Category Statistics

Point 85: Longest Standing Currently Active APP Members

The following is a list of longest standing APP Members who are still currently active. Listed beside their names, you’ll find their original join date. This list reflects consecutive membership; according to current membership policy, original join dates can be reinstated after no more than two years, as long as there has not been a lapse in membership dues.

We’re honored to have these 20 people continuing to support the Association of Professional Piercers and the body piercing industry.

  • Sky Renfro—July 1994
  • David Vidra—October 1995
  • Adam Block—January 1996
  • Allen Falkner—January 1996
  • Patrick McCarthy—February 1996
  • Bink Williams—March 1996
  • Elayne Angel—March 1996
  • Brian Skellie—May 1996
  • Derek Lowe—June 1996
  • Darrin Walters—August 1996
  • Gus Diamond—October 1996
  • Steve Joyner—July 1997
  • Bethrah Szumski—August 1997
  • Marc J. Williams—September 1997
  • Jason King—October 1997
  • David Kelso—January 1999
  • Sarah Wooten—May 1999
  • James Weber—May 1999
  • Luis Garcia—May 1999
  • Shawn Taylor—July 1999

Point 84: Membership Infographics Explained

by Marina Pecorino, APP Membership Administrator

The following infographics were presented in the annual Members’ Meeting at Conference. There’s a lot of information here, so I’d like to take a moment to make sure the full breadth of our recent growth is understood.

It’s important to note that our membership changes almost daily. Prior to Conference, the Membership Committee processed all applications received before April 1, 2018, and then went on hiatus until after Conference, so new memberships have a pre-Conference deadline.

However, the same does not apply for changes with existing Members. Keep in mind the nomadic nature of many piercers, moving to different studios, or relocating to different states and countries. These types of changes happen up to and even onsite at Conference.

It seems only appropriate to start from the beginning, so let’s look at the APP Membership Inception to Current graph. The golden columns show the total number of active Members at the close of each corresponding year.

This includes all membership types, and excludes our Corporate Sponsors. The blue line indicates the current active Members based on their join year. So, as an example, looking back ten years, 2008 ended with 254 total Members (a difference of 18 compared to the previous year), and only

16 of the Members accepted that year still maintained active membership at the time that these graphs were created. On the contrary, in 2017, the year ended with a total of 582 Members (a difference of 60 compared to the previous year), and 134 of those active Members (that’s 23%) joined last year! It’s pretty clear to see the incredible growth the APP has experienced over the last several years, with active Members more than doubling since 2012.

This brings us to the Pre-Conference Growth graph. This illustrates the number of new Members between January 1 and Conference of each corresponding year. Keep in mind  that  Conference  does not have a stationary date, so there is a bit of variation with the Membership Committee hiatus I mentioned earlier. Regardless, pre-Conference growth has almost tripled between 2014 and 2018.

Moving to the next set of graphs, we look at our memberships and  sponsorships by type. The first of this set is specific to individual Members and the membership type they fit into. Business Members—piercers with more than one year of professional experience, who meet both environmental and personal criteria—are by far our largest membership category, for obvious reasons. The second graph in this set includes all of

the information from the previous, but also includes Additional Location memberships and our Corporate Sponsors. The Additional Location memberships are used for Business Members who consistently work in more than one approved studio location.

The final two infographics show membership (Associate Corporate, Associate, Business, Business at Large, and Patron Members) by geographical location. The first shows all active Members in North America. California and Oregon have the highest number of APP Members, followed closely by Florida and Texas. The concentration of Members in these areas is somewhat predictable, based on the sheer size and density of populations in these states. The second map shows active Members worldwide. Despite being an international organization, APP membership is highest in the United States, but membership is growing elsewhere. Australia now has the third highest membership by country, most of which were added within the last three years.

The recent popularization and growth of our industry, in combination with the outstanding work of the Membership Committee, and our transition to an online membership system are all partly responsible for the recent prosperity of the APP. That said, the majority of the credit goes to industry professionals as a whole and the increasing demand for excellence. As professionals hold themselves and their studios to higher standards, and look to the Association of Professional Piercers for support, I’m confident that the organization and industry will continue to thrive.

