Re: PAM

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

Wow, Neil, that was great... exactly what I would have said once I
recovered from the last weekend enough to compose a reply.  I'm personally
very cynical about the PAM project, but at the same time would like to
give those who support it a chance to do so.  From my vantage point:

* No investment = Easy to pull out if we don't like the direction.
* No investment = Less legal hassles for our fledgling organization
        (though the AGA has been in existence for 10 years, as an
        organization it's very "green." :)

and finally,

* No investment = Maximum ultimate control over the direction magazine.

WHAT?!, you say on that last point...
One thing Dave was saying at the meeting I understand, but am not sure is
comprehended by all: If it is influence and control we want, we should NOT
be stockholders.  We have something far greater, our subscriber base.

By us merely providing the majority (and perhaps 100%) of his
*subscription base*, we have a great deal of influence on his magazine,
especially at the start. The reason is that we can always pull out,
something which in my mind would surely collapse the magazine.  This is,
IMHO, far greater than any "PAM stockholders" or even the advertisers.  
Because if there's no subscription base, there's no advertisers.  Dave
understands this, and this is to a certain extent what he was trying to
get across Sunday morning.  It doesn't have to come down to making a
threat every time the AGA wants something, because this particular
negotiating chip is ever-present.

Consider also that if Dave sells subscriptions at $20 per year, while the
AGA sells them at $15 per year, that subscriber base is surely not going
to shift from the AGA over time; rather the AGA base will actually
increase.

If, however, we are "stockholders," we actually have less flexibility. The
AGA is tied to PAM.  We lose big time if we have to pull out.  The only
reason to be stockholders is if we feel some need to share in the profit
of this magazine.  Yeah, it's a little annoying, especially if AGA members
do a lot of work to get it off the ground.  But as Neil points out, the
AGA doesn't exist to make money.  Oh well.  That's the tradeoff. 

  - Erik

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com