WBCCI MOHO Poll

[Minnie's Mate]

Originally Posted by Over59

The plastic MH built by Aistream were built by Airstream, the Mandalay plastic MH are not built by Airstream. There, that wasn't hard at all was it?

Next Brain Teaser please.

Simple, direct, to the point.

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by Pat370

How is the Airstream Edition of the Mandalay MH any different from the plastic MH's that Airsteam produced over the last ten years.

Think about it,

Pat370

Significantly different? they aren't.

well...I guess it depends on whom you ask. Others seem to put a LOT of significance on the objects origins, distribution and support network.

but if you took a bunch of these MHs, put 'em in a field, and removed the badging from them, I doubt that there would be many of us that could correctly identify which was which.

[Minnie's Mate]

Originally Posted by chuck

but if you took a bunch of these MHs, put 'em in a field, and removed the badging from them, I doubt that there would be many of us that could correctly identify which was which.

I agree with you there. If you've seen one brick, you've seen them all. Like Pink Floyd said, "Oll in Oll, It's just a nuther brick in the Woll."

But it does make a difference where the brick comes from when you are talking about the WBCCI.

[Pat370]

Yea I'v Got it, something like automobiles etc.

Ford and Mercury and then GM genaric Chevrolet, Pontiac,and Buick all with the same body and running
gear.

Pat370

PS do you think that Thor really cares about WBCCI

[mistral blue]

No. Next brain teaser please

[Minnie's Mate]

Originally Posted by Pat370

PS do you think that Thor really cares about WBCCI

Only that WBCCI is a conduit to current Airstream owners and thus a potential market for new purchases down the road. But you would think that they would get more bang for their buck from other marketing outlets.

When you think about it, almost all advertising in the Blue Beret is from dealers, not Airstream, Inc. so there is not a lot of marketing expense to Thor, but on the other hand, with so many WBCCI members already retired and not likely to purchase another new unit, in vintage units, etc., you'd think there wouldn't be much of a market through WBCCI after all.

It'd be nice to see the kind of Airstream advertising in the consumer magazines that you used to see in Airstream's earlier heyday. I think Airstream is in another heyday since they can hardly make production as it is now, though.

[wkerfoot]

Originally Posted by Minnie's Mate

Only that WBCCI is a conduit to current Airstream owners and thus a potential market for new purchases down the road. But you would think that they would get more bang for their buck from other marketing outlets.

When you think about it, almost all advertising in the Blue Beret is from dealers, not Airstream, Inc. so there is not a lot of marketing expense to Thor, but on the other hand, with so many WBCCI members already retired and not likely to purchase another new unit, in vintage units, etc., you'd think there wouldn't be much of a market through WBCCI after all.

It'd be nice to see the kind of Airstream advertising in the consumer magazines that you used to see in Airstream's earlier heyday. I think Airstream is in another heyday since they can hardly make production as it is now, though.

But there must be a large number of WBCCI members who are in the market for a new RV, otherwise why would the IBT be pushing this motion?

Somewhere in the recordings is the statement that Thor/Airstream spends $100,000 with the WBCCI, through ads etc.

Regardless of what is said about the attractiveness and effectiveness of the Blue Beret, it does target an at at 6500+ Airstream owners and families.

Bill

[mistral blue]

Thor cares about their stockholders and the bottom line. If given the opportunity, they will exploit the WBCCI to benefit their stockholders and increase their bottomline. $$$$$$

[Buttercup]

What I wonder about is a leadership who care so little about the single brand identity that they are willing to throw that out to allow these non-airstreams in. just which side of the fence are they really on/? Thor or WBCCI?

While you think about that, here is another question for ya.

How do you make firewood?

A: take a piece of whole wood
slowly tap a piece of wedge shaped metal into said piece of wood little by little until the big piece of wood becomes 2 pieces of wood.

That was a metaphor, any questions?

[wheel interested]

Rationale:

Come join our Airstream only club. OK Hey I like you, I want to spend time with you, but I don't want my Airstream anymore. Lets just make it about you and me. OK Oh wait we are the officers for all the members that joined an Airstream only club. Hmmm Let's say its an Airstream. OK

[Nuvite-F]

Thor cares about their stockholders and the bottom line. If given the opportunity, they will exploit the WBCCI to benefit their stockholders and increase their bottomline. $$$$$$

Before we get too hard on Thor, observe that this isn't Thor's fight. It's the members of the IBT who are trying to admit non-Airstream motor homes into the club because they can't buy new Airstream motor homes after the present inventory is gone.

I get the impression that many believe that Thor is a big, e-e-e-v-i-l conglomerate that just happens to have bought Airstream. That's not quite the case.

