Fwd: Re: Let's hold up a bit here 8

[krandall@world.std.com]

>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:38:38 -0400
>To: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
>From: krandall@world.std.com
>Subject: Re: Let's hold up a bit here
>Cc: rcashin@juno.com, dreimer@wwdc.com, nfrank@mindspring.com
>
>At 12:51 PM 9/23/99 -0700, Erik Olson wrote:
>>First off, I retract my vote as well, in the interest of further 
>>discussion.
>
>Thanks.
>
>>Now, playing devil's advocate to Karen's Angel's advocate post:
>
>I'm not sure I was being an "angel", I just think this subject, and the 
>whole direction of AGA needs a serious look.  You've been on Jame's list and 
>seen the negative impression that many hobbyists have formed about the AGA.  
>As past chairman,  I can't tell you how much of my time was spent soothing 
>people on one subject or another.  
>
>I', also not sure _what_ I'm advocating, as long as we seriously look at and 
>discuss all the ramifications of whatever decision we make as a group.
>
>>Have we looked amongst our members to do this job?  Is it that much to
>>track 5-10 companies' ads which change on a yearly basis?
>
>No, I don't think we have.  But as I said to Merrill, if we _want_ to do 
>this, we need to find someone to actively solicit this help, and then we 
>have to assume (or at least hope) that these people will follow through.  We 
>also _have_ to do better getting the magazine out on schedule if people are 
>paying us to advertise.  
>
>Advertisers base the amount they are willing to pay for an ad on the 
>projected readership.  We will also need to actively solicit new members on 
>a much bigger basis than we currently do.  Are we prepared to do that?  Can 
>we find someone to take on that job?
>
>>If the goal is just to beef up TAG to be able to include more color, then
>>we don't really need that much in advertising dollars.  Just some.  Many
>>companies advertise in multiple places.
>
>That is certainly true.
>
>>I disagree that a slick publication has to compete with a hobbyist
>>publication.  I think it's important to have hobbyist organizations where
>>people don't write articles strictly because they get paid for them. 
>
>There is certainly validity to that.  How are the non-pro Cichlid 
>publications holding up against the pro one?  Are they holding their own?  I 
>don't know of any other national organization that puts out a substantial 
>magazine that also has a direct commercial competitor for the same market 
>slot.  These are _good_ points, Erik, and the kind of questions (and 
>answers) that we _should_ be basing our decision on.
>
>>>  - Neil made another point.  It has been like pulling teeth to get people
>>> to write for TAG.  It will be much, much harder to get quality articles for
>>> TAG when people can be paid for their material by a magazine devoted to
>>> this sector of the hobby.  
>>
>>I have a little problem with some of these arguments... "Dave is going to
>>do this with or without the AGA.  We can either join or compete with him."
>>I don't think we should make decisions based on this; it feels kind of
>>like blackmail, trying to guess how the organization will suffer if we
>>don't support PAM. 
>
>In fairness to Dave, I have to point out that this was _my_ comment, not 
>Dave's.  Dave is not trying to black mail us.  He presented what he thought 
>was a good, viable option for our consideration.  All I want is that we give 
>him the consideration that his effort deserves.  If in the end we decide we 
>don't want to do this, I will gladly accept that decision.  Dave may not be 
>happy with it, but he'll accept it too.  
>
>>I think we should be making decisions strictly based on
>>whether or not it's a good thing for the AGA.  I don't think we can really
>>predict how the magazine will do without the AGA's support and initial
>>distribution. Maybe it will flourish and be on every fish store's magazine
>>stand, but maybe it will tank in 6 months.
>
>I suspect that there is some synergy involved.  I'm sure that PAM would 
>benefit from AGA involvement.  I just want us to be equally sure that _AGA_ 
>won't benefit from involvement with PAM before we reject it out of hand.
>
>>Finally, I wonder if Dave will really accept help from sub-editors freely?
>>Past experience has shown that when he's not "in charge" he gets very
>>angry or shuts down.  "Make no mistake", this is definitely DAVE's
>>project.  It's not the AGA's.  
>
>That's true, and it's one of the chances we would have to take, but we take 
>that chance every time we hand over a big responsibility to someone new.
>
>>Maybe Karen's right, and I'm just being
>>overly cynical; we invest the money and see if it works out.  
>
>There's nothing wrong with a little cynicism.<g>
>
>>But on the
>>other hand, what's really left of the AGA at that point, if the AGA was
>>TAG up to now?
>
>That's a good question, and one I think needs to be seriously addressed.  
>
>_I'd_ like to see us work harder to develop regional "branches", "chapters" 
>or whatever you want to call them.  When people get to know each other face 
>to face, they start to have a much greater sense of community.  Even talking 
>through E-mail can help people develop this sense of community, and I think 
>that's one of the things that makes APD as great a thing as it (usually - 
>barring wars on evolution) is.  I _wish_ that when Shaji (was that his 
>name?) gave it up, the AGA had been in a position to take over ownership.  I 
>think Cynthia is doing a great job, but if she ever makes noises about 
>wanting to "retire" I think we should _jump_ at the opportunity.
>
>I think it _is_ impotant that we become more than "just a magazine" in the 
>eyes of our members.  I'm just not sure how to get there.
>
>Karen