This is topic BKSTS Membership drive in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=008542

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-02-2007, 11:54 AM:
 
Today I recieved an email regarding a drive to increase membership in the BKSTS and with their permision I have posted it here
Their magazine Cinema Technology and Image Technology are excellent sources of information

quote

Dear members,



As you have been made aware by the recent letter from the President and Council, the Society has hit a financial low point. This has happened before and we have weathered the storm with the help of our members and sponsors.



You, as members of the Society, can be of enormous help at this moment in time. If each of you were to recruit at least one new member the Society's income would instantly double!



Surely, either work colleagues or friends would benefit from becoming members and joining this well-respected and distinguished body of professional people who are the basis of the crafts and skills of the film and broadcast industries.



In eager anticipation, I have attached a membership application form which can be posted or faxed to us – or the deed can be done on-line at http://www.bksts.com/index-membership.htm



I look forward to your replies



Best regards



Wendy
 

---

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 03-02-2007, 12:30 PM:
 
Gordon,

Do you feel that the associate level of membership would benefit many of our Film-Tech friends?

I think the magazine and the access to information would be very helpful. I doubt that many US memberships could benefit from meetings unless they were to organize chapters here in the US.

As a former member of the IEEE, we had a local chapter of about 25 engineers who met regularly for dinner and a speaker. The one speaker was the engineer who designed the electrical systems for the Mackinaw Bridge. Another was chief engineer for several radio stations and discussed how directional tower arrays were monitored.

If there was a chapter of your group here, we could have similar speakers on the topics of film and video.

What is the cost in $US for the lowest grade of membership?

Thanks
KEN
 

---

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 03-02-2007, 12:46 PM:
 
Umm, what does BKSTS stand for? (Their website doesn't say!)
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-02-2007, 01:04 PM:
 
British Kinematograph, Sound and Television Society. Or is it Kinomatograph; I can never remember.
 

---

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 03-02-2007, 01:14 PM:
 
The British Kinematograph, Sound and Television Society.

Gordon,

You will find another email sent out alarming! I received mine an hour ago.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 03-02-2007, 06:10 PM:
 
Bernard,
the new e-mail about the (please take it off our hands)hoped for merger with SMPTE and the back room deals are disturbing. I belong to both groups and they have strong points in different portions of the tech side which is good....like going to different hardware stores based on their specialty....instead of take or leave it Home Depot.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-02-2007, 10:28 PM:
 
which is why the membership either grows to suport itself or it will fail
As a group it cannot live in the past and has tried to move forward but it cannot be a fossil organization that only lives in its past
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-02-2007, 10:37 PM:
 
After MANY years of SMPTE and BKSTS membership, I've decided NOT to renew in either anymore.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-03-2007, 10:08 AM:
 
Phil; I'm on the same page you are. Louis
 

---

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 03-03-2007, 10:35 AM:
 
Phil and Louis,

As a manager of the Hollywood Section of SMPTE, I would sincerely like to know your reasons for not wanting to renew membership.
If we get constructive information, we can try to make this membership more attractive.

Thanks,
Dick May
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-03-2007, 12:59 PM:
 
I let my BKSTS membership lapse, probably around 5-6 years ago now, the basic reason being that I didn't think the membership benefits justified the subscription. What it buys you is effectively a small discount on their training courses, plus the journals, plus one or two other things which are only really relevant if you live in or close to London (e.g. the members' evening events). Given that the training courses, as things stand, are not in areas that would directly benefit me, I can read the journals in the library of the university where I now work and I don't live near London, it doesn't really seem worth it.

At the moment I only belong to one professional body - AMIA. Their individual membership is a fantastic bargain. If anything, I think AMIA probably sells itself a bit short, but the individual membership rates are deliberately kept as low as possible in order to encourage people who are interested in, but not working directly in, the field, to join too. AMIA membership costs $75 (£39) a year, and includes a big discount on the conference registration, plus a journal subscription, plus one or two bits and pieces. The discount on the conference registration is almost as big as the membership fee itself, meaning that if you attend the conference, you effectively get your year's membership for free.

