This post is the sixth in a series looking at the AMI. Click below to read the others:

1. Whats wrong with the AMI
2. The Great AMI Debate: Round 2
3. The Stark Reality of the AMI
4. The AMI Bites Back
5. Marketing the Marketers: the UK perspective
6. Bowll Bites Back: Geoffrey responds to the AMI

Over the last couple of weeks the forums have been lighting up with
comments from marketers keen to share their views on the AMI and how
marketers market themselves. And like all healthy debates, this one has
some pretty strong opinions on both sides. Heres a couple of comments
from the marketing community:

Based on the response from Roger James I can only assume that the facts
and figures supplied represent the current state of affairs of the AMI,
and that being the case, I should expect that members should be pretty
happy with the progress being made by the Institute. britrail commenting on The AMI bites back.

I could not agree more the article. I was a member for 4 years and then my membership lasped (because it
was paid for by my previous employer) the only thing I missed was my
weekly BandT mag (a fun read for ad industry gossip!!). They provide no value and for a marketing organisation I think they are
actually incredibilly poor marketers. Knowone at the AMI thought to
contact me and try and retain my memership (cusotmer retention 101) and
I wonder what the brand recognition of the AMI would be outside of
marketing circles. simonr commenting on Whats Wrong With The AMI.

Not one to shy away from a good debate, Geoffrey Bowll returns to
offer his own response to Roger James and the AMI, this time in
technicolour. Watch his video below and decide for yourself where you
stand in the Great AMI Debate.