Point 84: New Members & Sponsors July 2017-July 2018

Business & Business Members at Large

  • Rafael Andrade
  • Tabatha Andreason
  • Ryan Archuleta
  • Desi Arellano
  • Brent Baker
  • Sabrina Ballard
  • Daniel Barake
  • Cody Bauer
  • Starr Belew
  • Robyn Campbell
  • Cory Carmean
  • Nick Christiansen
  • Jeffrey Clark
  • Corey Cochrane
  • Andrea Costantino
  • Mercedes Courtoreille
  • Ben Creehan
  • Gregory Daniel
  • Benjamin Davis
  • Diego de Esteve
  • Jenell Di
  • Renee Dietzler
  • Brandon Downs
  • Sabrina Egan
  • Joe Espin
  • Molly Ezell
  • Aaron Foster
  • Holly Foutch
  • Paul Fox
  • Russ Foxx
  • Nathalie Gauthier
  • Corinne Graves
  • Erik Grover
  • James Haessly
  • Suzanne Hallett
  • Hannah Kimber
  • Derek Hibberd
  • Ben Higgs
  • Mike Hill
  • Leanne Hughes
  • Ashley Jay
  • Dae Jedic
  • Matthew Jensen
  • Vanessa Jo
  • Sara Johnson
  • Cash Kasper
  • Carl Kimberly
  • Alexander Kirkiles
  • Nia Kulbaba
  • David Lallemand
  • Jess Lane
  • Audrée Laroche
  • Rachael Lebron
  • Alexandria (Lexie) Lipp
  • Cassi Lopez
  • Benjamin Lynch
  • Vivi Madero
  • Tristan Macumber
  • Gregg Marchessault
  • Matthew Masterton
  • Cody Mattice
  • Rochelle Montagne
  • Austin Moore
  • John Moore
  • Nicolas Moses
  • Arthur Moy
  • Marina Müller
  • Megan Naito
  • Jenna Nichols
  • Colin O
  • Ian Olsen
  • Jason Orenstein
  • Alana Paris
  • Aniela Payne
  • Daniel Pereira
  • Ari Pimsler
  • Antonio Pisasale
  • Sean Powell
  • Kaden Rasmussen
  • Della Scott
  • Eloise Ridgewell
  • Victoria Rose
  • Randee Saenz
  • Kelli Saez
  • Nate Saint Pierre
  • Claire Savard
  • Sara Schneider
  • Lucas Sheffield
  • Pete Sheringham
  • Shane Shields
  • Dylan Smith
  • Carrie  Sorrels
  • Kari Spector
  • Cherry Sutherland
  • Pineapple Tangaroa
  • Kaitlyn Taylor
  • Andrea Trester
  • Sergi Tinaut
  • Chad Vahila
  • Bella van Nes
  • Paulus van Nes
  • Cour Vest
  • Laura Estefania Vicat
  • Zack Watson
  • Jade Winston
  • Lindsey Wright
  • Eddie Zvolanek

Associate Members

  • Jessika Agee
  • KristaJae Amante
  • Amanda Badger
  • Eleanor Boyd
  • Jill Bressmer
  • Shay Britton
  • Nash Bryant
  • Margo Dellaquila
  • Tyler Drake
  • Zach Elkie
  • Tyler Grayko
  • Melissa Gutierrez
  • Heidi Hess
  • Shayne Holborow
  • Megan Jaqubino
  • Randy Kunkel
  • Christy Lillard
  • Natali Martin
  • Stacy Martinez
  • Kristina Outland
  • Jasmine Riggsbee
  • Devin Ruiz
  • Sprout Scheier
  • Gabrielle Schultz
  • Skye Smith
  • Anthony Spaziano
  • Anthony Swift
  • Tanner Thurman
  • Daisy May Turnmire
  • Nick Whitcher
  • Burr White
  • Samuel Wright
  • Scott Lilly Young

Corporate Sponsors

  •  After Inked, LLC
  • Alchemy Adornment
  • Propper Mfg. Co. Inc.
  • Rio Grande, Inc.
  • Sleeping Goddess Jewelry

The Point – Issue 80

Point 80: Conference Statistics

Marina Pecorino
The Point Editor

We’ve once again broken all of our previous records; this year, our attendance climbed to 1,123!

