awards system will continue to exist.

The $65 cost of membership covers the cost of printing the magazine. Given that it wouldn't cost anything to post the articles to an AOS blog the cost of being a member would be reduced to practically nothing.

On one hand we have Group A....a relatively small amount of people who pay $65 to receive the printed magazine. And on the other hand we have Group B....everybody with an interest in orchids and access to the internet.

Group A consists of around 12,000 people. Group B consists of around how many people?

What's the logic in needlessly limiting access to the articles?

It is relevant, because if the AOS ceases to exist the awards system won't be there either, certainly not as it now exists. The cost of an award covers the paperwork - done by the AOS, the publication of the awards - done by the AOS, the issuing of awards certificates - done by the AOS, etc.
Your article has convinced me to rejoin - I haven't been a member for a few years due to financial constraints, but I'm back. Is it perfect? No, it isn't, but I owe them a great deal, and getting involved and helping is better than carping.

[Royal]

If AOS doesn't serve your needs, don't join. Calling for a boycott is totally different - it sounds personal. What happended that has made you try to convice others to boycott AOS?

I don't think the New York Times is worth the subscription price, so I just don't subscribe. You can get the same news online. I also don't watch much baseball. You can get the scores and highlights online as well. But I would never try to talk people out of buying a paper or a baseball ticket because I don't want to. If people find value in an AOS membership, does that make them wrong?

The way I see it, group B (non-members with an interest in orchids) might never have even heard of orchids had it not been for group A (AOS). The AOS has laid the foundation for future generations of orchid growers. Judging might survivie without AOS, but it was AOS that established judging centers across the country to make them freely accessible to all growers ( it costs nothing to have a plant judged). Conservation may persist, but it's AOS that first instilled this ideal in the orchid world. Education would also continue withouth AOS, but AOS was eduating growers before the internet even existed.

My point is that AOS is so much more than a magazine. It may be struggling to keep up with the times, but abandoning them doesn't help them get back on the right path. AOS, like any organization, is also a two-way street, and requires imput from members. They are not a mere supplier of infomation, they are a horticultural organiazaion with a mission of orchid education, conservation, and research. That's not a mission statement that I want to trash.

You know, I hate tapioca pudding. It's totally not worth the money. Join with me to boycott tapioca!!!

[Royal]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

If you care about your orchids would it make sense to deprive them of the light, nutrients and water that they need to grow? No it wouldn't, so boycott the AOS...

Depriving the essentials of life and growth - sounds like a boycott to me. If you wouldn't do that to your collection of plants, why would you do it to an organizaiton with thousands of dedicated membes and decades of history?

[Eyebabe]

I support the AOS and have been a member for several years.
I am online and fully computer literate; however, I love their magazine. Although all the articles are not useful to me, I particularly enjoy the photos that I can appreciate with a cup of coffee in the bright sunlight on my back porch---where I can't view a PC screen without glare :P
As far as the cost of running an organization, well, the presumptions made that an online version would greatly affect this is laughable to me.
AOS is more than a magazine and both a magazine and a web-blog require man hours to maintain.
Man hours cost money, period. Volunteers are nice, but if you want an organization to have any substance whatsoever, you need paid employees. I speak from experience in serving on the boards of both fully volunteer organizations and hybrids where most are volunteers with a core group of employees running the show.
These employees not only get the magazine out, they also as others have stated, maintain the judging system, record of awarded plants etc. Furthermore, they also organize the volunteers!
If it were not for the AOS, it would have been a lot more difficult for me to find the resources I have locally, and I could go on and on.
I feel my membership is worth $65 per year.
There is a lot more than a magazine there...

[lambelkip]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

Regarding the award system...it's not relevant because people who enter their orchids for AOS judging have to pay for any awards that they win. So as long as people continue to pay for their AOS awards the awards system will continue to exist.

a boycott damages the whole organization, not just the parts you don't like. if the organization suffers any more than it has been, they will have to raise the cost of issuing awards.

The $65 cost of membership covers the cost of printing the magazine. Given that it wouldn't cost anything to post the articles to an AOS blog the cost of being a member would be reduced to practically nothing.

blogs require a server to host them, and bandwidth to deliver them to readers. ask the owner of this forum how much a "free" blog or forum costs.

On one hand we have Group A....a relatively small amount of people who pay $65 to receive the printed magazine. And on the other hand we have Group B....everybody with an interest in orchids and access to the internet.

Group A consists of around 12,000 people. Group B consists of around how many people?

What's the logic in needlessly limiting access to the articles?

the latest numbers available from the AOS show 16282 members. in comparison, Orchidboard.com has 12361 registered members. (and not all of those members are active.) that means there are at least 3921 people who pay for the magazine, but do not participate in the biggest "free" online orchid forum. at its peak in 2003, AOS membership was over 26000, more than double the number of people on orchidboard.
as i mentioned above, running a blog or online forum costs money. one way to ensure that the money is raised is to provide access only to those people who pay for it.

this past friday (July 30, 2010) the aos sent out a letter to the affiliated societies asking for feedback, so there's a very simple way for you to make suggestions directly to the AOS. you should get a copy of it in your next OSSC Newsletter. if not, I can forward a copy to you.

boycotts do damage in order to get their point across; it is generally better to try another method first, and not damage something you want to see improved.

[peeweelovesbooks]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

Regarding the award system...it's not relevant because people who enter their orchids for AOS judging have to pay for any awards that they win. So as long as people continue to pay for their AOS awards the awards system will continue to exist.

What's the logic in needlessly limiting access to the articles?

Your opinion on the "relevance" of the award system doesn't make sense. Period.

From Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c : having social relevance


By definition, the AOS awards ARE relevant. As a matter of fact, its the ONLY relevant system here in the U.S. What other organization in the U.S. gives awards that are recognized worldwide? Whose system do we use when determining an orchid is award quality? I hate to disagree with you, but your statement about the relevance of the awards makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe you are angry that members have to pay for processing the awards: i.e., why do members have to pay for the processing fees, etc., Well, let's see, I know of no sport or game wherein the participants don't have entrance fees, processing fees, etc. Maybe the Olympics, I dunno.

As a matter of fact, I think a better idea would be to charge 75.00 per entry. That's right--enter a plant--you pay 75.00 for the privilege. After all, aren't the judges totally volunteer?

You also mention limiting access to articles--if that's your beef, maybe you should also have a beef with Orchid Digest because their articles aren't available online.

Epiphyte, it seems that you have personal beef with the AOS. I have no idea what brought it on, and quite frankly, it doesn't really matter what we say here. However, maybe you should attempt to articulate your concerns better.

I have seen your post on other MB, and, truthfully, the more I see the glee on other message boards regarding the downfall of the AOS, the more it persuades me to join.