|
|
Posts: 87
| What if The Musky Hunter magazine absorbed the Muskies Inc. magazine?
Raise the cost of Muskies Inc. membership to $50/year (which would include 6 issues of Musky Hunter magazine).
Every member of Muskies Inc. gets the Musky Hunter magazine (which is now 20 pages thicker) and the important messages within the Muskies Inc. magazine are still conveyed.
It expands Musky Hunters' audience and frees up capital within Muskies Inc. to devote to the fisheries.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | what if bunnies had puppies ... |
|
| |
|
| They've tried to limit the issues of Muskie magazine to less than 12 per year and every time the membership of MI defeated the vote soundly. It is 6 issues this year as a trial deal, and I for one fully expect 10-12 issues again next year or I suspect the membership will make a huge stink. They want those 12 issues per year, and they are the ones paying the bills for MI. I hope MI understands that. Like any business, if they don't get what they want for their money, they will spend that money elsewhere. I think the magazine has been quite good for the past couple years. Lots of good articles by some big name guys in the business and also more local info as well. They're doing a nice job. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| my opinion on the two questions
teaming with musky hunter might effect the non profit status of MI
if bunnies had puppies they would be able to 'hop' the fence and tear into the mailman |
|
| |
|
Posts: 87
| Guest, my suggestion wasn't to eliminate the Muskies Inc. magazine, rather combine it with Musky Hunter. Muskies Inc. Chapter news along with other important organizational updates can still be conveyed.
Think of it from a business prospective...Muskies Inc. is not in the magazine or publishing business (for the record, I think they have done a good job with their magazine). Partner with a company (and industry leader) that is in the business and deploy your excess capital in a different manner.
Regarding the non-profit or tax-exempt status of Muskies Inc. - There might be a way around this. I am sure a legal entity can be formed to retain the structure of both.
|
|
| |
|
| MI approached me with this concept back in 1997 when my wife and I first purchased MHM. Needless to say there was quite an uproar among some of the MI board members. I was approached about this 5 years ago and the idea faded as well.
Just so all of the MI members who may read this are clear, my proposal was that MI members would get MHM for the same price of their membership, no additional cost. We would have a specific number of pages in each issue of MHM dedicated to MI.
Obviously, there would only be 6 issues per year rather than 12, which has always been the big obstacle for MI. However, if MI decides to go to 6 issues per year, this makes this idea much more feasible. MI magazine would go away but they would be able to express their content within MHM. MI would save significant dollars on each membership, as they would not have to deal with any magazine related production costs. This money could be used for stocking, youth, research, local chapters, etc.
I have always been open to discussing this topic, as it has benefits for both MI and MHM. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 87
| Thank you for the response, Jim.
You mirrored my thoughts exactly. It seems like a win-win for both organizations, particularly MI.
MI members wouldn't lose any of the great content (Chapter news and stories) they are used to. In fact, they would likely receive more.
It might also save the advertisers a few bucks, given they would only have to sponsor one publication.
I appreciate your insight and hope MI gives the idea some consideration.
All the best to both organizations!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | That seems like a reasonable request. I can only think it would add value to the magazine from a MI perspective and add to the visibility to MI by having it included in the magazine, even for non members, assuming that the MI content would be included even for the non members through MH's standard subscribers and others who buy from the newstand.
Not sure why MI wouldn't look further into this opportunity as I think it would allow for more exposure then the Key's venture does. |
|
| |
|
| Nice to see some people are thinking outside of the box like the starter of this thread. I would also like to thank Jim for his response and some of the history behind such a request that I am sure most people were not aware of. I agree that this would only make sense for M.I. to help increase membership and do away with one of the largest complaints about the membership. Heck personally I could kill two birds with one stone by joining up with M.I again, as well as renewing my Musky Hunter subscription!
|
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | I for one would definitely renew my membership if this were to happen. The reason I don't now is: Living in Des Moines there isn't a MI chapter here anymore, the closet lake that had Muskies in it, most of them went over the spillway, and I don't see MI, or the DNR doing anything to fix that problem, and driving 2 hours to go to a MI meeting just is not feasible in any way shape of form. So, until we get a new Chapter here in Des Moines, I probably won't join again. I realize they do some stuff for the other lakes in Iowa, and the other states I fish (WI, MN), and should probably just rejoin to do my part, but I don't fish out of state very often, and in my particular situation, I don't see it as a very good return on investment. Just my $.02. |
|
| |
|
|
MI magazine offers every chapter a free add per year, and discounts after that.
