Opinion: A Response to the F.I.P. Article on Social Media Philatelists

The Federation Internationale de Philatelie published an opinion piece by Mr Colin Fraser in their September 2020 magazine, Flash. In this piece Mr Fraser took a critical and negative aim at philatelists who use social media. The piece made misleading, uninformed and stereotypical statements of how philatelists interact with social media and portrays any stamp collector using social media as a fad.

It was disappointing to see an international body not check the claims within the article before publishing or at least edit the piece so as not to alienate a large part of the stamp collecting community. Rather than being a reflective piece on the changes within the community, it was divisive.

I aim to address some of the points raised and those that some organisations falsely uphold as fact.

Social media Influencers

The premise of the article was if COVID-19 actually created renaissance for philately. Mr Fraser asserts:

In recent years we also now have a generation of social media “philatelists” endeavoring to “influence” us about something. Their messages are often derivative or repetitious and many of these social media influencers seem to have no real connection to whatever it is they are promoting. Many posts are simply some image which they think is Instagramable. Some would ask legitimately whether any of this is even philately.

Firstly, there are two types of influencers. One that sets about to influence purchasing choices due to their own passion or knowledge, and the other is someone who engages people through their passion or knowledge for a particular niche topic.

Presently, there are only two social media accounts (Exploring Stamps and Conversations with Philatelists) out of the thousands that have engaged with a third party (American Philatelic Society) at some point to influence a ‘purchasing decision.’ This sponsorship of content was for a limited period. Other accounts, such as software developers, philatelic organisations or traders, have promoted their own products or services to influence others to engage with them.

The rest of the social media populous meets the second factor: engaging people through their passion or knowledge to engage with the hobby.

Mr Fraser proceeds to suggest that social media is “often derivative or repetitious.”  Mr Fraser doesn’t explain why he considers it to be derivative, so therefore it is hard to comment on this part.

Repetition is dependent on the social media type. For example, a content sharing platform like Twitter, it is expected that users share tweets. There is bound to be some repetition if you follow people with similar interests to you. However, each user will have different followers and sharing content this way allows the content to reach new audiences. In other words, these accounts are promoting our hobby via sharing content.

However, not all platforms work this way. Instagram does not allow one to ‘share’ other accounts’ posts. Therefore each account is unique in the content it presents and must hold itself on its own merits to attract followers. This is similar to Facebook groups, discord servers, discussion boards and any other commercial activity.

So how is this any different to writing a philatelic book and selling it to other philatelists, publishing a study journal, or promoting a stamp club through word-of-mouth? The only difference is the media used and Mr Fraser, by the sheer nature of writing a piece in Flash, is an “influencer” himself.

The next part of his comments forms a view which can only be described as stamp snobbery which has reared its ugly head from within organised philately in attempt to create a divide among the stamp collecting community. The question relates to whether anyone who uses scoial media is a real philatelist or a mere stamp collector. However, before I address this, let’s continue with the other comments.

Decline of Philately

The article continues to outline the decline of philately since the 1980’s. Mr Fraser’s points here are  valid…to a degree. Since the 1980’s there has been a decline in stamp collecting generally and the reasons leading to this were; oversupply, treating the hobby as an investment and changes in culture.

One reality we must all accept is that stamp collecting will never reach the heights it did pre-1960. Those days are long gone. Stamp collecting can now be considered pop-culture and its history can be likened to the Beanie Babies craze of the 1980’s-1990’s and its downfall.

However, organised philately continues to treat stamp collecting as it existed in its hey-day. Unless we magically return to those 1960’s engagement levels, it seems that these organisations will continually consider the hobby in decline. They are chasing their own tails and like the return of Norma Desmond, this will never, ever happen.

Instead, we as a community need to look at other fads that have made a comeback. In the 1990’s Lego was on the verge of bankruptcy. They used out-dated business practices, weren’t willing to change, and hoped their name alone would sell their product. It was not until fresh blood was brought into the business with modern approaches and new ideas that it saved itself to become the no.1 toy in the world.

The way stamp collectors engage in the community has vastly changed over the last 30 years and philatelic organisations (except a few) continue to fight against this reality. They cling to any excuse to keep the ‘norm’ of the childhood years.  The failure to adopt common, modern technology has lead to a decrease in collectors joining philatelic organisations but not a decline in the hobby. While everyone has a smart phone or iPhone, philatelic organisations scream that these are fads and the dial-up phone will again rise from the ashes.

How we operated as a hobby in the 1960’s will not bring new people into the hobby. This does not mean the hobby is in decline. Collectively, we need to adjust our expectations and consider how the hobby has changed, especially since the beginning of the 2000’s.

Abandoning the middle child

Another major failure of philatelic organisations is the inability to acknowledge and embrace the ‘middle child.’ That is, they only focus on youth (generally children under 14) or those of senior age (60+). There is very little focus on the the large demographic in-between.

Mr Fraser takes aim at one of the few (are there others?) initiatives by a major organisation to bridge the gap.

What has the American Philatelic Society’s Youth Fellowship program really done to increase stamp collecting? Whilst making a lot of noise, it has really achieved very little of merit given the money spent. Not a great return on investment. Let us admit failure and go back to the drawing board.

What Mr Fraser misses, is that the American Philatelic Society (APS)  has actually taken steps to bring the ‘middle child’ into the hobby. It is a program that aims to develop young adults to actively support the hobby rather than abandoning them. We only need to look at where two graduates, Charles Epting of HR Harmer and Michael Cortese of NobleSpirit, are within philately to know this program is far from a failure. And while it is easy to criticise the APS, Mr Fraser offers no solutions or ideas in which they can improve. A whinge without a solution is just a whinge.

He then goes on to state:

As I have often said publicly, collecting stamps takes a combination of time, money and inclination. The older people, especially the retirees, are more likely to have the time and the money – what we need to do is stimulate the inclination. Let us focus our energy where it is more likely to be productive. Why are we not focusing our energy on that group? A group who are also far more likely to have funds to spend with the dealers and auction houses, to attend shows and pay their membership fees for clubs and societies?…. Let us focus our energy on encouraging the inclination of those with time and money. This will have a far greater impact on the overall well-being of philately.

Firstly, investing in a group of people of retirement age that will most likely be dead in 13 years, is not a good investment.

Secondly, does collecting stamps really require time, money and inclination?

• • Anyone can have the time if they make time – you don’t need to be a retiree for this.
  • Stamps can be cheaply obtained through many different avenues. You do not need copious amounts of cash to be a stamp collector.
  • As for inclination – well, that would be a given. If you are not inclined to collect stamps, why are you collecting them?

He continues to suggest that collectors can only exist if they have copious amounts of cash to spend at an auction house and pay fees for clubs and societies. This is nonsense.

One of the benefits of social media is that you don’t need to spend money on clubs and organisations – many existing clubs offer little value to a potential member other than status. Historically, dues were there to pay for the cost of printed journals/newsletters, posting or the hiring of a venue for local meetings. If books & journals are distributed electronically, there is no cost to the author other than time (and you generally don’t pay for this). If the group creates a Facebook Group and meets at the local pub, what venue is needed? It’s not like clubs now have hundreds of members for a Tuesday evening get-to-together. There are very few real expenses anymore.

The exception to this is where the organisation actually offers something of value. For example, the American Philatelic Society maintains a library that is available to members. Maintaining a library involves costs and therefore it is reasonable to expect someone to pay a fee for this purpose. Lavish gifts, fancy dinners and expensive venues for a few individuals to gather, is not a benefit.

We have seen clubs like the Korea Stamp Society offer 100% free memberships and bring their society back from the brink of collapse. One can even look at Graham Beck with over 17,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel – a base that would rival most philatelic organisations.

But let’s take the numbers of just three popular social media accounts (Exploring Stamps, Stampboards & Collect Stamps). Each has an average membership base of minimum 17,000 (equalling 51,000 in total).  The majority of these online collectors fall between the age bracket of 35-55. These are people spending money online, these are the people with time to engage with the hobby online, and they obviously are inclined towards the hobby. This is not the retiree age demographic and would probably equate to the total membership of the Royal Philatelic Society London and the American Philatelic Society combined.

Social media offers a perfect platform for any collector to create their own ‘virtual club’ for free (and in some cases they will earn money) without ever needing a member (fan) to pay a cent. Not having to pay dues also allows lower income households to participate in the hobby and have access to philatelic knowledge.

His argument holds no merit and is simply not true.

