Hopefully I will cover all posts angled towards me by getting back to the title of this thread - how should the FOC change. IMHO: 1) It needs to get much more commercial - I keep getting told how small the French owners club is in regard to the UK version. Could someone from the UK Owners club then explain why any part of membership fees is used to produce and send magazines? If the smaller national owners club can get global sponsors to ensure that they have none of these costs then (IMHO) the increased collective bargaining power of the FOC's larger membership is being completely wasted by the management. 2) It needs to communicate better - Ray (and any others) - I am not dragging you in. Please, please do not stand up for me or fight my arguments. I am merely highlighting that there is alot of crossover between Fchat/FOC membership. Indeed, many of the 2 entities' goals are similar. However, unable to make the FOC AGM I raised my concerns via other forums. Yet any comments the management didn't agree seem to get ignored/forgotten. I don't mind at all that they (or Ray) disagrees but at least accept there are differences of opinion on how to go forward. - Sarcasm might not be always appreciated but the management should look to discuss the running of their club with both members and non-members. That way they should attract more people to join. - Annual membership forms have just been sent out. Prior to this, the FOC management have admitted they need to get closer to their membership. Even at the very basic level why wasn't a customer survey/other feedback tool included in that envelope? 3) It needs to forget being independence - I might get shot down in flames for this one but having seen what happens when you lose independence I prefer this option. I believe the factory support is well worth it and benefits all members. - The FOC fears that day to day management will be taken over by the factory - has this happened to the clubs that signed up? No. (I have repeatedly highlighted that I believe that the current management like the current set up where they have a job for life. As such they steer the club towards independence. Nothing anyone has said to me via FOC/informal discussion/Fchat has changed my view on this matter.) - When asking the members whether they wanted independence at no point did they tell their members was that by taking this course of action they forgo the chance of havng Ferrari activities supported and subsidised by the fatory. As stated above, it is bad enough that for every pound we put we lose money to unnecessary publishing and secretariat expenses/salaries. To then find out that the membership fees could be swelled even further by the factory might well change the members' votes. 4) It needs to evolve - Ray (for example only - I am not dragging him to support my case), is well known for getting a car cleaner than anybody else. I thoroughly respect what he able to do with his cars. I have other interests with my Ferrari but there is a significant overlap. Therefore the club needs to satisfy him (I believe it does already) and me (which it doesn't) to get us both as members. With swelling numbers, bargaining power increases (see point 1) and then we can get more of whatever we wanted in the first place. - The club needs to reflect the membership and thus have a limited term for all management. The fact that we are being told that only 1 or 2 candidates ever appear somewhat reflects the fact that the majority of the current membership feel disenfranchised from the current management. This trend in my eyes needs to be broken but I am aware that I am asking for the proverbial turkeys to vote for Xmas. - As such, if a majority vote one way this year it may not the following year. People who want change need to keep fighting for it - not give up at the first hurdle with good grace.
Izza, I agree with much of what you say (but not everything!) and think that your note is a helpful contribution to the debate. The only point I would like to make is that the FOC had an immensly close relationship with Maranello Concessionaires/Ferrari UK from the formation of the club, and this worked to everyone's benefit. MC, who were one of the world's premier importers, were generous in their fiancial support of the club and one of their Directors, Tony Willis, has long been an enthusiastic Director of the FOC. The goal posts moved last year when the factory decided they wanted to take over direct importation. Tony now works for the new company and still acts as a very helpful conduit between the club and Ferrari. Unfortunately, it looks as though much of the financial support has dried up and I doubt that this is directly related to ongoing discussion about the nature of future links. It probably has more to do with the ever increasing number of clubs across the globe and the fact that Ferrari have not enjoyed too much profit in recent years. John
Whilst appreciating there may be other issues regarding the level of support, it has not dried up in other countries who have less owners and have signed up to the new sticker. From a bigger perspective, the clauses that trouble the FOC centre around the Factory being able to stop the FOC being the official club and using their logos at short notice. They could then replace them with another official club and the secretariat would be looking for another job. Let's be honest here: 1) This is not a chicken and egg situation - you have to have Ferrari first to get Ferrari Owners. No organisation/person in their right mind is going to let a club/separate firm use its logos without having the legal ability to withdraw support at short notice should they believe the brand is being affected negatively. To think otherwise is barking madness! 2) They want independence but due to the close links and support received from MC/factory this has been conceded many moons ago. 3) The management say their members want independence. yet when the options were put forward though the membership were not told that factory/financial support would be lost or never regained whilst they went down the supposed independent route. If a group of people are misinformed it is not hard to get them all voting for one option even if the alternative is much closer to what they want!