Membership of the BKSTS costs over double that, at £92 ($169), they don't organise a big international conference, and as far as I can see the only substantial benefit is the subscription to the two journals. Added to which, I can't really see what the difference is between full and associate membership (it's not the price, at any rate).

The BKSTS has done a lot of good work and I wish it well. Its reference library of technical publications, which is housed at the British Universities' Film and Video Council (which, as an employee of a BUFVC member institution, I had access to), was a literally invaluable research resource when I was writing my book Moving Image Technology (that wasn't a shameless plug - honest!), and I think there's scope for them to try to develop a higher profile in the area of professional standards and advocacy. For example, if a talking head 'expert' appeared on the BBC news with a soundbite every time there was a media technology-related story in the headlines, they'd get both exposure and kudos.

But with individual subscriptions at that level, I'm not surprised that they're struggling to recruit members. One possibility might be to introduce institutional as well as individual memberships, or to try and negotiate deals with big employers (e.g. cinema chains) to sell bulk memberships for staff. One advantage of this approach is that the workload is lower than trying to recruit lots more individual members.

The bottom line? If the subscription was in the ballpark of £50 and they did stuff north of the M25, I'd rejoin like a shot.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 03-04-2007, 02:56 PM:
 
Whilst it's understandable to join professional organisations with a view to seeing what might be available to members, there is another approach, which is to consider what one might bring to such organisations as a member.

In other words, an active approach, rather than a passive one. Within that, the value of membership fees are then measured against how these structures facilitate people to develop their skills, learn more and make their own contributions to furthering the art and craft of, in this case, motion picture presentation.

I have to say that measured in those terms, membership of organisations such as the BKSTS and the SMPTE provide extremely good value IMHO.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-04-2007, 03:15 PM:
 
Agreed to an extent. All these professional bodies depend on voluntary work for their existence. Their members are motivated to do the voluntary work for a number of reasons, the main ones being (i) being altruistically motivated to make a contribution to the profession or field, or (ii) career advancement - wanting something to stick on their CV. There are also members who don't join because they want to make an active contribution per se (iii), but because the material benefits of membership represent good value for money.

Probably around 80% of the AMIA membership join because of (iii) - i.e. they don't get involved in committees and interest groups, or speak on panels at the conference or write in the journals. Stick the membership subscriptions up too far, and you're going to lose these people. This will also act as a disincentive for (i) and (ii) - having to pay for the privilege of doing the voluntary work, especially for younger professionals on lower salaries.

I agree with you that the goal of any professional body should always be to increase the ratio of (i)s and (ii)s to (iii)s. But if you push the membership subscriptions up beyond a certain point, you're going to start eroding your core revenue stream, i.e. the non-engaged members who work out that the benefits are worth the dues. At the moment, individual membership of the BKSTS costs roughly double that of membership of a comparable professional body. I'd therefore speculate that this is putting a significant number of potential members off.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-04-2007, 03:28 PM:
 
I was a member of the SMPTE for a while, but let it lapse. Primarily because the dues kept going up and the motion picture information in the Journal kept going down.

Truly, I would've loved to join the BKSTS -- and I followed the link Gordon posted with a mind to do so -- but as Leo mentioned, the cost is just too great.

I can't swing $169 a year for what amounts to 4 issues of a magazine.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-04-2007, 04:44 PM:
 
I think this might be an issue with all such societies (dues too great for what a member gets out of it).

I belong to the SMPTE and have for years...I too find the costs very high for what I get out of it. In fact, I'm on the P-3 (Film Projection Technology). Which as others have stated....requires voluntary effort for no compensation or any other special benefits.

However, I also belong to the IEEE (Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers). They are even MORE expensive.

Nearest I can figure, most memberships are paid for by the companies that members work for. There are tax deductions to be had for the professional organizations in the USA too to offset some of the expense.

However, if people did not participate or even have such organizations as the SMPTE, IEEE or BKSTS...where would the standards come from? The Government?....very scary! Or perhaps there wouldn't be standards.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-05-2007, 01:27 AM:
 
Diversification has to be the key to any non-profit's long-term financial security. If you rely too much on one income stream, then in lean years you can have a big problem. As I say, the only one of these bodies I have any real experience of is AMIA, which is built on three basic streams of revenue: membership subscriptions (individual and institutional), an operating profit made on the annual conference and corporate sponsorship (usually for specific events and initiatives). If you have a bad year for one, then hopefully the other two will cushion the blow.