As you can tell from  our fancy pie chart (everyone loves pie!), as always, Piercers who are not APP Members made up the largest group of conference attendees, with APP Member Piercers coming in second. This probably comes as no surprise, since the main focus of our Conference is piercing related education and outreach. That be- ing said, with over 200 non-piercing attendees, it’s obvious that our conference still has plenty to offer industry professionals working outside of the piercing room.

Our third largest group of attendees this year was comprised of Expo Exhibitors and their Vendor Workers. The Expo is one of the main attractions of Conference. This year, the Expo housed 59 different Exhibitors with a wide range of piercing related offerings; literature, merchandise, advertising services, aftercare products, and of course body jewelry.-

Attendance by Health Inspectors stayed the same as in 2016, with a total of five each year. The APP is working hard to encourage health department officials to attend Conference, but we can always use your help to bring this number up in coming years. Next time your local officials drop by for a visit, please encourage them to attend. Let them know that their conference pass will be free of charge if they book in the APP Room Block and there will be class sessions and meetings specifically designed for them.

Turning our attention to the bar graph, we can see a comparison of Full and Partial registrations for our Piercer and Non-Piercer categories. As you can see, most opt for the Full Registration option, allowing for full access to the class schedule (they still need to claim their seat in advance, of course) and a few other Full Registration perks. The Non-Member/Non-Piercer category seems to be the exception to this trend. When looking through these registrations from an administrative perspective, it’s clear that this category is mainly used by owners, counter staff, managers, and jewelry buyers who are primarily interested in marketing classes and Expo access.

We look forward to seeing plenty of returning attendees and even more new faces next year, Mark you calendars now, July 15-20, 2018. It will be our last year at Bally’s before our much anticipated move to Planet Hollywood in 2019. As our Conference continues to grow in attendance, we plan to expand our class offerings and work toward providing the most unforgettable week ever.

Point 78: Piercing Statistics – James Weber

For several years, adult video streaming site PornHub has released statistics on the viewing habits of their users. Wondering what search terms are most popular with online porn consumers? What country has the highest percentage of female viewers? Who the most-searched fictional movie characters are? How much viewership dips during the Super Bowl? Want to know how each of last year’s Presidential debates affected porn viewing in the United States? It’s all in PornHub’s 2016 Year in Review. Regardless of your attitudes or tastes regarding adult films, it is fascinating to see a snapshot—albeit from a single, English-language adult site—about adult video viewing habits worldwide. In this spirit, we decided to take a look at our own 2016 piercing statistics for the services we offer at the studio. While we don’t have access to the tremendous user data and demographic breakdown that PornHub does, we can easily break down the number and type of services we provided in 2016 through our POS system.

First, it’s important to note that new piercings aren’t the only service we offer; we change jewelry and stretch piercings for clients, free of charge, regardless of whether the original piercing was done at our studio. (Just tip your piercer!) It’s a continuing service for our returning customers, and a bit of outreach to customers we haven’t pierced—at least not yet. As a result, we did a whopping 4,062 jewelry insertions and piercings stretches in 2016. That’s 338.5 jewelry insertions per month, a little over 78 per week, and on average over 11 per day—and that’s in addition to clients we see for piercings. In 2016, 32% of our services were jewelry insertions, with piercings making up 68% of what we did last year.

2016 Total Piercings, by Type

In total, the piercers here at Infinite did 8722 piercings in 2016. This works out to an average of 727 piercings per month, 168 per week, and 24  piercings per day. If you add in our 4,062 jewelry insertions and piercing stretches, that comes to an average of 1065 procedures per month, 246 each week, and 35 clients per day, every day!

After jewelry insertions, the top five services we performed for clients were, in order: nostril piercings, nipple piercings, outer helix piercings, earlobe piercings, and then septum piercings.