Social media demographics

How is the excess of zoom meetings, u-tube [SIC} videos and on-line presentations an escape from a millennial’s screen based life? Neither of these writers really discuss in a meaningful way about actually collecting stamps, supporting the dealers and participation in the established infrastructure of the hobby. Whilst on an individual level, this new-found millennial appeal may give some Twitter or Instagram excitement, it may generate fodder for some so-called influencers in the hobby, its impact is likely to again fade when social distancing becomes a behavioral pattern of the past and people can again return to their pre-Covid life style.

Perhaps Mr Fraser isn’t aware the world has changed dramatically since 1980? We live in a modern era. It is not just millennials who use social media. Figures from SproutSocial.com show that social media is an intrinsic part of everyone’s lives – just like electricity or the tv.

He doesn’t seem to be able to accept, like many organisations, that the world has changed since 1960. OurWorldData.org (2018) outlines that there are 7.7 billion people in the world with 3.5 billion online, and this has continued to grow. This is not a ‘fading trend’ but a reality. In particular. Hootsuite (2019) states that seniors are the fastest growing demographic for social media (50% increase since 2012). We saw similar sentiments in the 1990’s when commercially viable internet services became available. Brick and mortar stores declared that the online shopping sites like AuctionWeb would never take off – ‘people preferred to shop at a store’, they said. AuctionWeb is now known as Ebay. 1.92 billion people shopped online in 2019.

Suggesting the popularity of Social Media is due to the COVID-19 is erroneous. The figures show the rapid changes occurred years before COVID. He attempts to liken new members joining the hobby during the COVID crisis to the Dot-com bubble. I assume he is just trying to find some ‘digital reference’ in an attempt to make his point. However, the two situations are vastly different and his point makes no sense. The 1980’s philatelic boom and bust is the only thing that is anywhere near similar to the Dot-com bubble bust.

Indeed, equating a return to a pre-COVID lifestyle for philately would be the equivalent of thinking women will return to tight corsets and hoop skirts after the Great War.

Similarly, posting images of mostly modern material with colorful pictures is about instant gratification and becoming an influencer rather than developing an interest in forming a real collection over a long period of time. Has this frantic, frenetic internet frenzy reminiscent of Dot-Com bubble of 1995 to 2000, changed philately and laid the foundations for a long term and stable future? The answer is probably not.

Instant gratification comes in many forms. Exhibiting at an exhibition is one way. Showing your newly acquired stamps at a stamp meeting is another. Purchasing a stamp at auction is another. Social media is neither a cause nor effect for instant gratification. This point is illogical.

He next suggests that being an ‘influencer’ and a ‘serious collector’ cannot be one and the same, and there is a shelf life where the social influencer will fade yet a serious collector will remain for years. This is also illogical. This would be similar to a Christian saying that if they go to church every Sunday, they cannot be possibly be a sinner.

He continues to take aim at the type of material collected. Apparently, only modern material is shown via social media. This is far from the truth. Modern material is less likely to be shown online than older material. The fact the Mr Fraser refers to YouTube as U-Tube, demonstrates very little exposure to social media, let alone what is posted on social media.

Legitimate Philately

“”Some would ask legitimately whether any of this is even philately.”

There have been a few comments recently aimed at anyone that interacts with social media that they are not real philatelists.

The Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries state that a philatelist is “a person who collects or studies stamps.”

You will note it does not state that a philatelist must hold a collection in which they invested x amount of money in, it does not state one must have exhibited at any level, and it does not state that posting anything on social media is an exclusion.

By these dictionary definitions, one does not even need to own a stamp to be a philatelist.

Suggesting anyone who collects stamps is not a philatelist is simply stamp snobbery.

Final Comments

“The question is what happens next?”

In the next 5 years, most major exhibitions will move online. There will be multimedia, interactive exhibiting. Stamps shows, if any, will immersive and not static as they are now.

In the next 10 years, most stamp clubs will no longer exist and will probably be absorbed by larger philatelic organisations. Organisations will adopt a different type of member with completely different collecting styles and interests. Old exhibiting rules will be discarded and abandoned.

In the next 15 years, Mr Fraser will most likely have departed the planet into the heavens above along with all that investment. There will be new technology and those philatelic leaders (influencers) that endured these anti-social media rants will embrace new technology and change much quicker than the old guard.