Tournaments and fundraisers are all advertised by many chapters. Is MHM going to give us that benefit?
While many on here seem very down on the magazine, I really don't think they realize the benefits of having it, or the downside of not.
Our recent partnership with Keyes Outdoors is under fire because of the conduct of Mike Keyes on his facebook page. I guess MI is supposed to be a parent to him and be responsible for what he does and ways on his own time.
If we lose editorial control over our publication than it will be assumed we have the same views as what is printed in MHM. I don't think it's very hard to see how that could be a possible conflict down the road.
MHM would stand to gain a lot, but I really don't see the big benefit on our end.
Our mag costs something like $7 per member, it's really not that much. Our clubs benefit from cheap advertising and a place to publish monthly news. That would be gone with MHM.
John Skarie
RVP FM |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| $7 this year on a trial basis. Subsequent years more than double that. Then add the cost of those that take the $10 dues reduction for not receiving the rag, and it's more per issue.
The biggest problem with MI today is the same old guard, doing the same old thing. I'm old, but I like relevant, current, exciting, and new thinking.
The above offer from Jim Saric is relevant, current, and IMO, would get some attention in the Muskie world.
"I guess MI is supposed to be a parent to him and be responsible for what he does and ways on his own time."
Um, I guess that answer to that would be yes. or don't have him as the face of your organization.. |
|
| |
|
|
He isn't the "face" of our organization. I would seem to me that people would have the sense to realize that holding MI accountable for personal conduct of a man on his facebook page is unreasonable, and does not reflect what MI or it's members are about in any way.
It's unfortunate that opinions about a great volunteer organization are going to be shaped around an incident like that.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | JS, in a sense, it is MI's responsibility to be able to account for their major sponsorships actions in the public eye. It just takes one bad moment to give MI a bad name. Is this the case with Keys? Who knows as many did not see what occured and could care less. However, I would think that MI would have addressed that prior to creating the partnership as a slip up like that can impact MI as an organization. Being a new major sponsor, people can see those comments and say, if that's what MI stands for, I don't want to be a part of it (not that MI stands for that, but for arguments sake). Regardless, you are in a sense accountable for what your partners do. (note, how many sponsors dumped Tiger when he had his "marital issues"?
I would suspect that a partnership with MHM would be much more professional, and the variances between MHM and MI would be minimal and would obviously be addressed on a professional level based on Jim and Steve's demeanor in the past. They are obviously professionals who have a great understanding of this sport and the idiosyncracies within the sport. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Guest - 3/28/2012 10:13 AM
MHM would stand to gain a lot, but I really don't see the big benefit on our end.
John, I have to disagree with you a bit on this one. The biggest thing MI would get is increased exposure. Right now we're stagnant and everyone's looking at each other trying to figure out how we're going to grow. MHM is a great vehicle for this IMOP. It's amazing how many people I bump into that barely know of MI and what we're doing.
Personally I think it would be a fantastic idea to join up and either kill the mag or turn it into more of a newsletter.
-Shawn |
|
| |
|
| the variances between MHM and MI would be minimal
'm sure MHM would love to expand it's readership and advertising base by adding every member of Muskies Inc to the subscription list - they would make more money. Businesses don't do things for free or because it's a nice thing to do, nor should they be expected to.
And I like MHM, but the differences with Muskies Inc do matter. The reader picture sections in MHM and Muskie Magazine are an example of the kinds of conflicts that would occur. MHM makes a business decision to allow reader pictures with vertical holds or even kept fish; Muskie Magazine makes a conservationist decision to show only supported horizontal holds of released fish.
Muskies Inc is able to maintain its independent voice only when it has an independent platform. They should just go to an electronic only format for the Muskies Inc magazine/newsletter - email and online. It would cut the costs down to a fraction if you eliminated printing and mailing expenses.
|
|
| |
|
|
So what happens when things get "nasty' on the MHM website? Is MI responsible for apologizing for that?
If our image is going to be so tarnished by the conduct of others than how can anyone support going into a partnership with a private enterprise where we have no editorial or policy control?