Repeating the results in 2015, nostril piercings were the most popular service we offered in 2016.

We performed 1690 of them, just behind our 2015 number of 1697 nostril piercings. For the second year in a row, the nostril piercing is king—or queen, really, since the overwhelming majority of our nostril piercing clients are women.

Our second most popular piercing is the nipple. In all we did 333 single nipple piercings and 637 double nipple piercings—making for 1607 nipples pierced in 2016. Not surprisingly, in third and fourth place for most-requested piercings in 2016 were outer helix piercings and earlobe piercings, with 1092 and 1070 performed respectively. Rounding out the top five was septum piercings, with 637 done in 2016.

You can see a breakdown of everything we did in 2016, below:

Two piercings absent from this year’s list that were on last year’s are tongue webbing piercings (we did eleven in 2015) and cheek piercings (we did four that year). This could be because people didn’t request them, or the piercing staff talked clients out of them. (They are both problematic piercings: the tongue webbing for keeping it from migrating; and cheek piercings for getting them to heal.) Or maybe it’s a little bit of both.

Ear Piercing Numbers

It’s no surprise that a lot of what we do are different ear piercings. The breakdown of ear piercings done in 2016 is below:

We did 3,785 ear piercings in 2016. This works out to over 315 ear piercings per month, almost 73 per week, and an average of 10.3 ear piercings every day. These accounted for approximately 44.4% of total piercings.

Facial and Oral Piercings

We performed 2427 different non-ear facial piercings in 2016, including nostril, septum, eyebrow, and bridge piercings, and 312 oral piercings, including lip, labret, beauty mark, philtrum, and tongue piercings. Facial piercings accounted for approximately 28% of total piercings, while oral piercings accounted for under 4%.

Genital Piercing Numbers

Lastly, we performed 330 genital piercings in 2016: 217 female genital piercings, and 113 male genital piercings. Measured against our total numbers, genital piercings account for just under 4% of our total piercings.

The most popular female genital piercing, by a large margin, was the clitoral hood piercing—it was number eleven on the overall list of most popular piercings—with a surprising five Princess Albertina piercings done last year. The most popular male genital piercing was the Prince Albert piercing, followed closely behind by the frenum piercing. Robert and Ed also inserted fourteen genital beads on nine different clients.

Piercing Totals by Category and Piercer

How does this break down by category? Facial piercings account for 28% of what we did last year, oral piercings 4%, ear piercings a whopping 44%, nipple piercings 19%, genital piercings 4%, and navel piercings a small 1% of our totals.

It goes without saying that we do a lot of piercings. We’re not the average studio though. We’ve been in business over twenty years, we have an amazing staff and reputation, and we’re also in a large city (the fifth largest in the United States) without a lot of competition. (Restrictive zoning regulations limit the number of tattoo and piercing studios in most areas of Philadelphia.) As a result, we’re easily one of the busiest piercing studios in the U.S., and these numbers are in no way indicative of the volume of clients seen in an “average” studio, if there even is such a thing, so these numbers shouldn’t be seen as representative of the volume of services performed at other studios.

We have four piercers on staff—with two scheduled together on weekdays and all four scheduled and rotating through weekend shifts—with various guest piercers helping us out during any staff transitions and/or during extended vacation times with our regular staff. If we track the piercing totals by piercer, you get a breakdown of the percentage of piercings performed by each member of our piercing staff. Robert and Andru both saw a quarter of last year’s clients, with Eduardo seeing slightly less. (As head piercer at the studio, Ed’s responsibilities often mean some of the other piercers are seeing clients while Ed is taking care of other pressing matters at the studio.)

We had a few months at the beginning of the year, between the departure of John Logger and the hiring of Zach, when we had quite a few guests seeing clients at the studio. You can see the breakdown with the accompanying chart.

