[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]
Re: PAM (fwd)
Hi there --
Now I'm totally confused --
I am hoping that Erik's "(and the $12 per issue)" was intended to mean $12
per year -- $3 per issue.
If anyone is interested I have put together an Excel spread sheet that
allows you to play "what if" with the projections and numbers. And if anyone
is interested in my opinion I agree completely with Erik, with a couple of
additions.
1) I think that we should agree on the projections and thus on what the
losses will be each quarter, and know from the gitgo whether Gomberg and
Herlong are expecting cash or whether they will contribute their salaries in
return for stock, and if so for how long.
2) From my discussions with Dave Gomberg I was under the impression that
someone from AGA (Neil had been mentioned) would serve, for pay I presume,
as the technical editor of PAM. This would give AGA some control over the
content.
3) We need to get a call from whoever is our lawyer about the non-profit
involvement in a for-profit venture.
4) We need to know what the cash implications are -- i.e. is AGA going to be
asked to front money to get the first couple issues out without much
revenue?
In general I am in favor of the idea. The situation with getting folks to
volunteer to do anything right now is very bad, and I think that AGA's
involvement in a quality magazine like PAM is intended to be is fine. We
just need to reexamine the role that AGA has to play for our members, which
is the next discussion after we have decided about PAM.
How does AGA make decisions such as this? What do the by-laws say? Being the
newest lamb in the fold I know not these things. Seems to me that we should
make the decision soon, if not right now.
Thanks for listening.
Lass
----- Original Message -----
From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
To: <aga-mcm@thekrib.com>
Cc: <gomberg@wcf.com>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: PAM (fwd)
> I spent a few hours yesterday re-reading all the e-mail posted on this
> list, and here are my most recent thoughts on the whole PAM thing, sent to
> the SC yesterday. Apologies in advance if I jar any feelings, I am being
> as candid and frank as I can be on this issue. Also, Neil and Karen have
> already replied on some of the issues, noting we've got solutions in
> place, or offering possible suggestions. I assume they'll post relevant
> snippets here as well.
>
> - Erik
>
> -------------forwarded----------------------
> Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 18:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
>
> I have a feeling I'm still going to vote opposite some of the people here.
>
> First, in terms of feasibility, I beleive that if we give over the AGA
> subscriber list to Dave (and the $12 per issue), PAM will most likely
> succeed. Conversations with Dave have convinced me his numbers and
> methodology look reasonable, and I think it would be fairly easy to
> envision doubling or tripling the readership based only on word of mouth
> by current TAG subscribers. (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.)
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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?
> * Very little direct AGA involvement in PAM. At best, our 4 pages are
> like a paid ad supplement.
> * 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! :)
> * Because he's pushy and a salesman, Dave may also drive away
> potential partnerships, and this will now be associated with AGA.
> * AGA as a non-profit is now supporting PAM as a for-profit venture?
> * Herlong.
>
>
> 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.
> * Dave is now editor. More than that, he doesn't answer
> to anyone on the AGA. Big step.
> * 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 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>