As both the MG and the Porsche owners clubs run at a profit, why not look into their business models to see if any parts could be utilized for the FOC. As Ferrari already have ties with several "premier" brands (clothing, sporting goods mfrs etc) could the FOC not at least engage them and see what could be put forward (IE. the conkers could be sponsored by Mumm)
Is their profit utilised for the benefit of the owners or sunk into a wild goose chase fund? Only if they lose independence and get factory blessing for use of Ferrari logo, but that means risking their jobs. Laurent Perrier and Mumm are both willing to sponsor French Ferrari tours/trackdays/events (who have less members and thus a smaller base to market to) plus they offer preferential rates to CFF members. Veuve cliquot, when informally approached by a Fchat/FOC member said they would also be keen to do the same for a UK event. With the current non-commercial outlook of the FOC management a conker is as much as members should hope for!
A good thread, although with so much sarcasm and perhaps a little too much negativity, it's hard to sift down to the key points made. I'd prefer that more of the criticisms (and they were largely constructive) came with suggested solutions. Here are mine: Problem: AGM is not truly democratic as only a tiny minority can attend for whatever reason (250 out of 3000 members?) - cost or time. Solution: Make much better use of FOC website to have a survey / pole of what your members want. This is so easy in the 21st century. Companies do customer surveys online all the time. Could be done cheaper than a mail-out. No reason why all matters for the AGM could not be voted for online (of course with membership number / surname as login as usual). Same survey method could even gather info on why non-members are not joining. Problem: Trackday attendance falling. Solution: Tough one. Is it because they're too expensive? Don't know. Surely should be cheaper than easytrack / goldtrack / other commercial days. Again issue of club funds for subsidy comes to mind, but only a small minority do trackdays so needs to be put to the vote (see point above). Problem: Where should the club live? Solution: I can only compare the professionalism and good communication regarding finding a suitable property for the Bentley Drivers Club, who I think have handled this extemely well. FOC could learn plenty from their approach. I have no issue with the club housing an archive / library but again compare what BDC do in this space. More consultation with members on what a "clubhouse" should offer is needed (car museum? spares? library? shop?). Problem: Club doesn't leverage its scale and buying power. Solution: Again don't have all the answers, but I do agree with posters here that FOC should act collectively for it's members' benefit in area of parts supply, perhaps servicing and "club offers" as many other clubs do. A committee member with remit for this alone might be a good start. I don't advocate becoming a profit seeking limited company per se, but some savvy leveraging of membership wouldn't go amiss. Three thousand members should be made to count for something in this space. Problem: Membership falling. Solution: Is it true that there is a large 'churn' of short-term members? If so, again the club needs to understand why. This thread holds some of the answers but what can be done? Anecdotally I know lots of folks who have left FOC over the last five years. This can't be good for the club. Success is always about listening to your customers. Improvement comes from facing what you do less well and fixing it. Lastly, I'd like to know if the club has a written club constitution. I have no idea if it has. I know it has a set of rules, but this is not the same thing. After the afore-mentioned online consultation with members as to what they really want from the club, I'd like to see a constitution (enshrining, for example, the principle of rotating management for a fixed term) such as many sporting clubs have. I believe the RFU for example, has a draft constitution on its website which affiliated clubs can use as a basis for theirs. Does the MSA, another automotive body or another club have anything similar? In short, some "club best-practice" adapted from other clubs is needed at the FOC, for its and every members' benefit. J.
Izza, as I said in my earlier post, I agreed with much of what you said initially. However, you are now starting to loose me........you obviously have an inside track to information that is not available to anyone else. The FOC is not arguing about Ferrari's right to control its logos. It does, however, want to keep its own insignia which was approved personally by Enzo Ferrari nearly 40 years ago. I can't see that the relationship with MC could in any way be characterised as a loss of independence. The club surely benefitted from the relationship - and, incidentally, for all of that time MC/Ferrari UK was an independent commercial organisation, with no direct factory investment. On the other hand, MC benefited from the support of members, who were loyal to the marque long before it became as widely known as today. I don't think anyone else has linked sponsorship with the discussion. You only have to look at the Ferrari/Maserati financial results to realise that they have been taking a lot of pain and their budgets are being squeezed. What has been an irritation to many FOC members does not seem to loom large on the Ferrari radar and much of the 'silence' is due to a lack of activity in Modena. As Jimmy b says Let's hear more positive ideas of how we, the enthusiasts, can take the club forward. There is much to debate without resorting to 'knocking' everything about the existing set up. John
Guys As stated in my previous post, I joined the F.O.C. after the purchase of my 348 earlier this year and will not be re-subscribing as I just cannot justify £75.00 for so few tangible benefits. In order to give you a feel for what you get from other clubs and some positive ideas, I have been a member of the Lancia Motor Club for around ten years and have listed a number of benefits which seem to be lacking from the F.O.C. 1) Reasonable annual subscription fee of £35.00 a year. 2) 12 monthly magazines with articles on readers cars, old road tests, events, technical tips and few adverts. 3) Contact numbers and e-mail addresses in the magazine for ALL club officials from the Chairman down, something lacking in the F.O.C. magazine. 4) An AGM that is combined with the national concourse so there is a much broader cross section of members likely to attend. 5) Official club insurance scheme negotiated for the members benefit. 6) Volunteer technical advisors for all models of car from 1906 to the present. 7) Club library and librarian. 8) Club hire scheme for special tools and equipment needed for repairs and maintenance. I do recognise the fact that the F.O.C runs a number of excellent track days and is heavily involved in club motorsport, however this is only of benefit to a select few members. The F.O.C. cannot please all members all the time but it really does need to widen its appeal and recognise the efforts of all owners from a 400i to a 430. In these times of sky high parts prices and servicing costs surely the F.O.C. could use its position to negotiate some decent discounts from recognised suppliers? I dont expect everything for free, however I do expect that my subscription is used wisely, for the benefit of all members and that the club is run in a transparent and impartial manner. Good Luck. Julian
Whilst appreciating tradition and history, I thinnk the members need to have an estimate of what they lose by foregoing the right to this insignia. Maybe not in day to day organisation but there is a moral pressure in editorial output - the factory, with its new rules/agreements/sticker is not looking to go any further. Sponsorship should be coming from Factory and others. This ties in with Jimmy B's comments that we need a commercial person/committee member to maximise our collective mass Having given input and got frustrated with the complete apathy to change within the FOC I have contacted the factory. I am not arrogant in thinking people have to agree with what I want but this thread/high membership churn/lessening % of owners in the club, etc. hihglight that others are disappointed as well. As such, it is technically on their radar but I am only an individual. If people want change in the FOC it seems to me that this is their only route left. Agreed
Julian, Thanks for the positive input. I will comment on some of the things you mention, if I may: 1) I can't imagine anyone would complain if the annual subscription were lower 2) I think the two FOC publications (News and the colour quarterly) between them cover much of what you mention. Personally, I am quite happy to have a fair number of adverts which, are sometimes useful and help to subsidize the costs. I think more technical coverage could and should be an aim. 3) Since the FOC has a central office, I'm not too sure that contact details for anyone else (other than the area group organisers) need to be widely available. The office will pass on anything necessary, but it does give an added level of security doing things that way. 4) I'm not sure how it would be possible to combine AGM with Concours as that day is full as it is. The AGM is arranged the day after the Spring ball and the day before the Silverstone track day to help maximise attendance 5) I would have thought discounts with a variety of insurers (as currently) a better way to go than a single scheme as people have different requirements including in the number of cars they insure. 7) There is a Club library. However, I don't think it is easy to access at present. I'm not sure of the details - although one might quite reasonably say that it therefore needs to be publicised to the membership. 6) and 8) Whilst I think these are fair suggestions that deserve consideration, I am not sure what percentage of owners do maintenance on their Ferraris themselves. I imagine it is a much smaller percentage than that of Lancia owners who do. Jonathan
I forgot to say earlier that overall I would like the FOC to continue doing what it's doing, but also engage in the activities (such as those suggested by Julian's excellent list) which it is not presently engaged in. I do not under-estimate the effort this will require. Continuing the theme of positive suggestions, a club insurance scheme with agreed valuations (my Bentley costs GBP190 per year for fully comp insurance and breakdown cover for the whole of Europe!) would be a good place to start. I'd like to add that running a "Spares Scheme" for the members' benefit as the BDC does, would also be useful and popular, I'm sure - as the cars themselves grow older. This could be in conjunction with Maranello's in Egham, who obviously stock the most comprehensive spares going back to the start of the factory. Anything out of production could be remanufactured for the membership, again as several other car clubs do. I re-iterate my hope the the FOC will use its website to listen to ALL of its members wishes, as I truly believe that this process will allow it to resolve all of the issues perceived on this thread and any others - to the future benefit of the club. J.
Jimmy, I do agree with pretty much all of your points. I am certainly an advocate of greater use of the website (and e-mail) for feedback and communications. I don't know if there is a written constitution. No argument there. Jonathan
Jonathan, Thanks for the time taken to respond. I would to take the opportunity to expand on a couple of my points. With regards to contact details I can understand the issues of security, however having communication via a central office does make the club executive appear to be far more distant from the membership than it should be. This seems to be a recurring issue on this thread and a special problem for newer owners without links in the club. I concede that telephone numbers are a problem, however e-mails can easily be filtered and answered when convenient. Regarding maintenance, I think you may be surprised by how many people maintain their own cars, especially owners of older models. Just look at the Fchat technical sections to see how much work is done by competent owners. Look at it this way, how much assistance and magazine space does the F.O.C. give to owners who race cars as opposed to people who maintain their own cars. I would guess that far more members maintain their own cars than actually race them. As there does seem to be some genuine concern amongst members with the clubs current focus and falling membership, maybe a good start would be to send out a survey to all current and recently departed members to gauge opinion and find out if the club is going in the right direction for the majority of members. Good Luck and keep up the good work. Julian
Sounds fair. I do know that the old Register published roughly every five years used to include all the members' names and addresses and that (in an unfortunate reflection of the world today) was stopped for security reasons. As someone who can just about cope with lifting the engine cover I'm sure I would be surprised! However, I certainly wasn't trying to imply I thought what you were suggesting a bad idea, just that the numbers to whom it was relevant might not be that great. No problem if I'm proved wrong, though. I personally think the FOC could be somewhat more pro-active in seeking members' (and potential members) views. They did do a survey on track days a couple of years back, but I don't know what the results were as I don't recall seeing any feedback on it (which isn't the same as saying there wasn't any). Having said that it is important to nail my colours to the mast and say I think the FOC is great and puts on some brilliant events. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be even better and satisfy more owners more of the time, whilst continuing to do the things it does well now. Jonathan