For starters, look up Thor the internet. Corporate headquarters: 419 West Pike Street, Jackson Center, Ohio. Hmmmmmm. . . sound familiar? As a matter of fact, Airstream, Incorporated's business address is also 419 West Pike Street, Jackson Center, Ohio.

Does this come as a surprise?

What happened is that Beatrice Foods bought Airstream in the late 60s and operated the company up till about 1980. The RV business wasn't good in the late 70's. Remember those days? High gas prices, 12-14% annual inflation, Jimmy Carter talking about the "national malaise". I don't know if Beatrice was looking for a buyer (or maybe thinking of closing Airstream down), but a couple of guys put together a deal and formed a holding company, Thor Industries, to buy Airstream from Beatrice. They did pretty well with Airstream, and a few years later started buying up other RV manufacturers, leading to their present stable.

The point of this is, to a considerable extent, Thor Industries is Airstream, and Airstream is still its flagship brand. And actually, I suspect Thor does care about WBCCI, because WBCCI is part of what makes Airstream, Airstream.

Cheers,
Nuvi

[Buttercup]

The point of this is, to a considerable extent, Thor Industries is Airstream, and Airstream is still its flagship brand. And actually, I suspect Thor does care about WBCCI, because WBCCI is part of what makes Airstream, Airstream.

I don't know. I think that this move for THOR represents sales and not much more. From that standpoint they care. But they were interested in bringing in all these other models as well - 5th wheels, class "C", etc... That just seems to me that it is sales that are #1 for them.
Also, they are well aware of our constitution and that several changes will have to be made to allow this in. They know that WBCCIO would be moving from a single brand club to a multi brand club.

As was mentioned a million times on this thread - "It will not be an airstream". That to me speaks volumes.

[bryanl]

This issue isn't just the Airstream brand, it is also about the type and style of RV. The reasons for owning the RV are also becoming a factor from what I can tell as well as there are a number of Airstream trailer owners whose primary ownership purpose isn't going out camping with their Airstream (collectors, restorers, and so on).

I get the impression that many believe that Thor is a big, e-e-e-v-i-l conglomerate that just happens to have bought Airstream. That's not quite the case.

It is what is polluting the atmosphere and doing much damage IMHO. Conspiracy theories, evil corporations, distrust, suspicion, reading bad motivations into opinions, separating out groups for derision, bypassing the membership by collecting support votes from even outside the membership while avoiding the usual means to hold such things accountable, biased poll questions that serve no visible purpose, finding offense even if it doesn't exist, wanting to censor elected persons from expressing viewpoints and parsing their every word for something to use for attack, ...

It is even down to rationalizing personal attacks on elected leaders in the organization (in another discussion elsewhere but same folks).

I don't think the methods being used to 'educate' those who want to stray from the current WBCCI identity are doing much to help the cause. Usually these methods tend to harden the opposition and discredit the point of view. That harms us all.

[Buttercup]

I don't think the methods being used to 'educate' those who want to stray from the current WBCCI identity are doing much to help the cause. Usually these methods tend to harden the opposition and discredit the point of view. That harms us all.

Ahh, really??? Strange, about 87% of the respondents to this poll are responding against this proposal. That is inline with the survey taken by WBCCI almost 3 years ago. All this despite the "Conspiracy theories" you seem to be speaking about.

I'll tell you what I think is not helping - the constant lectures about how we who are opposed to the dissolution of the WBCCI by bringing in non-airstream MOHO's are hurting ourselves. That remains to be seen as the delegates vote has yet to happen.

In thinking about your posts on this topic (and the name change issue of last year) I have come to a conclusion. Besides lecturing the opponents to this folly, I am not quite sure why you are repeatedly posting to this thread. I mean, it seems to me that you aren't really adding anything substantive to the topic, no opinions on the actual issue at hand or anything, just saying how some are Conspiracy theorist and stuff like that. This was the same thing with the name change issue of the past - lots of lectures, lots of accusing the opponents of the item at hand of being "Conspiracy theorists". But zero opinion for or against on the base issue.

How about this...No lectures, no suggestions that anybody is a Conspiracy theorist, why don't you simply state in 4 words or less if you are for or against WBCCI's current plans to accept a re-badged SOB Class "A" motor home in the club. I personally think you are in favor of allowing the THOR Rebadged MOHO's in because you seem to be toeing the company line as it were and that isn't a Conspiracy theory or anything, just the impression you give me. If you do support that, fine - just say so. Afterall, that's what this thread is really about.

