Fwd: Re: Let's hold up a bit here 9

[krandall@world.std.com]

>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
>To: krandall@WORLD.STD.COM
>cc: rcashin@juno.com, dreimer@wwdc.com, nfrank@mindspring.com
>Subject: Re: Let's hold up a bit here
>
>[got grabbed to go walking.. time lapse]
>
>On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 krandall@WORLD.STD.COM wrote:
>
>> >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?
>
>FYI: Talking more with Kathy on the subject of the Cichlid pubs (she's
>more in direct contact with those folks than I am), the story she's heard
>from Wayne Leibel, Lee Newman, Lisa Wrishnik and others is that they all
>wanted to support the ACA, and have sent articles, but over the years have
>switched to Cichlid News, AFM or the others, because Herlong has held on
>to their articles indefinitely (while article after article from Europe
>showed up in the BB), or edited them very poorly. The impression I get is
>that it's not the money that drives them (though it is a small factor),
>it's mainly the "respect" factor.  This is one of the reasons the board is
>talking about replacing Herlong.
>
>> >But on the
>> >other hand, what's really left of the AGA at that point, if the AGA was
>> >TAG up to now?
>...
>> I think it _is_ important that we become more than "just a magazine" in the
>> eyes of our members.  I'm just not sure how to get there.
>
>I agree with the idea of planning to develop the AGA.  I like the idea of
>the Plant Showcase & Contest that James is developing.  I like Neil's idea
>of Exotic Plant Sales.  I would personally like to develop some
>educational videos (with the help of the experts).  I *do* think that if
>we accept the PAM proposal, the AGA will in effect cease to become a
>magazine at all (unless a majority of work on PAM comes from the AGA
>directly); we'll just be including it as a perk, like a free book once a
>year.  Perhaps this is not a bad thing (after all, it frees the rest of us
>up to work on these new projects instead of TAG), but it's certainly
>something to consider.
>
>
>Not related to the questions currently on the floor, but another thing
>I've been grumbling over... please bear with me... I think the whole
>stock/payment issue is still very fuzzy.  If I follow the logic, Dave is
>being paid $20 per hour "by PAM" to edit PAM, I could see this easily
>costing several thousand dollars per issue for his work alone, right?  
>He's getting around the cash flow problem by accepting payment as new
>stock instead of real money (thus diluting anyone else's stock). But if
>the AGA wants to maintain any sort of control by way of stock, the only
>option is for the AGA to pay for Dave's hours with real money, yes?  So if
>this were the case, *we'd* be taking the risk, instead of Dave; he'd be
>guaranteed a salary.  Are all the other people who help edit PAM going to
>be paid $20 per hour?
>
>It sounds to me like one course of action here would be for the AGA to own
>NO stock in the venture, let Dave keep his 100% majority and profit.  
>He's already got the clauses that make it very difficult to separate him
>from PAM (eg. the "one year" thing).  On the other hand, the fact that he
>gets a built-in subscriber base to begin with must carry some value (is
>that equal to the 4 pages in every issue reserved for the AGA?  Maybe
>so.).
>
>Whew. Someone help me here. It sounds like we would need an attorney to
>close the deal.
> 
>  - Erik
>
>-- 
>Erik Olson
>erik at thekrib dot com
>