Richard - I think you may be one of the few who understands the true debate here.
The problem with number 8 is that it is written the way congress might add highway funding to a telecommunications bill. #8 is just fine, until John adds what is likely his own phrase, "Regardless of need," which makes all the 'gear salesman' haters think #8 is terrible and rally around this possibly misleading post. And if a shop promoted #8 as written by John, I would think that shop was terrible too!
The tone in which John describes #9 makes it seem bad, but if you think about it, #9 is often implemented, but just more subtly so no one gets excited about it. And it does come down to training agency as you so aptly pointed out. But to understand this, one has to look at the differences pertaining to agencies.
WARNING DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU LIKE BELIEVING ALL AGENCIES ARE THE SAME. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE NON-COMMITAL, ITS THE INSTRUCTOR NOT THE AGENCY POSTS! THIS POST CONTAINS FACTS THAT HAVE CAUSED THE AUTHOR TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS SOME MAY POSSIBLY TAKE AS DEROGATORY ABOUT THEIR FAVORITE AGENCY.
One last sub-warning: while it is true there are probably bad (bad = minimal or compromised standards) instructors from just about every agency, many of which can certify through multiple agencies, the point of the post is to show that the history and philosophy behind each agency increases or decreases the chances of bad instructors. It also affects how #9 is implemented.
First there was NAUI (dont get excited, I understand there was LA County and CMAS before that, but that isnt relevant to this discussion). NAUIs guiding principles, which are all in the divers best interest, are better promoted by the fact NAUI is a non-profit organization. With a non-profit philosophy, instructor members are more likely motivated by what is best for the student. With training materials that are second to none, NAUI students have a good chance of becoming decent divers and hopefully get honest advice about the gear that they need.
Then there was PADI, the first FOR PROFIT training agency. Like another training agency that came along 30 years later, PADI gave out instructor cards like candy. Eventually, there were more PADI instructors than any other agency. Because PADI was focused on selling training, they dumbed down complete courses into many sub-courses, that required consumers to buy to many little courses to get what they were getting in less courses before. Through reducing standards and heavy marketing, everyone drank the kool-aide, and PADI became, the way the world learns to dive. Soon there were specialties for everything, like Boat Diver purely designed to sell books and cards. And nothing seems to have changed.
For example, I rented a scooter once and followed a lady who worked for a PADI shop, for one dive. When we finished the one dive and I was about to leave, she offered me a PADI Specialty DPV card for $35. Back then I didnt have a PADI card, so I thought maybe it might benefit me in some way, so I paid the $35. When the card came, it had the name of a man I never met, printed on it as my instructor!
With all the focus on selling dumbed down courses, course materials and cards, haphazard gear sales made it difficult for many PADI shops to stay in business.
And with a majority of independent instructors being PADI, local dive shops being PADI, and chain sporting goods department stores being PADI, how does one differentiate themselves under PADI? The answer is that there is no differentiation so why be PADI then?
NASDS / SSI recognized that many shop owners were divers with no business or sales training, so they developed a sales system to help their dealers make up for their inadequacies in business. They also recognized that divers who owned their own equipment often stayed involved in diving and became better and safer divers, so their sales system included selling gear, as well as courses.
#9, My first reaction to #9 (#7 on Johns renumbered list) was, How dare someone other than the all knowledgeable instructor, have an opinion on what gear his students should buy! But then I started thinking, and realized this. Whos students are they the shops or the instructors?
- If the instructor marketed his services independent of the shop, then they are the instructors students in which case the instructor MAY have the right to promote or not promote whatever gear he / she wants. I say may have because unless the instructor owns his own scuba shop that he outfits his clients with before the class starts, or owns a complete line of rental gear, and has a compressor, the instructor still needs a shop to work through. If the shop owner is smart in his agreement with the independent instructor, and the independent instructor is ethical in follow through, the independent instructor would be required to promote the shop and its gear as agreed.
