-----Original Message----- From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> To: caut <caut at ptg.org> Sent: Fri, Jul 23, 2010 1:24 pm Subject: Re: [CAUT] Workload; was Position announcement On Jul 23, 2010, at 12:40 PM, tnrwim at aol.com wrote: Not to reiterate, but if the PTG wants universities to hire RPT's, we need to do a LOT more promotion in that area. I heard a new data base has been, or is being, created with all the music schools around the country. When that happens, we need to send information to these schools at least one a year, if not more often. Such a database has been in existence for more than three decades. The College Music Society maintains it, keeping fairly current lists of all faculty at all music degree granting institutions among other things. We (PTG, the CAUT committee) obtained that list a number of years back, and did one or perhaps two mailings either to the whole list or to an abridged one. If CMS is giving us this list, then we should use it. I am not sure how effective direct mail can be. I know most of what I receive goes unopened into the recycling bin. Music administrators get an enormous volume. While I agree it is good to maximize communication and develop as high a profile as we can (as an organization), how to do that effectively is an open question. For any advertiser to only run an ad on TV or the radio, or send it via e-mail only one or two times is a total waste of money and time. That is why you see the same ad over and over. It's called the 7 hit rule. It takes that many times seeing an ad before people remember it. When we sent something to the music departments only once, it was a waste of money and time, and no wonder we hardly got any responses. . As consumers, we constantly get advertisements in the mail and on line for products we don't need, at the moment. (Tires, musical instruments, computers, etc., etc.) Advertisers know that only a very small percentage of consumers will have a need for a particular product, and even fewer will remember the ad they see. But advertisers don't know who is in the market for a new car, or computer, so they advertise to everyone. That is why the only way we can get to the 10 or 12 colleges that are looking for a new technician, is to send promotional material to ALL of them. Even if only 5% of the administrators actually read it, it's more than nothing. But we need to send out information that information not just once, but over and over again, over a period of years. The same information needs to be sent out least once a year, if not twice, basically forever, but at least for 6 years. Then maybe it will start to have an impact on what we're trying to accomplish. I have to say I do NOT believe we should invest heavily in getting universities to hire RPTs per se. RPT unfortunately is not a good indicator of the skills needed. In tuning, it says nothing about whether someone can produce clean _and_ solid unisons. With respect to high level regulation and voicing of grands it says nothing whatsoever. Just to mention a couple of the most obvious shortcomings. Someone who expects that an RPT, without other qualifications, is ready to do a caut job will be disappointed, and it will reflect badly on the organization if we imply differently, IMO. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu I thought the whole idea behind the PTG Marketing campaign is to convince the public, including colleges and universities, to use RPT's. I agree that not all RPT's are CAUT material But shouldn't being an RPT be the minimum requirement? The PTG cannot be responsible for personality problems, lack of rebuilding experience, or any other qualifications a university requires of a CAUT. That is why there is an application procedure. But lets get on the same page here. Does the PTG want to promote the RPT,or not? Wim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100723/8fb37775/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC