He who pays the Piper calls the tune... By Jonathan Owen

From Market Matters Sept 09

Asyou’ll see from the front page news story, several people (including myself) were more than a bit miffed recently to receive a letter telling us the National Association of British Market Authorities is no longer interested in endorsing ‘approved consultants’ to any council needing advice and assistance.

Unfortunately this is the culmination of a long-running disagreement between the the six previously ‘approved’ consultants and a Management Board, which was (we thought) steering the Association into dangerous waters. Anyway, we’ve now thrown our toys out of the pram and set up the APMC - the Association of Professional Market Consultants - and told NABMA if you don’t want us in your gang then we’ll form our own. So there.

There’s no doubt that NABMA conferences and the members forum has improved immensely over the last few years, but it has come at a cost, which subscription fees alone cannot support. That is the root cause of our little falling-out. Councils are strapped for cash and NABMA membership is falling-off, so putting up the subscription rate would just make matters worse. I would have thought the obvious solution to balance the books was (a) reduce operating costs or (b) increase membership, but instead the Management board opted to establish NABMA Consultancy Services to secure extra revenue and secure corporate sponsorship to plug the remaining hole in the financial dyke.

At this point my solicitor has told me to be very careful....

I believe that there are a few fundamental flaws to this strategy. Firstly, based on personal experience, NABMA consultancy fees will just about pay for one finger in the dyke. Secondly, sponsorship comes at the risk of being accused of losing one’s impartiality. Thirdly, you are hardly likely to retain the goodwill and subscriptions of loyal supporters who see you trying to put them out of business. We did suggest various ways to balance the books, including (with gritted teeth, admittedly) a levy in addition to our annual subscriptions but they fell on deaf ears. This argument has been bouncing back and forth for a couple of years now during which time those of us who previously enjoyed an excellent working relationship with NABMA members have found the door to them well and truly nailed shut. At the risk of sounding like sour grapes, it does raise some interesting questions about how much sponsorship NABMA needs to keep afloat and whether withdrawing approved status will restrict councils’ ability to obtain competitive bids. Does anyone fancy asking those questions at the NABMA September conference? Sadly, I won’t be attending.

To read the complete article, click here to download the PDF