Re: Let's hold up a bit here

[Neil Frank <nfrank@mindspring.com>]

To join this fast moving discussion I will not try to quote from the
previous comments and hope that my comments make sense to everyone.

First of all, I am glad that Karen made a good presentation about why we
should "hold up a bit". I support most of her views. As you all know, I too
care ALOT about the AGA. I would not want to hurt the organization in any
way. Although I am not casting a vote, I must say that I am more in favor
of the idea than not. If I needed to cast a secret ballot, I would say YES.
I FEEL that it is the right decision.  But I would like to be more sure,
for it to be an objective decision based on INFORMATION and even more
importantly, I want us to all vote the same way. I might without my vote,
if I saw the vote going the other way because I believe in consensus
management decisions in an organization like the AGA. I feel very
uncomfortable about making decisions based on a simple majority.

It is clear that the discussion has not concluded. There have been several
good questions that Bob and others have raised that have not yet been
answered. There have also been other important concerns that still need to
be presented to DaveG or for us to ask Dave to provide additional details
on the answers he already gave (in typical gomberg style, the answers are a
bit terse). I would also like to see a good summary of the pros and cons.
Bob took a good first stab, but it needs input from more people.

Now I will provide some comments on the comments. Some of what I say here I
have said before but will try to summarize for completeness. I will
probably be a bit wordy, but don't have the time to edit my remarks to make
them as condensed as I would like.

1. Regarding AGA getting advertising and AGA putting out an improved color
publication. 
   Of course we could do it, but it would require one or two reliable and
energetic AGA volunteers to make it happen. It will also require one of us
to find those individuals and perhaps oversee their activities for a while.
Yes, this is possible. Should we try to find these people: Yes, if we
decide to go this route. Will we be able to find these people in a
reasonable amount of time: I say probably NOT!! The number of people
volunteering to help run AGA or any aquarium organization is pitifully low.
That is a statement of FACT.
        If we really wanted to put more color into TAG, we could do it within 
our
current budget. We have added modest amounts of color in the past and if we
had a better handle on our financial position, we would know if could
afford to make those investments on a more regular basis.
        The BIG problem with adding more color is the cost per issue. There is a
big price break after you print 1000 copies. Our CURRENT membership and
printing requirements does not allow us to do this. The reason that Dave
can consider this is because he is going to print 2000 copies and sell the
extra 1000. Can we do this: YES -- if (a) we double our membership
(something that, IMO, can probably happen if we are more agressive. For
example, we can take out ads in national magazines and offer more to the
membership. for example, other national organizations have meetings and
shows which is a reason some people join. On the other hand, it has not
happened yet and probably won't because it is too much trouble and not a
priority at this time. The other way we can get rid of an extra 1000 copies
is to (b) distribute our magazines to stores and magazine distributorships.
The latter is VERY unlikely IMO, unless we find someone reliable and
agressive to manage this. we either have to find that person or someone
somehow steps forward and volunteers to do this.
        The concept of PAM could have come from within the AGA. I had proposed
more color for TAG several times, but the group was not ready or
sufficiently sure about our financial status. Even it we had the financial
confidence, we still would not do it. We are a very conservative
organization -- one that is not ready to take a big financial risk. If we
were to undertake this venture, I did not have the time or interest to
manage it. I am not sure that Mary is that person either. [Even if I were
offered the chance to do it for payment I wouldn't do it. I still have a
9-5 job!]

2. Regarding keeping advertisers: I don't think it will be as hard as Karen
suggests. I think that many companies would be willing to "work with us"
and put up with a non-uniform publication schedule. Our current
irregularity has not seemed to affect our ability to keep or attract new
members. I also think that many companies would be willing to help the
hobby and not just do it as a pure business opportunity. Do you really
think that Tetra and mardel make money by donating items to aquarium clubs
and workshops. It is part of their national advertising budget, and I think
if we wanted to seek out advertisers we would get them to contribute.
Perhaps we should consider approaching advertisers whether we go with the
PAM idea or not, and whether we use the funds to improve TAG.

3. Regarding the prospects of PAM being a better magazine than TAG. I think
the chances are high as long as Dave stays interested. I have expressed
interest in helping him to maintain high technical quality. Will dave
listen to me, I don't know. As Karen has said, we take a chance everytime
we turn a project over to a new person. This is clearly a risk. If our TAG
editor is allowed to stay involved with PAM - with the AGA pages at a
miniumum and with other input if possible, then if PAM folds, we will be in
a position to take complete control and return to TAG either as a color or
b/w publication.


