RVIA at Odds with RV News Over Editorial . . .

RVIA has taken exception to the RV News Editorial, "Whoa! Let's Not Put the Bite on Suppliers AGAIN" (August 1996). It's not unusual that someone disagrees with a particular stand that we take on an issue, because when we express our opinion--which is what we do in the editorial--we recognize that there may be other points of view. And when someone does disagree, we feel an obligation to give them a platform to express an opposing view -- which is our "Letters" column. So people do write us and, except on rare occasions, we publish their response without comment. Our philosophy is that we had our say so we give the opposing view the same opportunity.

A month after the August issue was mailed, we received a letter from David Humphreys, president, RVIA, expressing his dissatisfaction with our view that suppliers are being unfairly taxed by RVIA to fund the Go RVing campaign. He defended the RVIA decision to put a ten-percent surcharge on Supplier and Affiliate member classification dues, and to further tax these members by putting an additional surcharge on supplier and affiliate member's exhibit space ($350 per 10-foot booth) at the National RV Trade Show in Louisville starting in 1997.

After reviewing Humpheys' letter, we decided not to publish it. We came to that decision because we believed that since Humphreys seemed to miss the point of the original editorial and addressed issues we dealt with tangentially, we would have to address those issues in a rebuttal. So we thought it might be better for everyone to let the matter fade away.

But that is not to be.

We think it is important to re-establish the point of that editorial: An association should not mandate that one or two member categories be taxed when other member categories are not being taxed equally, especially, when the benefits of the taxation is spead equally among all members.

Now, the reason why this issue has not faded away and has resurfaced is because after the Louisville show, Humphreys decided that his point-of-view needed to be aired, and since RV News had declined to publish his response, the association reprinted the August editorial and mailed it along with Humphreys' response, accompanied by a cover letter to all RVIA members.

So now we find ourselves facing the same dilemma that we addressed during the decision-making process that resulted in our not publishing Humphreys' letter. We feel that we need to defend ourselves.

Dan Holt, publisher of RV News, suggested in a letter to RVIA that the least offensive way for the matter to be handled would be to give RVIA the opportunity to send our rebuttal to the same mailing list -- all RVIA members. However, he asked for Humphreys' advice and if there were a better way, Holt was open to any reasonable alternative. But he also pointed out that as a last resort we would have to address the issue in RV News. Humphreys replied and wrote in part, " . . . I see no advantage in RVIA sending our members your letters."

(The complete text of the original editorial, Humphreys' response, the subsequent letter to RVIA members, our proposed response and Humphreys' answer appears in the print version of this issue.)

So here we are, dredging up past business and considering the issue once again. Humphreys made four points. The underlying theme of Humphreys' original letter can summarized in his accusation that "you clearly did not do your homework." We take exception to that.

Humphreys' emphasized the erroneous accusation by stating that the RV News Editorial claimed "that suppliers have long been asked to shoulder most of the cost of funding RVIA."

That is totally inaccurate in word and in spirit. We did not say that. And we are surprised that with the benefit of the editorial in his hands that he could come to that conclusion. What we did say was "It's a sad, but true fact of life in this industry -- suppliers pay for almost everything. Who buys most of the exhibit space at trade shows? Suppliers? (Please note the question mark) Who pays for distributor shows and open houses? Suppliers. Who pays for distributor catalogs? Suppliers?"

A case in point, it is interesting to note, there are six distributor shows, for example, going on in the three week period from mid-January to the first week in February. (Stag-Parkway show in Reno, NV; Allied Leisure Products show in Denver, CO; Central Trailer Supply in Albuquerque, NM; Arrow Distributing show in Omaha, NE; Atlas Trailer Coach Products show Reno, NV; and Coast Distribution show in Las Vegas)

Normally, distributors ask suppliers to pay for exhibit space, sponsor various related functions and then discount their product prices to the distributor so the distributor can offer value buys to his dealer customers who attend the show or open house. Add to that staff and travel expenses and it is not difficult to see that by the end of the year, a supplier has a substantial investment in shows.

In our opinion, suppliers are the backbone of the RV industry -- they do more with less recognition than any other group. The are accommodating partners to OEM manufacturers and aftermarket wholesalers and dealers. Suppliers are members of virtually all trade associations, pay dues and contribute time and energy for the good of the industry. Ironically, they are also the only major group that is not represented by their own trade association -- maybe its time.

Another point had to do with manufacturers' direct contribution to the funding program.

We pointed out that while the manufacturer members of RVIA pay a $22 surcharge on the purchase of RVIA seals. --that $22 is earmarked for the Go RVing campaign -- that is a pass-along cost which is included in the invoice to a dealer who buys the RV from the manufacturer. That being our understanding after talking to various manufacturers and dealers, we said that the manufacturers investment is only temporary and the company has not invested any real dollars in the campaign. So therefore, singling out suppliers and putting a surcharge on their membership dues and exhibit space was unfair.

Humphreys' second point was the plan originated in the Suppliers Committee. The fact that the surcharge idea originated in the RVIA Suppliers Committee prior to being adopted by the full RVIA board doesn't make it any more equitable in our opinion. We even offered a plan to tax every exhibitor equally by putting a 50-cents-per-square-foot surcharge on all exhibitor space -- it would raise more money than the plan adopted and it would also be even handed.

Then RVIA's plan was approved by a vote of "all" members, according to Humphreys. We believe that method was flawed as well. Why wouldn't manufacturers and other membership categories vote positively on taxing someone else. We believe that only those effected should have had a vote. As a matter of fact, we believe that the original vote should be set aside and a new vote taken and only those effected have the opportunity to accept or reject RVIA's proposed tax.

Humphreys took exeption to our suggestion that manufacturers had not paid anything so far. And to make his point he suggested that RVIA has provided over 90 percent of the staff time to put the program together and then he asks, "Who do you think will pay that very considerable expense?" Well, we may be wrong but isn't it true that administrative costs to run RVIA is underwritten by ALL members dues and contributions. If that's the case then Humphreys point is mute.

By far our greatest disappointment in Humphreys' letter was his last point. Humphreys wrote, "By far my greatest objection to your editorial is that it appears to be an effort to create friction between suppliers and manufacturers in the RV industry."

It appears to us that that statement is absurd. Obviously, by publishing his letter, this attack demands a response.

To conclude that RV News, by voicing our concern and opinion on what we view as an injustice, we are trying to create friction between suppliers and manufacturers is a huge leap of imagination. Our goal had nothing whatsoever to do with creating friction; however, if by simply stating certain "truths" as we see them is perceived that way, it may indicate that RV News is not alone in believing the program is unfair. And apparently, after visiting with suppliers at Louisville, Humphreys learned that others share our opinion; otherwise, why would RVIA go public with Humphreys' letter. Maybe the issue is the program itself and not a trade magazine's editorial opinion.

We stand by our original point: There is an inequity in singling out one or two membership groups in RVIA and taxing them when other groups are not being taxed proportionately.

That seems like such a rational and reasonable statement. We cannot understand why Humphreys has a problem with it.

It is with a certain reluctance that we enter into this debate, but we felt that by RVIA going public, we were left with little choice.