Re: PAM (fwd)

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

Hi Dave,

On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Dave Gomberg wrote:

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

Did I request this not go to MCM?  Your points are very good, so I went
ahead and forwarded your message to the list.

> >   * 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?

We'll have to see how this goes.  Thinking over this issue some more, I'd
reclassify it as a "Neutral", because I think this might be needed whether
or not the AGA joins with PAM.  This is partlty from my experience talking
with folks who've had articles rejected from places like Buntbarsche
Bulletin, and partly based on the standards that you (Dave) have been
talking about, standards which seem a bit steeper than what TAG allows
right now.

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

His track record is not clean in the eyes of many in the ACA, so I have
reservations about utilizing his services.  I think that with appropriate
backup plans in place, this issue is resolved now.


> >   * 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 had to clarify some of this with Neil as well.  The point brought up
(initially by Karen) was that if PAM does not merge with the AGA, then
some people may be faced with choosing over PAM subscription or an AGA
membership, and will go the route of the slick magazine, thus depleting
the AGA membership.  My point is that perhaps this will happen, but
perhaps this just means that the ones who stay are more representative of
the AGA's core goals (as opposed to the ones who just want a magazine
every month).  My other point is based on something Neil said, which is
that the AGA doesn't advertise its existence in national magazines.
Perhaps a well-placed ad in the theoretical AGA-less PAM would bring in
enough interested members to displace those who leave.  The last point was
a bit of a stretch... I don't think the AGA should be worrying about its
membership numbers.  We should be worrying about what we ARE (and happily,
I see Bob taking that ball and running with it this morning!).

   - Erik

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com