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by Leipper

It is what is polluting the atmosphere and doing much damage IMHO. Conspiracy theories, evil corporations, distrust, suspicion, reading bad motivations into opinions, separating out groups for derision, bypassing the membership by collecting support votes from even outside the membership while avoiding the usual means to hold such things accountable, biased poll questions that serve no visible purpose, finding offense even if it doesn't exist, wanting to censor elected persons from expressing viewpoints and parsing their every word for something to use for attack, ...

It is even down to rationalizing personal attacks on elected leaders in the organization (in another discussion elsewhere but same folks).

You are complaining about negativity and making scurrilous claims unsupported and all the while it is not others but you that spread and inflame ill will. Leave the issues to be discussed without incessant accusations.

Address the issue, what do you think is the solution Brian? Work with some one--- on either side for purposes of good and leave out the slander. Stop critiquing individuals and get to work on the problem.

[munimula]

Originally Posted by 65GT

If that isn't enough for you just look at the quotes on page TWO of our Airstream Editions flier attached at the bottom of this post:

VOTE NO to Four Winds & Mandalay

__

I just email the flier to most of the members in my Unit. Thanks for your effort in putting the sheets together!

--Dave

[Over59]

Prehaps dealers should reconsider advertizing in the Blue Beret. Win Win. Sends a message to the Holy Higher Than Thou's, Thor, and takes the legs out from under the rag. Maybe even replace it and the HHTT IBT.

[bryanl]

Objecting to "constant lectures" - is this a way to say you only want to hear those opinions and views that fit yours? Is this kind of complaint showing the 'Wally Way' tolerance of other viewpoints? Is the remark about the character of the message (i.e. the person) an appropriate means to address the topic and issue?

You are complaining about negativity and making scurrilous claims unsupported

I provide direct quote when I can and reference when a quote would get too personal (IMHO). This, in most circles, is considered rational and appropriate support for comment.

Work with some one--- on either side for purposes of good and leave out the slander. Stop critiquing individuals and get to work on the problem.

As it is, I am working with others and have been for a long time. But I am doing so within the system, within the WBCCI Code of Ethics (as best I can), and within the guidelines for these forums. This particular issue has been one where progress has been made that is now being killed and that does hurt. A lot of good will and awareness work is being tossed down the drain.

The stuff about slander, "scurrilous claims," and other things about me personnally I think I should leave alone as they really speak for themselves. Such methods seem to characterize the propsed new tone of WBCCI and that is something I think should be carefully considered. When will we see a re-write of the code of ethics proposed for this, I wonder?

The fact is that there are accountability mechanisms being circumvented. The most important of these is that club proposals are to be vested by member approval starting with either a Unit of the club or the IBT. When accountability mechanisms are circumvented the result is usually not good.

What is interesting and should be noted is what was missed in the reply to my last post. Rather than addressing either the start of my post, which supported those who started this thread, the latter part was picked on - and that in a manner that did not address the topic I raised. That topic was the means by which the proponents behind the views can educate those who do not agree with them.

As for the part listing what I see is most damaging and its response, it makes me think of Cinderella - if the shoe fits ... THINK!

[jimmickle]

Brian,

Are you for or against the proposal?? I am against it, as I was the AOAII name change. I really don't understand the rational for the proposal, even after several discussions with a past international president. In fact, we have a dinner bet on the outcome of the vote. I expect to enjoy a fine dinner on his plastic. Another past president that I talked to recently also expects it to pass.

[bryanl]

Are you for or against the proposal??

I don't consider it the significant issue at this time and don't think this is the proper venue. It's day will come and has been building for quite a while. I tend to agree with your assessment on the outcome. But I think it critical to try to get a handle on the values and standards and reasons behind it. Those influence many other things, some of which are more important to the organization.

One of the presenters at the Salem I'rally took off on nuance and responsibility when I offered an immediate context example for his presentation. It was towards my not understanding the nuance and not having the responsibility to be better informed. In retrospect I am seeing this as a knee jerk response of a rather gifted professional towards the complaints or criticism he had received about WBCCI in his field of expertise and experience.

This proposal is presented here as an oversimplification (IMHO) as have several others been recently. It is accompanied by 'with us or agin' us' challenges that short circuit finding out what is really behind the proposals, finding more effective solutions, and all that other 'nuance' stuff. It is indeed also accompanied by what I think to be an ignorance and lack of responsibility. I think I see what the I'Rally presenter may have been thinking and what he was reacting to.

What's the goal? our goal? To segregate the other guys from us 'good guys' or to bring them into the fold? Are we seeking to polarize and divide or are we seeking to build collegiality and a common identity? All it takes is rephrasing the question. Instead of 'with us or agin' us' maybe it should be a 'how can we get together on this?' What do you think? What approach should be typical in the club you would want to be a part of?