The reality of it all

[amc2@ix.netcom.com]

Karen and all,

It is nice to have dreams of what Dave wishes to do, but the entire
business connected with the hobby has changed so dramatically!  There are
very few to no small companies of any significance manufacturing items for
the hobby that will spend advertising money for a possible 2000 copies of a
magazine.  It will take years to get distribution that would excite a
manufacturer to advertise and how can this compete with FAMA that has the
cheapest advertising rate (and distribution).  I wouldn't count on many, if
any, to support even our 700 plus distribution, unless they were hobbyists
like myself.  (Incidentally, Aquarium Products has been purchased by
Interpet, Ltd. of England -- a division of a worldwide corporation --
Lawrence, Ltd. of London).  So, I'm now only a hobbyist, but I know the
business so well!  Today, everything is either big or not long for their
existence.  You see this in everything that you are buying outside of the
hobby field, as well.

My personal thoughts are to even think about a newsletter, instead of a
magazine entirely.  Keep it small, keep it interesting and maybe the small
group that holds AGA together will "pitch in" with interesting articles or
ways that they are keeping their plants and fish.  Others certainly would
be invited to write.  Albert Theil has a newsletter that reef hobbyists are
paying lots more for his "little gems" that he publishes without outside
advertising.  Most of his products are hardly seen anywhere anymore.

I hope that I am wrong, but the "aquatic plant thing" is not like the
mysterious "reef thing" that has come about; and it is not as big as
everyone thinks.  I'd venture to say that Dave has not sold 500 - CO2 units
in the time that he has been selling his product and I would think that
he's sitting on lots of Tropica fertilizer.

And, the strange thing is that I'm an optimist!

Merrill


> At 03:38 PM 9/23/99 -0400, Merrill Cohen wrote:
> 
> >Why can't we pay the person doing the work; pay for articles and do just
> >what Dave is going to do?  We're already there!  
> 
> The problem, Merrill, is _WHO_ will do the work?  We haven't even been
able
> to get ourselves incorporated in the past 2 years.  If you or anyone else
> can come up with suggestions of who would do the following, I'd love to
> hear about it:
> 
> 1. Solicit the material needed in an agressive manner
> 2. Guarantee (as much as possible) that the magazine would come out
> reliably 4 times per year
> 3. Agressively solicit advertisers and manage the advertisement schedule
> and collections
> 4. Actively promote AGA membership, because we _would_ need a bigger
> membership base to support the magazine in the long run
> 5. Produce the magazine at a reasonable cost
> 6. Front the extra money needed to get the project off the ground (unless
> we decided we could afford the whole ball of wax)
> 7. Someone to actively work on finding the above people (other than the
two
> who have already expressed interest assuming that we reject this
proposal)
> 
> Then, of course, we have to hope that whoever these people are, they are
> more acceptable to the MC than the people we have, AND that they will
> actually do the work they have agreed to do. (of course we are already
> working on the assumption that Dave _will_ carry thorough with what he is
> suggesting)
> 
> >It's like the proverbial
> >"guy" that wants to open a store down the street just like the "guy" up
the
> >street (to put him/her out of business)!  I'm in favor of a "quarterly"
> >also!  Maybe Neil would be interested if the pay is good enough.  I'd
> >rather see this than invest in what I believe to be a loser.
> 
> What Dave is proposing is significantly different than TAG.  IX-Spanska: Yes

wouldn't feel the need to produce something if TAG were filling the niche
> he's after.  Dave wants a professional looking color magazine that comes
> out on time, and is paid for largely by the advertisers.  That's not what
> TAG is currently, though like you, I am fond of what we already have.
> 
> >What am I missing?  Why another magazine on something so limited in the
> >market?
> 
> I think that's exactly the point.  I don't think the plant hobby is ready
> to support both, and I'm afraid that AGA might end up being the "loser"
if
> stacked up against a color magazine with money behind it.  As I said
> before, my belief is that Dave plans to go forward with this project with
> or without the AGA.
> 
> >Once more, I have nothing against Dave (don't even know him); but this
may
> >be another of his "non-profit" ventures that we would be supporting from
> >the beginning. 
> 
> I don't think any of Dave's planted tank related projects have been meant
> as non-profit, though I doubt there _is_ much profit.  He has said that
he
> hopes that this magazine will eventually run with a positive bottom line.
> (again, I doubt it will ever be a _big_ money maker)
> 
> I really do appreciate your concerns, Merrill, and I share some of them.
> Let's hear what some other people have to say.  I think this is the time
to
> speak candidly, and lay all the cards on the table.
> 
> Karen