Re: Re: Let's hold up a bit here

[krandall@world.std.com]

At 03:38 PM 9/23/99 -0400, Merrill Cohen wrote:

>Why can't we pay the person doing the work; pay for articles and do just
>what Dave is going to do?  We're already there!  

The problem, Merrill, is _WHO_ will do the work?  We haven't even been able
to get ourselves incorporated in the past 2 years.  If you or anyone else
can come up with suggestions of who would do the following, I'd love to
hear about it:

1. Solicit the material needed in an agressive manner
2. Guarantee (as much as possible) that the magazine would come out
reliably 4 times per year
3. Agressively solicit advertisers and manage the advertisement schedule
and collections
4. Actively promote AGA membership, because we _would_ need a bigger
membership base to support the magazine in the long run
5. Produce the magazine at a reasonable cost
6. Front the extra money needed to get the project off the ground (unless
we decided we could afford the whole ball of wax)
7. Someone to actively work on finding the above people (other than the two
who have already expressed interest assuming that we reject this proposal)

Then, of course, we have to hope that whoever these people are, they are
more acceptable to the MC than the people we have, AND that they will
actually do the work they have agreed to do. (of course we are already
working on the assumption that Dave _will_ carry thorough with what he is
suggesting)

>It's like the proverbial
>"guy" that wants to open a store down the street just like the "guy" up the
>street (to put him/her out of business)!  I'm in favor of a "quarterly"
>also!  Maybe Neil would be interested if the pay is good enough.  I'd
>rather see this than invest in what I believe to be a loser.

What Dave is proposing is significantly different than TAG.  I suspect Dave
wouldn't feel the need to produce something if TAG were filling the niche
he's after.  Dave wants a professional looking color magazine that comes
out on time, and is paid for largely by the advertisers.  That's not what
TAG is currently, though like you, I am fond of what we already have.

>What am I missing?  Why another magazine on something so limited in the
>market?

I think that's exactly the point.  I don't think the plant hobby is ready
to support both, and I'm afraid that AGA might end up being the "loser" if
stacked up against a color magazine with money behind it.  As I said
before, my belief is that Dave plans to go forward with this project with
or without the AGA.

>Once more, I have nothing against Dave (don't even know him); but this may
>be another of his "non-profit" ventures that we would be supporting from
>the beginning. 

I don't think any of Dave's planted tank related projects have been meant
as non-profit, though I doubt there _is_ much profit.  He has said that he
hopes that this magazine will eventually run with a positive bottom line.
(again, I doubt it will ever be a _big_ money maker)

I really do appreciate your concerns, Merrill, and I share some of them.
Let's hear what some other people have to say.  I think this is the time to
speak candidly, and lay all the cards on the table.

Karen