Re: Let's hold up a bit here

[Dave Gomberg <gomberg@wcf.com>]

At 07:42 AM 9/24/1999 -0400, Neil Frank wrote: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.

This is a very important point and I am  highlighting it.   I would be
willing to make a contractual commitment to this.  Not quite sure how it
would work but I like the idea A LOT!

> 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. 

This is another great point.   I am expecting to prepare at least one issue
of "spare" articles that can be used as VERY HIGH QUALITY last minute
filler when an article doesn't show up or some other last minute problem
arises.   Issues WILL APPEAR ON TIME.   Advertisers will cut chumps some
slack, but I don't want to be classed as a chump.



>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?]

I would love AGA to be the source of more of the content of PAM, but it
must be up to my quality standards.   As much as I like and respect the job
that Neil did on TAG, I gotta say that a lot of that stuff I would not have
run without some major editing.   And peer review.

> If PAM starts to offend folks, then
>they may not want their stuff printed there. 

Thanks for the heads-up, Neil.   I gotta try and remember to be nicer
(quiet tweeting sound effect).


>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.

You may not trust me enough to believe this but it is strictly the latter.
In fact, anyone who will step up to the plate and do PAM now can have it.
I am only doing it because no one else CAN.  Herlong doesn't have the bona
fides, Claus is too busy, Karen is up to her lovely neck, everyone else has
a day job.

> 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. 

What I meant by that answer is that there are a ton of folks within walking
distance of my house (a LONG walk) who could do the job.   I don't think
anyone but a nut case would be advertising manager of a professional color
magazine for $2K per year.   Or do the make ready for $2K per year (both of
which Herlong has proved he can do and both of which figures he has agreed
to).  If we lose Herlong, we will need to huddle long and hard, because
replacing him would have a major budget impact.  We would want to revisit
how we were doing things.   The ONLY reason I committed personally to PAM
was because I got Herlong.

>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) 

I expect that the getting-started negative cash flow will continue for 6-8
quarters.  So I will need to take stock (can't get my $20 per hour from
cash on hand) for say 8 quarters.  If it takes me 75 hours to put together
an issue, that is $1500x8=$12K for two years work.  If it takes $4K cash to
cover the negative, then that would give AGA the opportunity to buy me out
or save its cash until it saw which way the wind was blowing.

>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?  

Think carefully about this control issue.   Just for imagining's sake, what
if two years in we had $16K in stock distributed as follows:

 $3K AGA startup purchase
 $3K AGA additional purchases over two years
 $6K Gomberg
 $1K Randall (for pics and articles)
 $2K Frank (for editing)

Now I am not committing to these numbers, just imagining.   Would you say
AGA had a majority?   Hard to say.   But clearly the control is well
diversified.   Herlong has indicated a willingness to take some stock.
Maybe other authors will want stock.  I don't know.  We won't know till we
know who the authors are.

>Dave: What are the advantages of AGA control

You get to put your foot down if you don't like what is happening.  (Of
course, you also have the AGA pages to put your foot down in too.   But
every foot stomp helps.)

>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? 

That is what I meant above by seeing which way the wind is blowing.  If the
mag is growing and improving and beautiful, you probably want an absolute
majority of the stock.  If you think the mag is not doing well, you
probably want to cut your losses.  You might even want a provision in the
agreement that you could divorce yourself from the mag unilaterally with
sufficient notice.  Obviously, this would be a financial shock for PAM.

>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?

Gee, if they wanted 32 pages of ads and would let us publish more and
better technical articles, I would say "sit right down here and pull out
your checkbook."   But we would have to be very careful that we were not
giving them so much power they could talk us into them effectively having
editorial control.

BTW, I am not married to the 8.5"x5.5" format.  If we someday get rich and
famous, I would like to go to 8.5"x11", but we would have to stay a
professional, classy pub.  More like Aqua Journal than AFM.
--
Dave Gomberg, San Francisco            mailto:gomberg@wcf.com
For low cost CO2 systems that work:  http://www.wcf.com/co2iron 
Tropica MasterGrow in the USA:      http://www.wcf.com/tropica 
-----------------------------------------------------------------