4. Will AGA support of PAM diminish the AGA. At first, I was totally
against the idea of PAM. I thought it would destroy AGA. I thought it would
take away our centerpiece, our pride of product. I thought of it as our
communication vehicle of the membership. Then I got real. Very few members
contribute to TAG. We hardly use it to communicate to the membership. In
fact in talking to Gomberg, I realized that AGA needs a new mission. That
is the way we will grow and make the members happy. Bob has already
outlined some of these ideas for future discusion (e.g. regional, national
or international meetings; shows; and more face to face stuff). I have
mentioned some of these same thoughts in previous emails. Then I realized
that PAM could be good for the AGA. I am reasonably certain that the
quality of articles will increase. It seems that the number of pages with
articles per issue will match current TAGs. I already proposed quarterly
publication schedule for TAG and a separate membership newsletter. With TAG
or with PAM (or both), I still think we need the separate newsletter. We
should all be looking to find someone to do it. I suspect that one of us is
not going to volunteer, and it is non-trivial to find that certain person.
Dave has already allocated 4 editorial pages to AGA. As I understand it, we
can have more. These pages could be used for organizational reports or
plant oriented information that does not meet the specific standards for
the rest of the magazine. As I understand it, we would have COMPLETE
editorial control of those pages. The only real reservation about PAM
content is the situation where Dave does not have material to print, and
must print 'SOMETHING' becasue  he is under a self imposed deadline to
publish. Many commercial magazines have had the same dilema and that is
when quality goes down. Editorial control and input is an issue we should
discuss with Dave. Maybe AGA would be given an opportunity to provide
input, say to select 1 or more of the article. Maybe this is an option we
only utilize if we have a major problem with the product (PAM). This idea
is in addition to Dave's suggestion that we give him 1 years notice. [Dave:
what do you think?]

5. Will AGA loose members if we don't go with PAM and choose to continue TAG. 
        my answer is probably. But I don't think it will do us serious damage as
an organization. 

5. What will TAG look like if PAM occurs anyway. I think TAG can still have
similar content to what we do now, but we must recognize that many of our
current authors will want to get their original articles published in PAM.
It may also be harder to recruit and cultivate authors if the TAG editor's
work ends up causing PAM to get the product. SOme people (a few dihards)
will not care if they get paid or not. If PAM starts to offend folks, then
they may not want their stuff printed there. 

6. Should we view PAM as blackmail.  I don't think so. As Karen has said, I
have concluded that Gomberg is not doing PAM to make money. He may be doing
it as an ego thing or to provide self gratification... or just because it
is an INTERESTING and challenging thing to do and something that is NEEDED.
But face it, that is the very reason people choose to do become officers in
a volunteer organization. Instead of blackmail, I say we seriously look at
PAM as an OPPORTUNITY for AGA. An opportunity to partnership with PAM and
help make the hobby grow. 

7. Next steps. It won't be easy to have this discussion via email, but we
should try. It wasn't till Gomberg called me and we talked for 60 minutes
that I became convinced that PAM was worth reconsidering. I also benefited
from visiting with him in SF and getting along! Maybe my expectations were
low after hearing stories of the amazon trip <g>.  I am impressed with his
desire to help the hobby, his determination, agressive style and business
savy. He is also smart. All of these factors have influenced my original
thinking.  Nonetheless...
   We should continue to identify the potential problems, seek out
satisfactory solutions and if we can determine that the risk is low and the
benefit is high, then we should vote YES. If we are not comfortable with
the contingeny plans and believe that the likelyhood for failure is high or
if the situation it places AGA in down the road is bad, then we should vote
NO. But we must look at things in a relative way. Are we going to be better
or worse 1 and 2 years from now. Also important is to ask Gomberg
clarifying questions. I did not like some of his answers. In fact, many of
his answers need a second try. For example, his answer about a backup for
Herlong if he drops out. His answer was something about SF bay area beign a
center for publishing. Another answer would be to find another Herlong. I
don't think he has unique skills.For example,  I think that Bob Day or
other AGA members would love to get paid to put the mag together. 
Another issue is him getting paid by stock and how that is expected to
change the ownership percentages over time. Dave: can you give us
projections on the # hours you expect to spend per issue and what % AGA's
initial contribution will represent after 1, 2 or 3 years (consider
inflation cost escalators) Dave: IF we want to maintain control, how much
would we have to add per year to maintain it. Is this equivalent to paying
you directly?  Dave: What are the advantages of AGA control and
disadvantages of not having it. To Dave and all: If the product succeeds
after 2 or 3 years, would it be so bad to contribute X addtional $ per year
to a winner? Dave: what if company X comes forward and offers to buy a
large share and wants to turn the magazine or a significant part of it into
their commercial catalog. Dave: What ensures that will not happen?

I better stop for now.

Neil

PS. When should these discussions go to the MC. It is not entirely clear to
me if we should first vote as a SC before it goes to the MC or what. One
approach is for the SC to say that the idea has POTENTIAL merit and worth
putting before the MC for the full vote. If and when it does go to the MC,
they need to see as much of the discussion as possible.. otherwise it be
out of context. Will the parlimentarian please step forward!!!