Is PADI popular because it's cute?

[Guba]

To some degree, based on the PADI bashing that goes on (which I don't necessarily agree with), it would seem that PADI is the Microsoft of the diving world. It's the agency people love to hate, even while still buying its products.




And that, my friends, sounds like the final word. (And if it's not...perhaps it SHOULD be. No minds are going to be changed here today, eh?)

 

[k ellis]

I think Padi just became popular myself due to the ease of the courses. I have personaly spoke with several agencies representives about which one is more educational and went around checking the agencies out before I got certified.

I settled with Padi because of a few reasons. One is they dont over teach things that do not pertain to the type of diving you wish to do. (I.E. if you do lake dives then current would not be as important as basic open water). Then some certifications you get from your own hands on such as the Master Scuba Diver.

Padi also like many other agencies will accept the c-card specialites for their own certifications. I know from my research alone Padi met my criteria best

As far as over all popularity its hard to say but its easy to see why its popular to the newbies

 

[Walter]

And that, my friends, sounds like the final word. (And if it's not...perhaps it SHOULD be. No minds are going to be changed here today, eh?)

Why should it be the final word when it's clearly wrong?

 

[Standingbear56]

The most thoughtful response yet to my question. Thank you!

Well, I dunno about being "needless" to say. If it were that needless, I would not have asked about it

Well, this is getting to the heart of my question. I'm acknowledging PADI's effective marking. What I was wondering about is the degree to which the name, PADI, contributes to the effectiveness of that marking. For example, suppose PADI does everything that it does with respect to marking, but it's name were, XYFJ Instructors Inc. Would its marking be as effective?? If not, then how much less so? The second part of my OP was, did they choose a cute sounding name like PADI SPECIFICALLY as part of its marketing effort. From your post, it sounds like, to some degree, the answer is "yes". As pointed out in one of my previous posts, if the answer really IS yes, then I think it was a brilliant move on their part.

I think it's a combination of both name recognition and marketing. PADI's name came around long before the marketing. When I 1st became certified, it was with YMCA. We were also given a PADI certification because the instructor was just getting into them. At that time, PADI could be given along side other agencies certifications. However soon after that, PADI started it's advertising.

Microsoft knows how to do business too, and its very popular, but its products really SUCK. To some degree, based on the PADI bashing that goes on (which I don't necessarily agree with), it would seem that PADI is the Microsoft of the diving world. It's the agency people love to hate, even while still buying its products.

With the exception of Apple's products, try finding a computer without microsoft being involved. I'm no computer genius, so I don't know if microsoft sucks or not, I just know that virtually everything comes with them, and I cannot afford the Apple products, so I go with microsoft ones. While some of the PADI bashers do have some valid points, the fact that no other agency is as big as PADI, nor has PADI's bottom line says a lot. If PADI's courses were as bad or as dangerous as some people say they are, then not only would PADI would have been sued out of business, but the other agencies would not have remodeled themselves similar to PADI. Especially when you consider the number of people certified by PADI is generally more than the other agencies combined - if they were as bad or dangerous as many claim - the amount of the legal payouts to it's victims could take a huge chunk out of the Wall Street bail out. And, unlike Apple, PADI is not priced on the fringe of the market, nor is there an elitism attitude along with it.

I think Padi just became popular myself due to the ease of the courses. I have personaly spoke with several agencies representives about which one is more educational and went around checking the agencies out before I got certified.

This is one of the things the courses are designed to do - accessible to the multitudes, within reason.

I settled with Padi because of a few reasons. One is they dont over teach things that do not pertain to the type of diving you wish to do. (I.E. if you do lake dives then current would not be as important as basic open water). Then some certifications you get from your own hands on such as the Master Scuba Diver.

Padi also like many other agencies will accept the c-card specialites for their own certifications. I know from my research alone Padi met my criteria best
As far as over all popularity its hard to say but its easy to see why its popular to the newbies

And that's the whole thing in the nutshell, and the other's hate it. While again, the other do indeed have some valid points, PADI laughs all the way to the bank.

