Rod Machado's New PPL Manual

On Mar 26, 4:37 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:


This is where we differ. You're a salesman, I am an owner who sells.
Guess what very important piece of the customer/client cycle you missed.
it gave you away as a salesman, not an owner.

Collection.

First - I am not a salesman nor do I play one on TV. I did not even
stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Second-- If you read, you'd see the last step is "Transaction."

By definition a "transaction" is X in exchange for Y.

Get it?

I'm not alone in contending that GA is doing a very poor job in every
stage of the sales process.

Considering that I have posted exactly that 3-4 times in this thread
alone....

No, you haven't.

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:18:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I don't think that I have ever seen a hobby, pleasure sport or job field
that appears to go out of its way to place barriers, hurdles and
hoop-jumping as GA. My novitiate guess is that this must stem from a
post-War mentality when pilots were trained and coming into GA ready to
fly in gobs.
There is indeed a "macho mystique" associated with pilots in general
that attracts a specific demographic to flying and discourages the rest
of a potential market. Not a good business model at all.

This is a fundamental failure that has to be laid at the feet of the
Cessnas of the world. Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA? Not
to promote Piper, to promote GA?

Competitors in most any underexposed market, when faced with entry level
barriers, have found that it is a strong economic model to *first*
promote their market (GA); let the competition begin...when there are
folks to compete for.

It's an interesting concept for sure, and to some extent has been done
by the major manufacturers in the past, but not as a push into the GA
base as a push for GA alone.

With only a few major manufactures competing for the same customer base,
and in such a limited market, anytime this has been done, the pitch has
usually centered both on the positives of GA, AND as these positives
applied to the manufacturer's product.

Both Cessna and Piper have done the introductory pilot program and
sponsored the "Flight Center" concept. I don't recall any major
manufacturer advertising or promoting the concept of GA without a
product tie in.

I believe there are industries that do general activity advertising but
to my knowledge aviation might not have been one of them. I'm sure an
argument could be made for doing it, but I just can't see any of the
existing majors going that route. There might be some benefit, but none
that I personally can see that would justify the expenditure as opposed
to a pure product advertising program that includes the benefits of
enjoying what GA has to offer as a residual or peripheral built into the
advertising push.


--
Dudley Henriques

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA?
Not to promote Piper, to promote GA?

Well, GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association) already exists and
could be one organization around which such generic promotion might happen:

http://www.gama.aero/home.php

Likewise EAA and AOPA both are vendor neutral organizations that I believe
attempt such promotion.

Also, I found this web site that deals with a few aspects of sport aviation
marketing:

http://www.sportaviationmarketing.com/

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:39:09 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:37 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:


This is where we differ. You're a salesman, I am an owner who sells.
Guess what very important piece of the customer/client cycle you missed.
it gave you away as a salesman, not an owner.

Collection.

First - I am not a salesman nor do I play one on TV. I did not even
stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

But you feel that you can lecture about sales without being one.
Interesting. Got any words of wisdom on plyometrics?

Second-- If you read, you'd see the last step is "Transaction."

By definition a "transaction" is X in exchange for Y.

Get it?

As a non-seller and a non-owner, you're the one that doesn't get it. A
transaction does not necessitate an exchange.

I'm not alone in contending that GA is doing a very poor job in every
stage of the sales process.

Considering that I have posted exactly that 3-4 times in this thread
alone....

No, you haven't.

You're having a bad day/week/year, regardless, get off the booze.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:05:52 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

This is a fundamental failure that has to be laid at the feet of the
Cessnas of the world. Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA? Not
to promote Piper, to promote GA?

Competitors in most any underexposed market, when faced with entry level
barriers, have found that it is a strong economic model to *first*
promote their market (GA); let the competition begin...when there are
folks to compete for.

It's an interesting concept for sure, and to some extent has been done
by the major manufacturers in the past, but not as a push into the GA
base as a push for GA alone.

With only a few major manufactures competing for the same customer base,
and in such a limited market, anytime this has been done, the pitch has
usually centered both on the positives of GA, AND as these positives
applied to the manufacturer's product.

Both Cessna and Piper have done the introductory pilot program and
sponsored the "Flight Center" concept. I don't recall any major
manufacturer advertising or promoting the concept of GA without a
product tie in.

You would think that this limited competition would be the perfect
market scenario to push GA, the $$$ spent wouldn't get spread to 50 or
100 potential competitors. Piper or Cessnas chances of receiving direct
benefits would be enhanced, not like pushing "soap" to find that the
consumer has 100 brands to choose from.

Dudley, I'm going to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. They have
been at this quite a while so there must be something we are missing.
the concept and the organization of such an effort is not that difficult
with so few players.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:14:21 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA?
Not to promote Piper, to promote GA?

Well, GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association) already exists and
could be one organization around which such generic promotion might happen:

http://www.gama.aero/home.php

Thx, looks like the pieces are there but their agenda doesn't reflect
any communal advertising effort for GA. They appear to be more of a
collective power brokering ops.

http://www.gama.aero/aboutGAMA/agenda.php

http://www.gama.aero/aboutGAMA/organ...lStructure.php
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:14:21 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

Likewise EAA and AOPA both are vendor neutral organizations that I believe
attempt such promotion.

EAA gets a Thumbs Up for effort for sure. AOPA too, great value for the
$$$

Also, I found this web site that deals with a few aspects of sport aviation
marketing:

http://www.sportaviationmarketing.com/

I think the guy died, Jim. No updates for two years
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Maxwell wrote:
"news.chi.sbcglobal.net" wrote in message
. net...
While I agree that humor can be a very valuable teaching tool, I find it
works best in one-on-one or small group situations where it can be
tailored to the specific audience.

Unfortunately, in his writings, I find that some of Mr. Machado's humor
falls into the "silly" category, and does not appeal to me at all. This
is not to take anything away from the "meat" of Mr. Machado's writing,
which I usually find quite valuable.

Having learned everything I have needed to provide me with a successful
career as a computer programmer from reading nothing but very dry
documentation, I personally find that written humor is generally a
turn-off for me when I am trying to learn a complicated subject. As Joe
Friday would say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

And now that this is settled, let's move on to that high-wing vs.
low-wing thing, shall we ;-)



I agree with you and Larry. Most of the instructors I have encountered
with a sense of humor, have a very strong tendency to laugh ONLY at their
own jokes.

Kind of like Dudley, doesn't have much interest in any opinion other than
his own.



Not true. I share opinion with people all the time on Usenet. In fact, the
computer I'm writing this on was purchased to do just that.

No you don't, you use it to promote your self created image.


Perhaps the reason I don't share opinion with you personally is that all
you seem capable of offering in the way of "opinion" are posts like this
one; non aviation oriented, and simply a totally ineffective and uncalled
for jab in the ribs.
There's no "opinion" to be shared with people like you. Only back and
forth flames that achieve absolutely nothing of use to the forum, or to me
personally. :-)


Why bother, trying to discuss anything with someone like you is about as
productive as arguing with a Japanese radio.

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:05:52 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

This is a fundamental failure that has to be laid at the feet of the
Cessnas of the world. Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA? Not
to promote Piper, to promote GA?

Competitors in most any underexposed market, when faced with entry level
barriers, have found that it is a strong economic model to *first*
promote their market (GA); let the competition begin...when there are
folks to compete for.

It's an interesting concept for sure, and to some extent has been done
by the major manufacturers in the past, but not as a push into the GA
base as a push for GA alone.

With only a few major manufactures competing for the same customer base,
and in such a limited market, anytime this has been done, the pitch has
usually centered both on the positives of GA, AND as these positives
applied to the manufacturer's product.

Both Cessna and Piper have done the introductory pilot program and
sponsored the "Flight Center" concept. I don't recall any major
manufacturer advertising or promoting the concept of GA without a
product tie in.

You would think that this limited competition would be the perfect
market scenario to push GA, the $$$ spent wouldn't get spread to 50 or
100 potential competitors. Piper or Cessnas chances of receiving direct
benefits would be enhanced, not like pushing "soap" to find that the
consumer has 100 brands to choose from.

Dudley, I'm going to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. They have
been at this quite a while so there must be something we are missing.
the concept and the organization of such an effort is not that difficult
with so few players.

The concept I believe could have merit if the manufacturers could find a
way to work together. One of the main issues as far as the flight
training venue is concerned is the fact that the training aircraft fleet
in large part consists of aging used airplanes of extremely mixed type.
Also, CFI's, the heart of the training program, are for a large part of
the community part time employees.
The entire training community is fairly unstable, and advertizing in any
general manner to attract people into this market could be quite a
complicated chore.
I believe that the negatives in the training venue need serious overhaul
before any generalized promotion would be effective.
I know I'm painting a fairly dark picture of all these issues. As a CFI
advising in the training community, I sincerely wish the picture was a
bit brighter and more stable.
I do agree with you, considering the overhaul I'm discussing here, that
if this was accomplished, a mass promotion program by the majors could
have positive results within the industry.

--
Dudley Henriques

Maxwell wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Maxwell wrote:
"news.chi.sbcglobal.net" wrote in message
. net...
While I agree that humor can be a very valuable teaching tool, I find it
works best in one-on-one or small group situations where it can be
tailored to the specific audience.

Unfortunately, in his writings, I find that some of Mr. Machado's humor
falls into the "silly" category, and does not appeal to me at all. This
is not to take anything away from the "meat" of Mr. Machado's writing,
which I usually find quite valuable.

Having learned everything I have needed to provide me with a successful
career as a computer programmer from reading nothing but very dry
documentation, I personally find that written humor is generally a
turn-off for me when I am trying to learn a complicated subject. As Joe
Friday would say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

And now that this is settled, let's move on to that high-wing vs.
low-wing thing, shall we ;-)


I agree with you and Larry. Most of the instructors I have encountered
with a sense of humor, have a very strong tendency to laugh ONLY at their
own jokes.

Kind of like Dudley, doesn't have much interest in any opinion other than
his own.


Not true. I share opinion with people all the time on Usenet. In fact, the
computer I'm writing this on was purchased to do just that.

No you don't, you use it to promote your self created image.

Perhaps the reason I don't share opinion with you personally is that all
you seem capable of offering in the way of "opinion" are posts like this
one; non aviation oriented, and simply a totally ineffective and uncalled
for jab in the ribs.
There's no "opinion" to be shared with people like you. Only back and
forth flames that achieve absolutely nothing of use to the forum, or to me
personally. :-)


Why bother, trying to discuss anything with someone like you is about as
productive as arguing with a Japanese radio.





Sorry you feel this way.
Best to you anyway.


--
Dudley Henriques