Mary Evans wrote:PS Is Guild Bashing a sport?
Dig around in here, Mary, and I think you'll come up with enough material to potentially justify it as a 2012 Olympic event...
That said, I think the underlying message from this, and previous discussions, is that caring framers would dearly love to be part of a reputable trade organisation that understands framers and their work/business issues/marketing needs at real grass-roots level. I think it 's fairly self-evident the esteem in which the GCF training programme and qualification are held, but to me it feels that many of us would dearly love to be affiliated with a larger organisation that is interested in helping framers to achieve recognition for their skills among a broader, customer audience, and to be represented by an organisation that promotes and markets good framing practice to Joe Normal in the streets. Most of all, my feeling is that many of us want to be part of a trade association that cares about, and promotes the interests of, the small operator. so many of whom have a great customer offer, and have so much to offer the people who want to find reputable artisans to carry out their framing work.
One item I find to be tinged with irony is the - apparent - obsession the Guild seems to have with who can, and who cannot, display the GCF logo. I know of at least two well-established framing businesses in my corner of the world who proudly annouce their FATG membership status, but the work they produce does not conform to recommended Guild Practices. In my considered opinion, allowing people who are willing to pay a mere subscription in order to associate themselves with the Guild are allowed to display the Guild logo "willy nilly", whereas many GCFs who choose not to renew their membership subscription are denied the use of the appropriate guild logo. Call me old-fashioned, but I think this approach is counterproductive to increasing customer awareness of what it means to be a GCF: after all these are the people who have given demonstrable proof of their framing skiils. I think it is very wrong on the part of the FATG to have made a beaureaucratic decision to deny them what should be an ineffable right to display the "stamp" of their hard won qualifications.
This "logo-no logo" position does not personally instill me with great confidence in the FATG as an organisation proporting to assist framers in the marketing, and the gaining of recognition for, their skills. Also, from a pure corporate marketing perspective, logos are pivotal elements of creating "brand awareness" among target demographical groups. All the big corporate guns (from my own direct experience) invest millions upon millions in the design of their logos, and advertise them
ad nauseam, so that they will bury themselves in the psyche of prospective customers. The more places their logos appear (in suitable envirnoments, and associated with "brand healthy" activities and environments), the happier campers they are. The greater the exposure to their logos/slogans, the greater the likelihood that a potential customer is likely to think of them first when they want to part with their hard-earned. Ergo, from a marketing standpoint, the more FATG/GCF logos a customer gets to see will reinforce their awareness of the fact that there is a guild for the framing and art trade, and they may even, over time, get to the stage where they might even look for it.
With regard to "out of date" FATG membership stickers being displayed, they have the year displayed on them. By virtue of that fact, a framer displaying an "FATG 2007" membership logo is not, in effect, making any false claims merely by displaying it. By his leaving it on display, I personally think that he is doing the guild a favour by keeping the "corporate branding" visible in his store.
I think the overall general "logo" situation needs to be revisited, from a pragmatic "brand awareness" viewpoint, instead of a beaurocratic one.
That said, I am of a very strong opinion that anyone who has gone through the rigours of achieving GCF certification should be given indefinite rights to use the GCF logo as part of their marketing mix: through their skill they have earned the right. And in all candour, I consider it extremely petty for the guild to allow guild commended framers to use the initials GCF after their name, but not display the logo if their membership has expired. It does not speak well to me of an organisation that I once considered joining, but whom I found subsequently too interested in "chapter and verse" archaic protocols (IMO) to the detriment of the people they purport to represent.
As for Kev's experience (discussed elsewhere on the forum), the behaviour of the FATG in that particular case I thought was exceptionally dishonourable. I had considered taking out FATG membership, but when I found out that the FATG had:
1- been the weak link that caused his membership to accidentally lapse (through an uncollected Direct Debit); and
2 - subsequently became active in moves to prosecute his business for what was a
de facto error on the part of the FATG...!
Suffice to say, such background information put any ideas I had of becoming a guild member well and truly to bed.
I've offered this post in a "constructive" spirit: so many of us are crying out for a Guild to represent us. Indeed, I believe that that is the underlying feeling behind many of the "less complimentary" comments about the Guild that have been posted here in the past. We don't want to bash the Guild. We want a Guild that cares about our interests, that wants to represent us within the art and framing world, and that wants to work to gain recognition among the public for the sterling, highly-skilled work that so many of us produce every day.
Mary, I think it's great that you have chosen to contribute to relevant discussions here. I hope it's the start of something better for the framing business as a whole. I am sure that any of your efforts to bring attention to the Guld about the concerns of we "small guys" will be warmly welcomed.