APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-02 > 1201886839


From: "Mary Louise Fitzpatrick" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] The Use of Tiers
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:27:19 -0500
References: <d48.1f58d49b.34d1f917@aol.com><200801302134.m0ULYOZH019671@host.grillsbypaulwall.com><002c01c86391$ce47d140$6701a8c0@heirlines><BAY129-W163C4D99006CF6EDC2EB09A5370@phx.gbl><002101c86435$b20bc820$6701a8c0@heirlines>
In-Reply-To: <002101c86435$b20bc820$6701a8c0@heirlines>


I think James Petty's email cuts through a lot of the clutter that has
arisen around this issue. What he is saying is that he has marketing goals
and various plans to achieve those goals and he wants APG to become a more
prominent part of those plans. Just as one can purchase the ability to come
in at the top of the list in a Google search, he wants to purchase
the ability to come in at the top of a list in a potential client's search
of the APG website. Whether through tiered memberships, paying a higher
level of dues, etc., he and those who support these actions are looking
for more prominent placing in what is now what they see as too level
a playing field when a client looks for a researcher on the APG site. He
and those who support a "tiered" (or whatever we are currently calling the
proposed changes) approach seem to think that, because professional
genealogy is their main source of income, they should have more prominence
on the website.

I have an MBA and thoroughly support our capitalist system and James Petty's
right to market his business as he sees fit. However, I think we need to be
very clear about the issue as it relates to APG. This is not so much about
protecting potential clients from incompetent researchers. It is about
using the APG website as a marketing tool that would point those potential
clients through the clutter that some feel the current level playing field
presents and in the direction of a select few researchers. If it were about
protecting the consumer, numerous ways for APG to do that have already been
suggested - education, cautionary advice,recommendations to interview more
than one researcher, ask for samples of work, check years and type of
experience to make sure it fits your needs, etc. Perhaps this is a red
state-blue state difference in philosophy (oooohhh, maybe not a good thing
to say in our present politically charged times), but I think clients, in
most cases, can be assumed to be intelligent adults who are able to make
rational decisions if presented with adequate education and information.
They do not have to be led by the hand on the APT website to a select
group of researchers.

Lest some of you think I am exhibiting some insecurity, let me say that
except for certification - which I dither back and forth about seeking - I
think I would score pretty high on all the other modes of measurement that
have been proposed. Also, from the informal surveys I have done, I don't
think APG is the primary source of my clients. What bothers me so much is
that we are cloaking this issue in the guise of "protecting the consumer".
It is really about whether the APG wants to play the role of using its
website to promote the businesses of some professional genealogists over
others. I believe Mr. Petty said in a previous email that the reason APG
was begun was to promote genealogists' businesses. IF that is what APG
wants to go back to, then let's be honest and say that is what it is going
back to. But let's be clear that that is the issue and not try to back-door
that result by talking about consumer protection - as noted above and in a
vast number of other emails, there are many, many more productive ways to do
focus on consumer protection and client education.

The Jones article opens with the statement that the APG "faces an
adolescent identity crisis". Others in their emails have made statements to
the effect that APG is broken or needs change. I don't know - is it in
crisis, is it broken, how much change does it need??? Before we start
proposing solutions, let's determine if there is a problem and what that
problem is. If the problem is simply helping some professional genealogists
better market their businesses or cut through the competition, then let's
address that and see if it's APG's role to do so. If the problem is more
consumer education, then let's address that - but let's not muddle the two
until we have addressed what the problem is and what APG's role is - or
should be.

Mary Louise Fitzpatrick
On Jan 31, 2008 1:18 PM, James W. Petty <> wrote:

> The discussion of tiers, at this point, is just a discussion. APG will do
> what it deems best for the organization. But to let you know why
> classification is important to me, let me explain my business day. While
> many members of APG do professional genealogy on occasion as an interesting
> project comes up, or simply to assist friends and neighbors with their
> research, my goal every day is to complete a client project and mail it out,
> every day. Each day part of my time is contacting people on the phone,
> mining my old client list, writing articles (many for free), Speaking at
> seminars (all of which provide much less than my fee), and doing whatever I
> can to attract at least one new client per day. My goal is to attract 30 or
> more clients per month, and report to thirty or more clients per month. I
> work with about a dozen sub-contrator researchers to accomplish assignment,
> but I co-ordinate all of the research that goes out, and evaluate all of the
> new projects that come in. Each of my researchers get credit for their
> work, and sign the reports, but my name is on every report as well, because
> the buck stops with me.
>
> This isn't the way many members of APG approach professional genealogy
> research. You can see why I am concerned about researchers following a
> professional genealogy course to achieve education, certifications,
> training, experience, and memberships, because I am out in the public all of
> the time, and what I offer, and what the researchers that work with me need
> to offer is a level of expertise that the public can depend upon.
>
> This ad has been approved and brought to your by James W. Petty. Oh,
> sorry, I guess I've watched too many political commercials. :)
>
> James W. Petty, AG(R), CGSM, B.A. (History), B.S. (Genealogy)
> Ancestors are the People of History. Do you know who yours are?
> Let the Professionals at HEIRLINES Family History & Genealogy find your
> Ancestry!
> 1-800-570-4049 ▪ www.heirlines.com ▪ PO Box 893 ▪ Salt Lake City, UT
> 84110
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Heather Henderson [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:58 AM
> To: James W. Petty;
> Subject: RE: [APG] The Use of Tiers
>
> Mountain climbing, especially in our lovely Rocky Mountains, is a funny
> thing. There have been many times when I really and truly thought I'd
> finally reached the top, only to look right or left and see that I was
> merely at yet another switchback which was so steep as to be previously
> invisible. Talk about mixed feelings. Climbing the Sangre De Cristos in
> Colorado I "summited" 3 times in two hours. So I think that this is a very
> apt analogy for our profession, Jim. It's quite a hike, and there are many
> opportunities to summit and many beautiful vistas to enjoy. Some climbers
> may be in better shape than others, not huffing and puffing at the slightest
> census. But we shouldn't go pushing each other off of cliffs.
>
> I think our energy is better spent on educating the customer about what
> those peaks in our profession *mean* to them as a buyer, rather than
> creating further classifications of climbers. If they are looking for a
> technical mountain climber who's been to Mt. Everest and back, they need to
> understand the mountain before they can understand the climber. And I think
> those measurements are already in place, the customer just doesn't
> understand them. That's where our marketing skills need to step in and
> convince the customer that our education, experience, and technical skill is
> precisely suited for their needs. I think the APG has made great strides to
> improve the directory and I think that the EC is willing to allocate
> programming budget to improving it, if that is what is truly needed, and to
> educating customers with our collateral materials.
>
> Maybe what you're really asking for is more exposure for our field so that
> the consumer can be more educated in their decisions, so they really value
> the education and experience you've worked so hard for. If so, I think that
> is a fabulous activity and we should put our heads together to make a
> realistic action plan around that, rather than figuring out a way to
> restructure the membership.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> > From:
> > To:
> > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:45:25 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [APG] The Use of Tiers
> >
> > I agree with Craig about the value of tiers as a way of illustrating the
> self development of researchers involved in the profession of genealogy.
> Isn't this one of the purposes of APG, to provide information to the public
> about the Professional Genealogists that APG represents. It accomplishes
> nothing if APG presents all professional genealogists on a name and address
> basis only. The public has a right to know the accomplishments and
> background of the members of this organization. Education, certifications,
> certificates, experience, and training, are all credentials people have to
> earn, and they should be recognized and respected for those efforts. There
> will be others who will scream "It's not fair! We are professionals as good
> as they are. Why shouldn't we have as much authority in our presentation as
> they do?! The answer is: when someone climbs to the top of the mountain,
> those standing at the bottom can't claim the accomplishment without climbing
> it themselves. Those who claim they are as good without making the effort
> are all words only. That's why I spend so much of my time encouraging people
> to recognize a standard for professional genealogy that requires education,
> certifications, memberships, training, experience, and participation. My
> goal is to be on the top of the mountain. I don't agree with everything that
> APG does or says, but I participate with APG because they are the only
> organizations the represents me as a professional, and provide a statement
> of ethics I can sign and be judged by. Therefore I hope to meet many of you
> at the top of the mountain.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely Yours,
> >
> >
> > James W. Petty, AG(R), CGSM, B.A. (History), B.S. (Genealogy)
> > Ancestors are the People of History. Do you know who yours are?
> > Let the Professionals at HEIRLINES Family History & Genealogy find your
> Ancestry!
> > 1-800-570-4049 ▪ www.heirlines.com ▪ PO Box 893 ▪ Salt Lake City, UT
> 84110
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [mailto:] On
> Behalf Of Craig Scott
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:34 PM
> > To: ;
> > Subject: [APG] E: The Use of Tiers
> >
> > My experience is just the opposite. Tiers only existed to describe where
> > someone was on the professional path of self-development. Everybody had
> the
> > same dues and the same voting rights. But then you did not introduce
> > yourself as a senior member or any other kind of member for that matter.
> I
> > think if you did you would have been laughed off the stage. Everyone
> > realized that it was a self-paced checklist. And there were so few
> Fellows
> > that everyone knew who they were long before they were Fellows, since
> their
> > contribution was that huge.
> >
> > In other words it was not a category of membership, but just a way that
> you
> > could tell where you were in the self-development process and be
> recognized
> > by the group for your toil and tribulation. To accomplish a level was an
> > achievement that was appreciated and recognized by the Society.
> >
> > C.
> >
> > Craig R. Scott, CG
> > President and CEO
> > Heritage Books, Inc.
> > 65 East Main Street
> > Westminster, MD 21157
> > 800 876-6103
> >
> >
> > 2758 books in print and growing. Visit www.HeritageBooks.com<http://www.heritagebooks.com/>;
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [mailto:] On
> Behalf
> > Of
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:00 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [APG] The Use of Tiers
> >
> > I do not think that we fear being categorized. The question is what are
> > the
> > categories going to be used for.
> > All the organizations I know or have belonged to use the categories to
> > define membership privileges. Otherwise why create them.
> >
> > So a Senior Member / Full Member would have all privileges and full
> voting
> > rights The are responsible for the direction and activities of the o
> > rganization
> >
> > Jr. Members would have something less that full privileges like maybe
> > able
> > to vote for the Board of Directors but not the Officers.
> >
> > Associate Members - usually have no voting rights or say in organization
> > matters but support the organization through their dues
> >
> > Student Members - usually no voting rights and have a reduced dues.
> >
> > Julia Coldren-Walker
> >
> >
> >
> > **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
> > http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in
> > the subject and the body of the message
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
> ________________________________________
> Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail(R)-get
> your "fix". Check it out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: