Re: PAM (fwd)

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

Some replies from Dave.

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 11:37:19 -0700
From: Dave Gomberg <gomberg@wcf.com>
To: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
Subject: Re: PAM (fwd)

I did not post this to mcm as you requested, but I think they would find it
useful.

 At 11:12 AM 10/4/1999 -0700, Erik Olson wrote:
>(I do beleive Dave is being either overly
>optimistic or evasive in his estimate of how well PAM will do WITHOUT the
>AGA subscriber base; but this is perhaps not so relevant to this
>discussion.)

Let me be clear and candid about this.   Without AGA cooperation, PAM will
be much harder to do.  It will probably start with one-fifth as many
subscribers, and rely much more heavily on advertisers.  I hate to see that
much reliance on ads, but it is better than no mag at all.

>What seemingly is still not being debated is why WE should join with
>PAM. I'm going to try and list some reasons that have been discussed (and
>possibly some of my own ideas):
>
>   * AGA members get a "better quality" publication.
>   * Solves the volunteer crunch we're having with TAG.
>   * Pay is motivator for authors.
>   * Frees up club to concentrate on other projects.
>   * Finally allows Dave to concentrate some of his energy (albeit
>indirectly) for the AGA, because it's on his terms. He's pushy and very
>much a salesman; whereas most of us are not.  He may be able to pull in
>more authors than any of us did before.  Certainly he's doing so with
>advertisers so far.

FWIW, we have now one sure advertiser (Tropica) and 8 likely (most of the
major
names in the industry).   We haven't contacted the mail order plant places
yet 
(another natural source of ads).

>On the flip side, a collection of reasons it would be bad for us to
>join with PAM:
>
>   * Once PAM has supplanted TAG, what is the AGA?  What's the point?
>       Karen has said this is an important discussion, so why aren't
>       we having this one FIRST, before deciding to trash the one
>       major thing the AGA actually does currently?

I agree with Erik, this discussion should have occurred last year or the
year before.   But the question before us is what to do NOW!

>   * Very little direct AGA involvement in PAM.  At best, our 4 pages are
>       like a paid ad supplement.

I think this is open to negotiation.   AGA hasn't asked for any involvement
in PAM yet.

>   * Potential need for hobbyist publication for rejected PAM articles.
>       We might actually have more material for TAG that was rejected by
>       PAM than we get for TAG nowadays! :)

This is quite possible.  On the other hand, does AGA really want to run the
reject mag?

>   * Because he's pushy and a salesman, Dave may also drive away
>       potential partnerships, and this will now be associated with AGA.

No comment.

>   * AGA as a non-profit is now supporting PAM as a for-profit venture?

We could make PAM non-profit.   If AGA wanted to fund the whole thing.

>   * Herlong.

And your point is?   I selected Herlong because of his track record.   I
think it speaks for itself.

>Some points which I think are "cautionary"... might go either way.
>
>   * In some past ventures, Dave has not showed a lot of staying power.
>       Dunno, recently he may have gotten better with his CO2 business.
>       However, it's probably irellevant: if PAM folds, we are back to
>       where we were, just creating TAG.

If I get tired of PAM and AGA wants it, God bless AGA.   Somebody has to
run PAM.

>   * Dave is now editor.  More than that, he doesn't answer
>       to anyone on the AGA.  Big step.

No comment.

>   * If PAM goes without the AGA, we probably lose some members.
>       Maybe that's OK, depending on the AGA's goals.
>       Or gain them back by advertising in PAM?

I would hope this does not happen.   PAM will do NOTHING to encourage folks
leaving the AGA.

>   * I choose to totally ignore the stock issue and assume the AGA doesn't
>       buy any stock.  To me, that's just fiddly bits we shouldn't
>       be concentrating on yet, especially if we don't buy any.

Right on!

>Consider this my deliberation. :) The questions I want answered are not
>for Dave, but rather for us, to answer.
>
>  - Erik
>
>
>On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Robert P. Cashin wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>> 
>>      The discussion seems to have petered out. Are we ready for a vote yet?
>> 
>>                                      cu, Bob.
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
>> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
>> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>> 
>
>-- 
>Erik Olson
>erik at thekrib dot com
>
>
>
--
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 
-----------------------------------------------------------------