Reply To: Strategy and expoEM

Members Forum Miscellaneous Coffee Lounge Strategy and expoEM Reply To: Strategy and expoEM

Graeme Vickery
    On Paul Willis said
    On asjharris said

    As a new member I was surprised to see the P4 standards and products in the shop. I can understand the historical and constitutional aspects, but it seems very outdated now. If you want to do P4, you join the Scalefour society, not the EMGS and vice-versa. I wouldn’t have known the EMGS supported P4.

    There’s three possible options, 1, no change, 2, drop the P4 standards or 3, enter into negotiations with the Scalefour society to re-merge and thus share resources on what already is a small market share of the hobby. (obvs the tribal nature of the world means option 3 is unlikely)


    Hi Tony,

    Let’s not get carried away here.  I spent a few years in a moderately senior position at the UK financial services regulator.  Whenever considering any form of market intervention, the first question back then was “what is the harm?”.

    Whilst your options (2) and (3) could be done, what would it actually achieve in the real world?

    I’m a P4 modeller and I have happily also been a member of the EMGS since Chris Kedgely personally invited me to join.  I simply don’t see what the problem is that needs fixing.

    If there is a question about strategy, like “where will the EMGS be in twenty years?”, then that is a different question.  I feel that many of us would pay more attention to modelling than how many angels can balance on the head of a pin.  Both the constitutional changes to the EMGS and the establishment of the Scalefour Society occurred well over forty years ago, and frankly, does anyone actually care what happened back then?




    I dont see a problem that needs fixing as you say.  the only problem is that expoEM since covid seems to be loosing too much money.  expoEM and Scalefourum (so I unnderstand) are both struggling to make ends meet hence the rather simplistic suggestion of ditiching both in favour of a new joint show.  Both are very similar with excellent specialist trade support and excellent layouts.  So all things being equal, ditching them for a combined event just means the “subsidy” is spread across the 2 societies and Im not sure that really gets us very much further forward.  and of course as soon as folk talk of a joint show between EMGS and S4S, as has  been provided here, it is not long before a discussion starts about  merging the societies so we go full circle back to what actually is the problem we are trying to fix and does it really exist?