- If they are the shops students, then what right does the instructor have to have any say regarding gear, unless the owner allows the instructor to have a say. And who is to say that the instructor has a better idea than the owner of what the students need anyway?
Next came IANTD, ANDI, NACD, and NSS-CDS. These agencies all recognized the need for technical and cave training and provided it. And although they had a gear message, sometimes it wasnt consistent enough for some.
This left the market open for two more agencies emerge both with very specific gear messages: GUE and later UDT. Both agencies manufacture and market their own gear. Their store owners and instructors wear this gear as their instructor uniforms, and promote it as the best. Students cant even pass the class unless they buy this gear and wear it as instructed. ISNT THIS WHAT JOHN IS COMPLAINING ABOUT IN NUMBER 9? So it is OK for GUE and UDT, but not SSI? I am pretty sure if we were discussing a UDT store here instead of a SSI store, John would have no problem with #9.
9. Require your instructors to purchase those items identified in #8 and wear all of them while instructing as their "instructor uniform."
Requiring the instructors to wear the products the store sells is smart and part of a consistent sales and safety message, and is NOT unethical. If instructor purchase is required, and the store doesnt make it worthwhile enough for the instructor to buy a second set of uniform gear to teach in, then obviously this requirement is unreasonable, and maybe the instructor needs to find another store. Still nothing unethical here just a business decision by the instructor. BUT wearing store sold gear can be achieved by stores letting instructors wear store owned equipment while instructing. Imagine signing up for a Ping golf clinic through a Ping dealer, and the instructor showed up with a set of Mizunos! This dealers client isnt going to likely be purchasing many Pings as a result of training with the Ping instructor using Mizuno
So why should it be the instructor, who has invested nothing and therefore has nothing to lose, get to choose the gear to push or not push to the students? Or a better question might be why would a store owner, who has everything to lose, allow instructors to use his shop and determine the future of his business, with no commitment of loyalty. With this in mind, why would owners and instructors not organize a gear message, when they know how much it benefits the students?
9. continued: Require them to tell the students that as instructors, they have the freedom to buy anything, but they want the best. They therefore carefully selected every item they use while instructing because it is the best there is.
I think this is probably a bit of an exaggeration on Johns part, to make gear selling instructors look like liars. First of all, it is hard to say there is the best there is with any piece of scuba equipment. Like another poster (Flots Am) so aptly pointed out, at the recreational level, just about all the gear out there is good enough to be safe in. In most cases, the instructors product endorsement verbiage could reasonably be modified so that it still consistent with the stores sales and safety message, and was not a lie on the instructors part.
(The only item on our required uniform list I would purchase and use for myself was the wet suit. I would have been required, for example, to say that I use a specific brand of alternate air source on the inflator hose because it's the best way to dive, even though I personally would never buy one if given the choice)
The real problem I see here for John is that he is a long hose / necklace / bp / wing guy the problem being that is all he wants to sell. Unfortunately (I say unfortunately because that is all I would prefer to sell too), the majority of the market views this as too hard core for swimming around at 30-60 watching fishies, so they prefer a more exciting colorful looking soft bc / with pockets / still wing style and no hoses crossing the chest set-up. Dive stores, like Rustys, should and do recognize this, and aim to provide a high quality safe version of this.
So even if John would never dive with a high performance Atomic SS1 on an inflator hose (and neither would I), that doesnt mean he would be lying to a student if he said, I prefer a long hose / necklace configuration, but for sport diving, if you didnt go with my setup, the Atomic with SS1 is a great setup (which in comparison to an octopus hanging off the same side as the primary, then strapped across the chest, is probably a true statement at least for me it is). This is assuming the store offers bp / wing / long hoses for him to sell and would allow him to say that which I dont see why any reasonable store wouldnt.
So back to the original question: is this good for divers - To sell them something other than a bp / wing / long hose / necklace? Absolutely owning and training in their own complete system is safer and invests them in diving, and makes it more convenient which will likely keep them diving.
