Re: Let's hold up a bit here

["Villa Sunscape" <davidlass@villasunscape.com>]

Hello everyone --
The new voice here belongs to me, David Lass, the new Treasurer of AGA. So
as not to confuse things, please refer to me as "Lass" as we have enough
Daves and Davids already.
Being thrown into this issue a week or so ago I feel like a British cricket
player who got to his first American baseball game in the 7th inning; having
been told that a game was nine innings, he prepared to leave at the bottom
of the ninth, but no one else was leaving. Then he was informed that the
game was tied, and it was going into extra innings.
Please correct me if I'm wrong about what this ball game has been about.
Dave Gomberg has proposed that he start a new color magazine, with
advertising, called PAM and that he and Dave Herlong be the
editor/management team. TAG would roll into PAM, with a sheaf of pages
within PAM devoted solely to TAG. Gomberg and Herlong would be paid.
AGA would put some money into a new corporation that would be PAM, although
I am unclear as to how much money and how the ownership would start out, and
how it would end up if Gomberg took his compensation in stock. I'm also not
clear how AGA, a non-profit organization, would invest in a for-profit one?
I am also assuming that all AGA members would receive PAM, but all
subscribers to PAM would not necessarily be AGA members.
Given what I have gleaned from the discussions of the past weeks, and if my
description of the situation above is correct, I have only one comment, for
whatever it is worth (I also have some other ideas, but do not want to
sidetrack this issue). I am amazed to find out that TAG has been produced
completely on a volunteer basis. The quality is so high, both of the
articles and the production that I cannot believe it has been done without
any paid people. My hat is off to all of you.
In seeing what is happening in many volunteer organizations, it is getting
more and more difficult to get members to volunteer to do work. Therefore, I
seriously wonder whether TAG will be able to continue the quality we want
without resorting to some form of paid people to do the job professionally.
If this is true, then I would think that the PAM idea is a very logical
direction to go, and that what needs to be done is to concentrate on how the
actual deal could be arranged so that it was fair, and attractive, to both
Gomberg (and Herlong) and AGA.
That's my two cents worth. Karen and Neil are the only ones who know me at
all, and I'm sure they are both wondering how I've managed to keep my mouth
shut for as long as I have.
Thanks.
Lass

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Frank <nfrank@mindspring.com>
To: <aga-mcm@aquatic-gardeners.org>
Cc: Dave Gomberg <gomberg@wcf.com>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: Let's hold up a bit here


> 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!!!
>
>
>