[CAUT] Re: [PTG-L] Clarity needed?

[Keith Roberts]

I agree with you wholeheartedly Richard. I was told by an esteemed RPT that
no one knows what a RPT is. I find that true. Most of my clients think we
are all piano TUNERS. Marketing what we have and adding only one or two more
classifications that are also marketable would be the way to go, in my
opinion.
Why would I become a RPT if I have to market it myself? I can make up all
kinds of fancy sounding titles and no one is going to know the difference
except the guy across town who has the real one. If I have better marketing
I will run him out of business if there isn't enough for two.

Keith Roberts


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard West" <rwest1@unl.edu>
To: "CAUT >> College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: [CAUT] Re: [PTG-L] Clarity needed?


> I like your email, Jim.  It helped clarify my thinking, anyway.  Your
> three items are no longer at the top of my priority list for change.
> That's not to say that there isn't room for improvement.  I have just
> come to accept certain things.
>
> 1. Testing - We have a workable test and a great crew administering it.
> Change will take place.  The committee will hear suggestions and work
> with them to either accept and use them, or reject them as unworkable. I
> believe the testing system we have in place is working, at least well
> enough for me to be willing to let it be for awhile.
>
> 2.  Associates - We have a category system that has remained unchanged
> for over 20 years.  As far as I'm concerned it's a topic of discussion
> because of a few disgruntled members who can't leave it alone.  I can
> understand the sentiment to some extent, but I see this as going against
> the inclusive spirit of PTG and the value that Associates bring to this
> organization.  There has always existed a misdirected punitive
> inclination in PTG.  Fortunately that has never been a dominant
> attitude.  We would be better focused if we aimed at marketing the
> RPT rather than diminishing the Associate classification.  I won't
> say any more about that because the discussion of Associates winds up in
> pointless debate over category options, most of which have been rejected
> in Council. This discussion is akin to debating how many angels will fit
> on the head of a pin.
>
> 3. Categories - I would like to see more internal categories, but I also
> think that our efforts should be more directed to marketing the RPT. And
> until that is done, multiple categories are of less importance. I agree
> with Israel that a plethora of categories will only confuse the public.
>   Also defining the qualifications for other categories will take a lot
> of work.  The rebuilder category, for example, has already been
> investigated and there have been a whole lot of problems defined.
>
> Therefore, my priority list starts with marketing RPT and spending
> some money to do that.  Second on the list would be to expand our
> educational publications, top to bottom.  Revise PACE, develop a
> piano service textbook, that is better than Reblitz, continue to
> refine the PACE checklist,  etc., etc.  I think PTG is in a good
> position to address both of these items.
>
> We had an informal moritorium on categories a few years ago.  I would
> expand that moritorium to testing and Associate bashing.
>
> Richard West
>
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Jim Busby wrote:
>
> > List,
> >
> > You may choose to call the issues "problems" or, in my opinion, "ideas
> > to strengthen PTG", but here is a "nutshell" of the issues as I see
> > them; (If I missed something please let me know.)
> >
> > 1. Testing (CTEs, fees, reimbursements, etc.)
> > 2. Associates (Name use, advertising, progress in guild, etc.)
> > 3. Categories (Two, or more?)
> >
> > I don't want to sound too simplistic because I know each of these is a
> > whole can-o-worms, but can't we come together on the fact that each of
> > these issues should be addressed, separately?
> >
> > It seems that there are two definite camps; those who want change and
> > those who either don't, or are at least reluctant to effect change.
> > This
> > keeps an amount of "checks and balances" in place. It also seems
> > that we
> > get bogged down in these discussions because we throw everything in
> > the
> > pot together and this leads to endless 90 degree turns which lead us
> > nowhere.
> >
> > I, for one, could live with PTG as it is, but would REALLY like to
> > seem
> > more categories. Something to help the organizations to stretch out a
> > bit.
> >
> > Jim Busby BYU
> > _______________________________________________
> > ptg-l list info: http://www.ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/ptg-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>