Our Clients, by Gender

Lastly, who are the people coming in for our services? Unfortunately, we don’t have detailed demographic data on our clients, such as age or location. We can pore over release forms for much of this information, but that is prohibitively time-consuming. What we have done, though, is go through last December’s clients’ forms to determine the gender breakdown of our customers. While it’s obvious more women than men come in for our services, it was surprising to find out just how big the discrepancy is. An overwhelming percentage of our clients are women, in reality just under 90%, while a little over 10% of our piercing clients are men. This also includes our numerous trans clients. (This is why we refer to “female” or “male” genital piercings, but break down our clients between “men” and “women.”) We also have quite a few clients who identify outside of the gender binary, but at this time their numbers are few when compared to the total client numbers.

In contrast to our lack of more detailed information on our clients, Facebook has excellent (insidious?) tools for demographics. Through our page analytics, we’re able to get an age breakdown of our Facebook fans: 50% are aged 25-34; 22% are aged 18-24; 17% aged 35-44; 8% are over 45 years old, with less than 3% under 18 years old. Unfortunately, this most likely says more about Facebook’s audience than ours.

Whew! Congratulations if you’ve made it this far. Statistics can be either fascinating or tedious, and we hope we’ve presented these in enough of an engaging way that everyone can geek out on these numbers as much as we did.

 

Point 75: Body Modification Survey – Stephanie Hutter-Thomas, PhDc

Stephanie VonHutter-Thomas HeadshotStephanie VonHütter-Thomas, PhDc
Skinethics Body Art Studio, APP Member

It is no secret that the subject of psychology has been my passion for a very long time, particularly the field of behavioral research. It is this passion for understanding human nature that ultimately drove me to embark on what has become a six-year journey in higher education.

The journey began in 2010, when I enrolled as a graduate student through Capella University, almost a decade after completing my undergraduate degree in Accounting. In 2013, I completed my masters degree in Industrial Organizational Psychology while running our studio, piercing full-time, and volunteering to work in state legislation. These were crazy times to say the least, however in the end, I could not have asked for a better experience.

Immediately after graduation I enrolled in the doctoral program for General Psychology. My thoughts at the time were that I had already incorporated study habits into my daily lifestyle so there was no point in stopping. After all, Capella was a great school and I had enough student loan debt to desensitize me from the financial fears, so what was stopping me? This move was something I viewed as a “no-brainer” because it promised to afford me the opportunity to offer a valuable contribution to the body modification community while also nurturing my own personal growth and future security.

I must admit that I was utterly terrified to enter the world of doctoral education as a modified person; rejection isn’t something that anyone enjoys. I was certain that I would be gawked at, scoffed at, judged, and possibly even shunned by my academic peers, but to my surprise, none of these things happened. In fact, I will be bold and go as far as saying that I receive more acceptance from the academic community at this level than in any other peer group I have been a part of. It was as if for the first time in my life I was being taken at face value, judged only by my merits with my physical appearance having nothing to do with any of it beyond the topic of my study. How refreshing!

After years of completing course work, residency requirements, and taking on a part-time job as a teaching assistant in Research Statistics, I am finally in the dissertation phase of my terminal degree. The dissertation process requires a study that is inferential by design as opposed to descriptive, meaning that the study must compare variables in order to demonstrate research skill at the doctoral level.

My study topic is one that I selected very early, but spent a great deal of time revising in order to meet academic requirements while also attempting to create a study worthwhile for the body modification community. The purpose of the study is to compare a series of variables using a multiple regression statistical analysis in order to report any noted patterns or relationships between age, gender, personality type, impact of life experiences, perceived spirituality, and how extremely modified an individual chooses to be. In other words, I am exploring what drives one person to be extremely modified while others within the community approach their body art more conservatively.

For those who aren’t aware, there is a great deal of misinformation in the world of Psychology regarding body art practices. Much of this misinformation is due to the use of research sampling methods that do not accurately represent the overall community. For example, how can anyone determine motivations to pursue radical forms of body art by interviewing 10 white American females, ages 20-25, on a midwestern college campus? The simple answer is that you can’t; yet, many psychologists have done exactly that, largely due to a lack of understanding. This issue has led to generalizations about our community that may or may not be true, many of which are damaging within certain social constructs. This in combination with the ongoing fascination the psychology profession has with pathological diagnosis has led to negative categorizations of anyone wishing to alter their appearance outside of social norms.

