PADI?

[TMHeimer]

The reality is that PADI is a for-profit organization. A for-profit organization exists for one purpose only: to provide revenue for its shareholders. Which has its pros and cons. Being non-profit and thus not responsible for providing revenue to the shareholders also has its pros and cons. ISTM that not everyone is able to see this.

In an ideal world, any organization would be non-profit, but as effective and productive as a for-profit organization. However, the world is not ideal, and I don't know of any critter which is as effective as a well-driven for-profit organization while using all its revenue to provide better services for its customers. If anyone knows of such a creature, I'd be happy to be educated.

IMO best post so far.

 

[Mark IV]

Well, yeah, no kidding, PADI is a profit-generating entity. I very nearly stipulated that in my post, but decided it was so painfully obvious, the comment would fall somewhere between redundant, and stupid. Apparently it was necessary, after all.
Look, I'm not at all against free-market capitalism (in fact, I also disagree with your contention that, "In an ideal world, any organization would be non-profit". This is a philosophy suited for historically ignorant school children, and marxist dictators. But I digress .)
My point is that PADI has taken their profit generating to absurd extremes, that for the most part, do little to increase the quality of the scuba diving industry, or the individual's diving experience . Their endless money-grubbing only serves to perpetuate their endless money grubbing. PADI and their product line is like browsing through a gift shop at Disney World, with shelf after shelf of cheap useless junk whose sole purpose is to separate the gullible from their money. The actual joy of scuba diving takes a very distant 2nd place to all that. It's just a means to an end.

 

[boulderjohn]

The reality is that PADI is a for-profit organization. A for-profit organization exists for one purpose only: to provide revenue for its shareholders. Which has its pros and cons. Being non-profit and thus not responsible for providing revenue to the shareholders also has its pros and cons. ISTM that not everyone is able to see this.

In an ideal world, any organization would be non-profit, but as effective and productive as a for-profit organization. However, the world is not ideal, and I don't know of any critter which is as effective as a well-driven for-profit organization while using all its revenue to provide better services for its customers. If anyone knows of such a creature, I'd be happy to be educated.

This history of NAUI will be informative for folks.

NAUI was created by leadership that came from the Los Angeles County dive certification program, which was supported by tax dollars. The new NAUI program could not use tax dollars, but it tried to survive as a non-profit. It took donations where it could; for example, its headquarters were rent free in a dive magazine building. When that magazine was sold, they lost that revenue source. They survived for a while on a loan from Bill High, who later founded PSI. They decided that the best way to fund the program was by concentrating courses in colleges, so that course fees (and instructor pay) would come from tuition money the student would have had to pay anyway.

Despite that, they were still regularly in financial trouble, and in 1965 they decided to cut back their nation-wide program to focus on California. In so doing, they canceled a major training program in Chicago, and the Chicago branch reacted by forming a new agency, PADI. PADI looked for a different way of financing itself, and decided to focus instruction in stores selling scuba equipment. Another new agency, the National Association of Skin Diving Stores (NASDS) did the same thing, changing its name to the National Association of Skin Diving Schools as it did. NASDS eventually merged with SSI, although the reality is that NASDS took over SSI--the NASDS owner became the SSI owner.

In time, NAUI changed its non-profit status. It is now part non-profit and part for profit. It's hard to tell the difference.

 

[boulderjohn]

Their endless money-grubbing only serves to perpetuate their endless money grubbing. PADI and their product line is like browsing through a gift shop at Disney World, with shelf after shelf of cheap useless junk whose sole purpose is to separate the gullible from their money. The actual joy of scuba diving takes a very distant 2nd place to all that. It's just a means to an end.

Please do everyone a favor and identify the dive agencies that do not teach multiple classes, including specialties. Please identify the agencies whose instructors work for free for the good of scuba.

 

[Mark IV]

Please do everyone a favor and identify the dive agencies that do not teach multiple classes, including specialties. Please identify the agencies whose instructors work for free for the good of scuba.

This was a ridiculous, fallacious argument, as you well know. I wasn't suggesting that PADI teach one single course, and everyone work for free. My point was that PADI has long since gotten carried away with an excessive amount of dopey products and useless,specialty courses.

 

[Colliam7]

PADI has long since gotten carried away with an excessive amount of dopey products and useless,specialty courses.

Such as? I am not disagreeing with you, only trying to better understand what YOU think are 'dopey products' and 'useless specialty courses'. It is more effective to be specific than to make vague generalizations.

For example, earlier in the thread some users expressed disdain for Zombie Apocalypse Diver (which, I have been told, happens to be one of PADI's most popular specialties), some did for the DSMB specialty. Another user mentioned Dive Against Debris (but their comments suggested they had no idea what was involved in the course). I would be interested in knowing if you have other specific courses that you consider useless.

I may have my own ideas about what might be useless. I would like to better understand the thought processes of others.

 

[boulderjohn]

This was a ridiculous, fallacious argument, as you well know. I wasn't suggesting that PADI teach one single course, and everyone work for free. My point was that PADI has long since gotten carried away with an excessive amount of dopey products and useless,specialty courses.

I am still confused. If a dive shop offers a class, and if students want to take it, what is wrong with that?

I recently ordered an outdoor shed for my back yard, and one company must have a hundred different models from which to choose. I looked through the list and descriptions and found one that matched my needs perfectly. I was not a bit upset that they offered so many different models. Should I have been?

I imagine you are most upset with the distinctive specialties, which are not in fact offered by PADI but are instead offered by individual dive instructors and shops. Why are you opposed to instructors and shops designing courses that students might want to take? What is so very evil about that?

 

[tursiops]

My point was that PADI has long since gotten carried away with an excessive amount of dopey products and useless,specialty courses.

You keep saying this, over and over, but that doesn't make it true. Some examples and facts might help you buttress your case, which right now consists only of your assertions. Which are the dopey products and useless specialties? If they are so dopey, i wonder why people keep buying them? Is your problem PADI, or that PADI is simply providing what people want?

 

[boulderjohn]

I may have my own ideas about what might be useless.

My reaction to all items I think are useless, from scuba classes to fidget spinners, is not to buy them.

 

[The Chairman]

I've received a few queries about this, so I thought I would post this.

ScubaBoard does not condone or even allow agency bashing. Bashing is simply name calling or defamation (unsupported allegations). It's one thing to not like an agency, and it's your right to express that dislike. It's also allowed for you to criticize any agency and/or to call their practices into question. Please be sure to explain your criticisms and allow any instructor for that agency to set the story straight. Continued misrepresentation of an agency's standards and/or processes is treated as bashing.

ScubaBoard staff realizes that if you're a part of ScubaBoard, you're passionate about diving. That passion is often polarizing and small differences seem to grow way out of proportion. Your fellow user isn't a troll or otherwise evil just because they dive differently or have a differing opinion about an agency or practice. In that vein, please keep the discussion civil. Please don't make the same points over and over again and if you have a criticism, please give us some citations or at least the reasoning. We don't need for this to turn into the Monty Python skit about Arguments.

If you feel a post crosses that line, please report it and tell us why you think it's problematic. A moderator not engrossed in this discussion will evaluate your report and act accordingly. No, we don't vet for facts, so don't report a post you disagree with or think is fundamentally wrong. We leave that part of the discussion up to you, the user.