I would think having MHM as an avenue for ads, or membership drives is another story.
I just can't see how making them the official publication of MI is a good idea for many reasons.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 87
| This feedback is great and I hope the conversation continues.
Like many, I feel the change benefits both MI and MHM.
As an example, my personal situation is as follows. I am a MI member, but I do not subscribe to MHM (Sorry, Jim, nothing against your publication, it is great, and I should subscribe). So...MHM gains audience, while MI reduces operating costs.
Let’s try to avoid turning the thread into anything more than a place to share ideas and help both organizations succeed. There was a little thought behind the title of the thread “Working Together Sets Us Apart.”
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Regarding the Mike Keyes situation...
I have done business with Mike for many years, and I think the situation at bar could have been handled better for sure. But I'm sure MI came to one realization early on in the relationship. This guy works night and day for his clients and is fiercely loyal to them. MI needs newer and younger members and Keyes is the right direction to go in in that regard.
And just remember, there are two sides to every story. The situation has been mediated between the parties, privately. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | Whether or not it's the "official publication" of MI, I think pursuing some sort of venture with MHM would lead to good things with MI. They have a lot of exposure, and run their magazine with a great deal of integrity. I wouldn't be as worried about vertical holds, as I suspect MHM would be willing to work with MI with regards to the holds. Heck, it's a further step towards educating more musky fishermen and women.
I think to just say no to any partnership is just kicking MI in the butt once again, as there is an avenue there for some sort of venture, and from what Jim said above, they are willing to talk (and have in the past).
What are some of the reasons not to partner with them? I can understand the website, however it's just a forum for others to spew whatever they want (similar to any website). However, I highly doubt that Jim or Steve would ever subject themselves to questionable statements regarding competitors or competitors of sponsors. From what I've seen, they are very respectful of others and project professionalism in every aspect of their business.
The past few MI threads have brought up some good discussions and I think that the board members would do well to review and even further the discussions as they have been civil and nothing but good can come from them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | We're talking MHM not MHW John. As far as it getting "nasty", I can't remember the last time it has been too bad. It's not like the MI website never got that way. The only difference is that we keep everything in a dark hole that nobody ever sees (both the good and the bad).
Let's weigh each idea:
Good:
Much more exposure to MI
More recognition of the positive things we do to the non-MI (potential membership) public
A presence on newsstands across the midwest (read more exposure)
Larger audience for fundraisers
Downside
Less control over the content of the "magazine" portion.
No more "free" ads (we pay for them anyway, just with our membership dollars instead of actually paying to play)
I've know Jim for years and IMOP he's one the the least controversial "muskie celebrities" out there (sometimes for the worse). I'm sure that if a union was made between our two organizations that there would be some horse trading to make all parties comfortable.
The only way that we are going to grow our organization is through these kinds of partnerships IMOP. We're a volunteer organization and as such our boots on the ground will never have the time (and often times the skill) to take us to the next level. If you disagree, just look at the past 10-15 years and tell me why muskie fishing has exploded and our membership hasn't. It isn't because we put out a magazine IMOP... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 87
| As a relatively new member of MI (less than 1 year), I am stunned at the level of resistance when it comes to change. Given my age (almost 30); I am likely in the bottom 25% percentile for MI member age.
I have been informed by a close friend that making changes at the top won’t impact local chapters. It is also my understanding that the local chapters are often the part of the organization that needs the most support (particularly on the financial front).
I plan to get more involved in my local MI chapter (Milwaukee). However, I have such a bad taste in my mouth after reading various posts about MI and the stubborn nature of the organization, I am starting to second guess my desire to devote the time and energy.
As others have suggested, I hope every board member of MI reads these and other posts and starts to accept that change is not always a bad thing. It can, at times, be uncomfortable, but we shouldn’t let that stop us from making something better in the long run.
If you haven’t read the book “Who Moved My Cheese,” I suggest you do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
Love H2O;
MI has completely reorganized itself in the last 2 years. Changed the way the chapters are represented and streamlined organization at the top, (for better or worse, remains to be seen yet). We also partnered with Keyes outdoors, which was a new avenue for MI to explore.
I think you're jumping to a quick conclusion by saying MI is so resistant to change.
With any change, especially with something as drastic as you have suggested, there is going to be discussion about pros and cons. I'm not sure what you expected but I think there is a fair representation of people very for it, some not sure and some who don't want to go that route.
MI, maybe more so than other clubs, is made up of people with many different views, goals and ideas for the muskie world. Much like our political system, it takes compromise and a willingness to be able to work with those who have different ideas than you do to make it work.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| Guest - 3/28/2012 2:20 PM
He isn't the "face" of our organization. I would seem to me that people would have the sense to realize that holding MI accountable for personal conduct of a man on his facebook page is unreasonable, and does not reflect what MI or it's members are about in any way.
It's unfortunate that opinions about a great volunteer organization are going to be shaped around an incident like that.
JS
I don't think a lot of people, myself included, have any idea what Mike Keyes did or said on his Facebook page. A lot of people have had negative experiences with Mike Keyes, on and off the water. The guy is one of the most polarizing personalities in musky fishing. Always has been, always will be. I personally will not support national until Mike Keyes is dropped.
Chris |
|
| |
|
Posts: 87
| John,
Perhaps my message was poorly worded or taken out of context. I apologize; I typed the message really fast between meetings this afternoon.
I understand that changes requires consideration and most importantly, compromise.
I am a bit disappointed that you suggest “discussing” the pros and cons of a change, yet you have been very quick to reject the idea or any form of the idea. I was hoping for a response like “interesting idea, MI will definitely discuss the matter and if the idea gains traction, contact Jim to discuss the opportunity.”
I want MI to succeed. I simply shared an idea that came to mind as I was thinking of ways to help MI. Going forward my ideas will be shared with my local MI chapter, Milwaukee. I plan to attend my first meeting in May.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 566
Location: Elgin, IL | No Idea what was said on facebook, anybody know how I can find that info?
Don't know Mike Keyes but I'm a MI member anyway, always will be. The youth outings that chapter 39 put together is reason alone for the price. You might be changing a kid's mind forever.
I don't mind the magazine, but I could do without it if I knew the money was going for the cause. Youth, Fisheries, and Research. I'm Ok with that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| I just want to state a few things for perspective. I am not a member of Muskies Inc or MHMagazine. I have seen publications of both but am not an active member.
I do remember reading some strange messages on facbook from Mike. I looked back and seems that they were deleted. If you did not copy/paste them when posted chances are you will not ever read them again.
Working together as first brought up only seems a good idea based each sides perspective. If both sides feel that they can benefit, I think that would have been done previously (as stated by Jim). I think to move forward together, both sides have to offer the other something that they cannot get as they stand individually. If one side feels it will be hurt/not helped than the process may be slowed or completely stopped.
Thanks again to Steve Worrall for the webiste and message board. It was great to meet you at the Madison "musky school." It is because of people like him that we can sound our opinions, both for and against such a topic. |
|
| |
|
| Moltisanti - 3/28/2012 4:25 PM
Regarding the Mike Keyes situation...
I have done business with Mike for many years, and I think the situation at bar could have been handled better for sure. But I'm sure MI came to one realization early on in the relationship. This guy works night and day for his clients and is fiercely loyal to them. MI needs newer and younger members and Keyes is the right direction to go in in that regard.
And just remember, there are two sides to every story. The situation has been mediated between the parties, privately.
What "situation"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Guest - 3/28/2012 2:20 PM
He isn't the "face" of our organization. I would seem to me that people would have the sense to realize that holding MI accountable for personal conduct of a man on his facebook page is unreasonable, and does not reflect what MI or it's members are about in any way.
JS
If not Mike Keyes, then who, is the "face" of MI? No one else that I see in the public eye. Perhaps that is one of the issues that need to be addressed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Independent Voice - 3/28/2012 3:37 PM
MHM makes a business decision to allow reader pictures with vertical holds or even kept fish; Muskie Magazine makes a conservationist decision to show only supported horizontal holds of released fish.
Verticle holds? MI has a Kept(killed) fish category in the lunge log.
Independent Voice - 3/28/2012 3:37 PM
They should just go to an electronic only format for the Muskies Inc magazine/newsletter - email and online. It would cut the costs down to a fraction if you eliminated printing and mailing expenses.
I agree 100% if MI will not join with MHM.
Edited by Shep 3/30/2012 10:53 AM
|
|
| |