Since all respectable research is born out of need, I was essentially tasked with finding the gaps in the literature, choosing one such gap to pursue and determining a way to fill this gap scientifically. Aside from the obvious issues relating to sampling in prior studies, peer reviewed articles repeatedly indicate the need for a means to measure quantity of body modifications. This measurement tool must be simplistic while also measuring body art in a way that is meaningful with corresponding language to describe it consistently. This gap in research resulted in my development of the first instrument for quantifying body modification known as the Unorthodox Elective Body Modification (UEBM) Dimensional Assessment. The approach used in this instrument is definitely simplistic by design, using formulas already seen in science and medicine, yet promises to change the way psychologist study the body modification community. This instrument will be used for the first time in my data collection process to be conducted at this year’s annual APP Conference in Vegas. The results for each individual will be compared to their determined personality type along with the other psychosocial constructs previously mentioned to determine if there are any relationships or visible patterns. While this study will not remedy all our struggles, it is my hope that this research will serve as a foundation for future research relating to the modified community. I hope that many of those attending Conference will consider participating in this study, if not for me, but for the betterment of the community and it’s future.

The moral of this story is that you can be anything you want, regardless of your appearance. In my case, it was the love and support of my family and close friends that got me through the rough spots and believed in me even when I struggled to believe in myself. There are always opportunities to make a difference; it is simply a matter of deciding where you fit into the mix. Find your gifts, then find ways to incorporate those gifts into your pursuits and never let your body art be a problem or an excuse. We often allow others to stifle our dreams based on choices we made when we were young without ever actually putting ourselves out there to see what actually happens. If you had asked me 10 years ago, I would have told you that the idea of enrolling in graduate school was insane because I truly thought those days were over. At the very least, I would have said “not for me,” laughed and walked away shaking my head. I decided to become more moderately modified during my late 20’s and early 30’s so at that time I saw my commitment to body art as closing the door to more mainstream pursuits. Later it became clear to me that the only person stopping me from pursuing everything I wanted in life was ME, not my body art. Today, I can’t imagine being anything other than a scholar, a scientist, a professor, a writer, and a psychological researcher. My dissertation mentor once said to me, “you are not a modified person who happens to be getting a PhD; you are a research scientist who happens to be modified.” I can live with that.

Donate to piercing study about Sociocultural EvolutionStephanie Hutter-Thomas, PhDc
(a.k.a – Stephie Von Hütter Thomas)
Co-Owner/Piercer/APP Member
—Skinethics Body Art Studio
Founder/Co-Owner
—Bodies of Knowledge
Girard, Ohio
http://www.skinethicsbodyart.com
http://www.bodiesofknowledge.net
stephaniehutterthomas@gmail.com

Point #72: Conference Statistics – Caitlin McDiarmid

CaitlinMcDiarmidCaitlin McDiarmid
APP Administrator

 

We never get tired of hearing “this was the best Conference yet.” We were even more proud to hear it for this, our 20th anniversary! Thank you to all the participants of this year’s events. Having members of our history at Conference combined with the premiere exhibit of the Body Piercing Archive made it even more special. We’ve never heard such positive comments about our Banquet and the dance floor filled for the first time ever. Our numbers are up with a 10.05% increase in participants! Our Vendors were even more supportive than ever – with more sponsorships and more donations to the Raffle than we ever expected. Our attendees opened their pockets and hearts with generous donations to the Sailor Sid Campaign and the purchase of APP merchandise. Class attendance stayed steady and all our new technology performed well.

Here’s Conference by the numbers…

Overall attendance at Conference this year: 1040

Full Conference Attendees: 567

Partial Conference Attendees: 279

Speakers: 58

Vending Companies: 53

Number of Volunteers: 70

Number of Class Topics: 40

Number of Workshop Topics: 4

Number of Round Table Discussions: 5

Class Hours: 95

Round Tables & Meetings (Hours): 19

Individual Class Attendances: 4607

APP Donations via Conference: $4,139.30—Thanks each and everyone of you for your support!Attendance by Category - 2015 APP Conference