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Nearest I can figure, most memberships are paid for by the companies that members work for.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

There are tax deductions to be had for the professional organizations in the USA too to offset some of the expense.

---

quote: Tim Reed

---

I was a member of the SMPTE for a while, but let it lapse. Primarily because the dues kept going up and the motion picture information in the Journal kept going down.

Truly, I would've loved to join the BKSTS -- and I followed the link Gordon posted with a mind to do so -- but as Leo mentioned, the cost is just too great.

I can't swing $169 a year for what amounts to 4 issues of a magazine.

---

Understood Tim, but just to let you know, BKSTS Membership gives automatic Subscription to both Journals of the Society - Image Technology and Cinema Technology. The former is published 6 times a year; the latter quarterly, yielding ten publications per annum. Membership also yields discounts on Publications and Wallcharts, on Training Courses and Seminars, on attendance at BKSTS Events, gives access to information and advice, affords networking oportunities, facilitates input into Standards setting, promoting excellence, and much more!

SMPTE offers the same kind of benefits...it really is about much more than simply receiving Journals. As for the reduction in Motion Picture content in the Journal of the SMPTE, well surely this is a reflection of how digital technology as a new technology "leverages" much higher coverage because simply there is so much more being developed in that area right now, since Film is a mature technology. But there are still learned papers appearing on new film stock developments, for example, and there is a fine account of The Evolution of the Cinema Lens in the current Journal, which is being published as a series.

I do feel that membership of these organisations is extremely valuable, and maybe the task is to communicate the "bigger picture", and the real value of what it is all about, more effectively.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Bachlund (Member # 124) on 03-06-2007, 06:55 PM:
 
Dick has asked several posters their reasons for not wanting to renew their memberships.

In my opinion, SMPTE today is geared toward the “digital revolution” and has left the film world behind, something with which we cannot necessarily take issue.

However, the vast majority of screens in today’s market remain film screens, and SMPTE is the US technological resource. In this connection, perhaps EG-18 will one day be revived to complement the other great engineering guidelines and recommended practices.

Meanwhile, SMPTE membership offers access to and support of cutting edge technical excellence for those who seek it. BKSTS remains more “film friendly,” and is, accordingly, more rooted in the past (and, dare I say, in reality?). The joint membership offer, at $280, is neither out of reach nor unreasonable when viewed in light of other technical societies. For example, the IEEE is currently $161.

Accordingly, I have juggled my finances and opted to renew my SMPTE/BKSTS membership instead of going to ShoWest this year. While I will miss many friendly contacts over a two or three day period, I will look forward to a full year of technological news and entertainment, both digital and film.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-06-2007, 07:32 PM:
 
For me, even though I'm a "Film Guy", it's not so much that I'm not interested in new technologies... I am. I think Cinema TV is great and the wave of the future. I've done a lot of cutting-edge design and installs with that technology in special venue theatres and simulator rides starting in the 1990's.

I agree with some others here about the value of a membership for the $$$ spent... for me, it doesn't make sense. I don't see enough return for my investment; especially when there are plenty of inet sites that can keep one better informed than the "societies". While the professional committees are indeed worthwhile to set the standards, the monthly meetings seem more like a social club to glad hand and watch some POS movie or boring speaker yapping about something (I'm personally NOT interested in)

A few things I found disheartening about the Hollywood SMPTE section is the BORING programs that were/are booked. I mean like this month... WTF cares about the what it takes to schedule the films on TCM? I SURE the fuck don't!

Another thing that REALLY bugged me about the Hollywood SMPTE is the CONSTANT self promotion and advertisement of the Chair (Patricia Keighley) for the IMAX company she works for... JFC! Do we REALLY NEED to see that signature on EVERY FUCKING email!!!!!!