PADI is like Harley - they may not be the most advanced thing on the market, but everyone's gotta have one, and their accident rates are no better or worse than anyone elses.

 

[Walter]

their accident rates are no better or worse than anyone elses.

How do you know?

 

[Standingbear56]

How do you know?

Hi Walter,
Contrary to popular belief, I really do have a life beyond scuba. :shocked2:
Used to work for a major insurance company and had access to the numbers. Still have friends who do.
Safe diving AND riding,
George

 

[Hoomi]

I guess that's kind of the rub, isn't it? Accident reports aren't readily available subdivided into which agency certified the accident victim, and then prorated into comparative percentages of total divers.

Logically, if, as claimed here and by PADI itself, more divers are certified each year by PADI than by all other agencies combined, then more PADI divers will be involved in accidents each year.

If PADI divers were, on average, as safe as any other agency's certified divers, then the percentages should remain consistent. I.E., if 70% of all divers were PADI certified (a hypothetical number pulled out of thin air for discussion), and 70% of all accidents involved PADI divers, it would remain average with all other agencies.

If, on the other hand, 70% of all divers were PADI certified, but 90% of all accidents involved PADI divers, it would indicate a clear trend of PADI divers being less safe than other agencies.

The other metric that would be valuable to look at is percentage of any given agency's divers that are involved in accidents. If, say, the average across the board is that 10% of most agencies divers are involved in accidents each year, but PADI has a rate that shows 20% are involved in accidents each year, their per capita rate would indicate PADI divers are, on average, less safe than other agencies' divers.

Lawsuit rates are not necessarily an accurate indicator of such things, either. The lapse in safe-diving practices may have involved something that was taught in the training (such as not holding the breath while diving), but because of the short duration of the classes, an instructor may not have noticed a student with the unconscious habit of doing so.

If I'm breathing properly 95% of the time when I'm diving, then that's 3 minutes of every hour I'm not breathing correctly, and not necessarily a continuous 3 minutes. An instructor would have to be looking at me during that short span I'm not breathing right to see that he or she needs to correct a dangerous habit. The more time I'm in the water with an instructor, the more likely they are to look my way during that 5% lapse. A course where all the confined water dives take place over one weekend, involving maybe 10 to 12 hours in the water, with the instructor paying attention to other students as well, would give a very high chance the lapse would not get noticed. A longer course gives the instructor more time with each student, and hence a better chance such a problem is seen and addressed.

As I've said, I'm not into the PADI bashing, but I do see the validity in some of the points being raised. Some instructors work to address those potential problems during their courses, but others do not. Just meeting the minimum training requirements stipulated by a certifying agency such as PADI or SSI may be enough to shield an instructor and the agency from lawsuits, but is it really enough to produce safe divers?

Based on some of what I've read here on Scubaboard, I think the PADI Open Water course my wife and I went through was better than average, and I still believe it should have been more stringent. Some things should not be "dumbed down" for mass appeal, because the risks are just too great.

 

[Walter]

Hi Walter,
Contrary to popular belief, I really do have a life beyond scuba. :shocked2:
Used to work for a major insurance company and had access to the numbers. Still have friends who do.
Safe diving AND riding,
George

Don't be coy, let's see the raw data.

 

[Guba]

But even raw data could very well be misleading...
Take, for example, the activity involved in a drowning death. I suspect (though I don't know) that cave divers may have a higher mortality rate than average recreational divers. I would be willing to believe that serious cavers might favor one agency over another for their certifications. Under those circumstances, that agency's "raw data" would distort the statistics, leading one to think their training for the average diver was inferior. In truth, the activity involved is a contributable cause for the higher mortality...not the level of training.
I'm just saying that literal interpretations of lumped facts don't really provide the full picture. It's far more complex than that.

 

[Walter]

It's more complex that that. Accident stats (even if there were any real stats - there aren't) are not an indication of quality of training.