Diver Training: How much is enough?

[Peter Guy]

Honest, not to pick on DCBC, but I just can't let the following go without a response:

Clearly 'for-profit organizations' often act in their own self-interest and this may not always reflect the best interests of the individual.

DCBC, ALL organizations, as well as individuals, "act in their own self-interest" and "may not always reflect the best interests of [others]." In fact, a Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded for this insight several years ago (the recipient just died). Whether an entity is "for profit" or "not-for profit" is really irrelevant as to how it acts. The relevant issue(s) are the goals and incentives for the entity.

NAUI, as a not-for-profit entity, may well have the same goals and incentives that PADI, a for-profit entity has -- that is, the creation of materials and other things to sell for enough money to support its activities.

 

[The Chairman]

NAUI has both "for profit" as well as "not for profit sides" to it's organization.

 

[nimoh]

not for profit doesn't necessarily mean that they try to minimize their revenue, they may be directing profits to other ventures such as charities, medical research, etc or even just higher salaries or bonuses for their employees.

 

[boulderjohn]

As a former Executive Director for a non-profit organization, I assure you my biggest job was making sure we had enough money to continue our work--including paying my salary. The difference between profit making organizations and non-profit basically comes down to what is done with the money that is left over after all the salaries and other overhead expenses are paid. In many cases, there is precious little left over.

 

[ScubaSteve]

.......or even just higher salaries or bonuses for their employees.

I need to get me a job with one of them

 

[Martigan]

Honest, not to pick on DCBC, but I just can't let the following go without a response:
DCBC, ALL organizations, as well as individuals, "act in their own self-interest" and "may not always reflect the best interests of [others]." In fact, a Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded for this insight several years ago (the recipient just died). Whether an entity is "for profit" or "not-for profit" is really irrelevant as to how it acts. The relevant issue(s) are the goals and incentives for the entity.

NAUI, as a not-for-profit entity, may well have the same goals and incentives that PADI, a for-profit entity has -- that is, the creation of materials and other things to sell for enough money to support its activities.

You are right, however there are two kind of not-for-profit organisations, some which are private, other which are public. And there self-interest are very often different in nature. A government body and NAUI are bot not-for-profit (for one part of NAUI anyway), but their goals and objects differ.

 

[Diver0001]

You guys are talking like making a profit is a bad thing.

I've seen an awful lot of companies from the inside out and as far as my experience goes, only banks see profit for profit's sake as the main goal of their business.

Most (nearly all) businesses see themselves as producing a product or service that results in making a profit. Shareholder value may be important to them but most managers are aware that having a good product or a good service is key to reaching their goals.

Case in point. PADI. Sure they want to make profit. What business wants to make a loss? As a PADI instructor, I"m happy they make a profit. It means that they have resources to spend on research, development, new/adjusted programs, lobbying for our sport and a host of other things including marketing and developing new markets that means they keep up with the times and that the service they provide me allows me to keep up with the times. Sometimes I have a different opinion about how they should spend their money but it's their money and I'm not running their business.

Also, I would say that traditionally PADI has been the ONLY party involved in training to really invest much into developing the sport of scuba diving from within their own sphere of influence. Almost all other agencies have simply walked in PADI's shadow, copying their model changing only minimal items in order to avoid copyright infringement and pretending to offer something new an innovative. Everyone is well aware, however, that most modern scuba training is really just PADI's system painted in different colours (SSI is probably the best example of the kind of copy cat I mean). The little players ride to success on PADI's coat-tails, enjoying the fruits of a growing market while allowing PADI to do most of the heavy-lifting along the way. These little players are therefore as much dependent upon PADI making profits as PADI itself. I would suggest outright that NAUI is in this same boat. Without PADI, what would be left of NAUI would fit in a thimble.

As much as Wayne would like everyone to share in his seething animosity toward PADI, they're really not the bad guy. Are they perfect? No. But they pretty much created the sport of scuba diving and they're the reason why the vast majority of people on this board are here, why we can buy decent gear, why we can book diving holidays and why we have the coolest hobby on teh planet.

R..

 

[Martigan]

I respectfully disagree.
For a start, without PADI an other organisation would have, at some point taken its place.
Then, I also think that your view is not very european centric.
In Europe many countries have organisations that, without too much drive from PADI, did develop scuba diving.
For sure, the huge numbers that came with PADI worldwide helped structure the dive industry for equipment and dive spots, but not beyond this point in many countries.
In the UK, in France (most notably, since PADI - and other agencies was persona non grata for a very long time here), Belgium, Switzerland, Italia and Spain had all a strong momentum that was not the main work of PADI. The countries where CMAS was and is still powerful have all benefited from the drive of agencies/bodies/organisation different from PADI.
I think it is not small enough to be negligible.

 

[DCBC]

Honest, not to pick on DCBC, but I just can't let the following go without a response:

Yes Peter, that always seems to be the case...

DCBC, ALL organizations, as well as individuals, "act in their own self-interest" and "may not always reflect the best interests of [others]."

Yet some organizations are governed much differently.One example might be the American Cancer Association who is dedicated to helping persons who face Cancer; who supports research, patient services, early detection, treatment and education. On the other hand, there are companies like Johnson & Johnson, or Merck who's market caps are $177 billion and $117 billion. If you don't think that there's a difference in what motivates these organizations, it's unfortunate that you don't have the insight to do so...

NAUI, as a not-for-profit entity, may well have the same goals and incentives that PADI, a for-profit entity has -- that is, the creation of materials and other things to sell for enough money to support its activities.

In the past, NAUI's focus has been on education not profit. It's run by it's membership (every current NAUI Instructor); who votes in the NAUI Board of Directors. There is a great difference between these two organizations. PADI is a for-profit who exists solely for the benefit of it's owners...

 

[Bob DBF]

But they pretty much created the sport of scuba diving...

A bit over the top don't you think. I know I was diving well before PADI existed, and since I could buy SCUBA gear from the Sears and Roebuck's catalog, I believe there were a lot of other divers, but I didn't run into them as often as I do now.

My view is that PADI took the sport of diving and turned it into a hobby for the masses, and made a lot of money for their work; the American Dream in action. Good or bad is up to history, I just go diving.



Bob
------------------------------------------
I may be old, but I’m not dead yet.