I do however think there are MANY talented, professional, and dedicated "Managers" there who have impeccable credentials and I highly respect.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-06-2007, 07:45 PM:
 
I don't know how EG-18 could be properly revived without bringing up the same problems which brought about its demise. That is, if you come up with a document that gives good technical reasons for how to design a theatre (sightlines, acoustics...etc) that it will somehow try to be perverted into being a document that some will try to use in a legal sense. That is, if there is a document that detail the right way...if you deviate, you must be doing it the wrong way.

The SMPTE has always tried to provide RECOMMENDED practices and Engineering GUIDLINES not Laws. The ANSI/SMPTE standards were for those things that had to be uniform for all systems to properly handle/reproduce items. For instance, film dimensions and such...if there were no Standards, cameras/projectors...processing equipment...you name it would have to be different for every willy nilly system. The film systems of today would never had made it this far without standards.

RPs are just that...things you should do or ways to accomplish a standard. Most people are familiar with the test film described in RP40 (RP40 is really the document, 35PA and 35IQ are described in the document). The test film and RP came about in order to comply with ANSI/SMPTE 195 the projectable image area standard. Yeah it is great that S195 tells us how big the projectable image areas are...but how do we go about setting up projectors to achieve those sizes...well RP40 tells ya a way by using a calibrated test film...35-PA.

In fact, there is an excellent article in this months SMPTE Journal on the evolution of lenses and howcome RP40 came about...it is part 2 of a 3-part series.

Engineering Guidelines are even lesser documents. Here are things, based on actual test/practice we think one should be able to achieve or even HOW to achieve better results.

However, when one tries to turn a document such as these into law...it makes people want to back away.

The fate of EG-18 remains a pet-peeve of mine and I would gladly try to revive it if I thought it were possible. It is a needed document, in my opinion.

I've been a member of the Washington DC section of the SMTPE now for about 20-years (probably a bit longer). I've been to less than a handful of meetings. They are at the local TV stations, video editing suites, and other Videocentric facilities. It isn't that they don't interest me at all...just not enough to go to the meeting to hear about it.

The most recent meeting I attended was at the AFI/Silver...about 2-years ago. I attended because I was giving the presentation! I'll give our chair credit, they solicited members for some sort of FILM event. As I recall...I greated them with some sort of quip about "Thank you for coming to the 'STE'" meeting but we'll be talking about "MP" tonight....or something to that affect. It was nice to see that it was well attended! It must have been like going to a museum and seeing the "old" way pictures were shown! Then again, the AFI/Silver is no ordinary film facility and it has its own video production suite as well.
 

---

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 03-07-2007, 12:46 PM:
 
I appreciate some of the comments, especially the constructive ones.
Phil, you are complaining that some of the monthly programs are boring. Yes, we can't please everyone every time. We need to come up with ten programs each year, and it is no small job thinking them up, getting participants, and staging them.
Some ideas of what you'd like, instead of just saying you aren't interested in Turner Classic Movies, would help.
Some of the best attended programs drive me up the wall, as I am out of the film background, and some of the new technologies just aren't my thing. There are many people that work in these fields though, and they deserve their share of attention.
Making your comments without foul language would also be nice.

DM
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-08-2007, 02:14 AM:
 
While I agree that the way Phil expressed himself might put him in the running for the 'Genghis Khan Diplomat of the Year' award, I also agree with his two core points: that it's difficult to tailor a professional body's coverage and events to suit all its members, and that the level of membership dues remains a real issue.

I don't think the SMPTE has too much to worry about on the latter score. $135 (£67) is towards the upper range of professional body memberships but not outside it; and the discount on the conference registration alone covers the cost. So, as with AMIA, you effectively get a free membership for going to the conference. If I was thinking seriously about going to the conference, I'd certainly join.

At £92 the BKSTS membership is significantly outside the average professional body subscription rate, and not just in our area. Their other problem is that they don't hold a big, flagship annual event which they can use as a membership carrot. I've done a bit of asking around among various friends and colleagues who belong to a wide range of societies in different fields - £40 to £70 seems to be about the ballpark, with most in the £50-60 range. Most of those I asked who paid their own dues (i.e. their bosses didn't) said they would be put off renewing their membership if the cost headed towards three figures. The only one who definitely said she would explained that this was because she had no choice - membership of the society in question was a legal requirement for being able to work. When you also consider that most projectionists don't earn massive salaries, that £92 represents a significant barrier.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Phil's grouse about a small minority of professional body activists who are activating wholly or mainly for the purpose of promoting themselves and/or their organisation. Of course one of the reasons people get involved is to boost their own careers - there's nothing wrong with that in itself, but I've been to a fair few seminars or workshops which are basically sales pitches for a product/service/consultant etc., and they bug me, too.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-08-2007, 02:56 AM:
 
Gotta love Phil!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-08-2007, 03:57 PM:
 
Well Dick, if you'd get off your high horse and also stop acting like the self-appointed language police, maybe you should look at what I really said without being soooo defensive. Perhaps YOU NEED to go and re-read my ENTIRE post so you may "understand" what's going on in the real world...as far as ***I'M*** concerned; I mean, THAT IS what YOU did ask.

You specifically asked ***me*** what I didn't like about the Hollywood SMPTE section and I specifically told you. Just because you don't like what and how I said it, your whining and attitude is probably another good reason to drop MY membership.

Bottom line: You asked and I told.

OBTW: I NEVER claimed to be "nice"... I ALWAYS tell it like I see it..."colorful" language included.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 03-08-2007, 06:40 PM:
 

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

At £92 the BKSTS membership is significantly outside the average professional body subscription rate, and not just in our area

---

quote:

---

BKSTS Membership gives automatic Subscription to both Journals of the Society - Image Technology and Cinema Technology. The former is published 6 times a year; the latter quarterly, yielding ten publications per annum. Membership also yields discounts on Publications and Wallcharts, on Training Courses and Seminars, on attendance at BKSTS Events, gives access to information and advice, affords networking oportunities, facilitates input into Standards setting, promoting excellence, and much more!

---

Now think about that for a minute. 10 informative, high-quality, specialist publications a year. That to me I reckon is worth at least STG£6 x 10 = STG£60 alone. Then look at all the other benefits - is it too much? Hardly. STG£92 per annum is about 25p per day! And - BKSTS Projectionists' Training Seminars are FREE to Members! Come on!

Also, if Projectionists are not earning enough, that is a problem unto itself, and has no bearing on the issue. I mean using that logic we could argue for the price of food, housing and travel to plummet to match the derisory wages paid in the cinema industry - one has to be consistent!

I think the real problem here is not seeing the value of what's on offer. And if people think things aren't up to scratch in these organisations - well then suggest ideas and alternatives! Get involved, and make it better. There's lots of support and goodwill out there.
 

---

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 03-11-2007, 09:02 AM:
 
I too am a former BKSTS member. The Cinema Technology magazine is excellent, but just not worth the $50 per copy. I would certainly take advantage of the other benefits that the society has to offer, but being on the other side of the world makes it difficult.

When I last saw a membership list, Australians were one of the largest overseas groups of members, how about offering a reduced membership fee for those outside the UK that can only enjoy the magazines? I would rejoin if that was the case.

David
 

---

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 03-12-2007, 12:56 PM:
 
Phil,

Oh well, can't win them all. Thanks for your input, and I hope someday we'll come up with something interesting for you.

DM
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 03-12-2007, 04:55 PM:
 
Cinema Technology is sent out (without charge) to commercial cinemas in the UK, so that reduces the incentive for individuals to join.
 

---

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 03-13-2007, 03:47 PM:
 
I've been a BKSTS member for 20 years solely for their Cinema Technology which is excellent. This year I've decided it's just not worth the expense. If only you could subscribe to the magazine separately.
Bob
 

---

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 03-13-2007, 03:56 PM:
 

quote: Robert Throop

---

This year I've decided it's just not worth the expense. If only you could subscribe to the magazine separately.

---

quote: Dominic Case

---

Secondly, almost anyone who does a calculation based on "what you get out of it" will either not join, or quit. That's true for many organisations. But it's not the point. If you take the JFK approach ("ask not what your country does for you but rather what you can do for your country") you will find it is much more worthwhile to join.

---