PAM/TAG ad exchange

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

> From: Karen Randall <krandall@world.std.com>
> Subject: PAM/TAG ad exchange

> In reference of Mary's comment that AGA is getting the "short end of the
> stick" subscriber-wise by exchanging ads with PAM, I don't agree.

And it's literally changing as well.  I spoke with Dave last weekend (and
didn't even feel the urge to jump through a window afterwards! I guess I'm
growing up?), and he described the PAM subscriber base as "around 500", so
clearly it's still going up.  I'm sure by issue #4 it will be at least on
par, if not greater than, the TAG circulation.

> Dave has gone out of his way to publicize the Tennessee Aquarium event, and
> to work with AGA in a mutually beneficial way.  I think WE need to do the
> same.  This hobby is too small for divisiveness.  We need to work together.

I should also comment a little on this.  I wrote a large post yesterday
about my conversation with Dave, but decided to delete it and just reply
in a smaller message here.  One must always consider the larger picture
when dealing with him.  

On the one hand, he said he offered us the $300 ad because he throught
"hey, here is something the AGA might find useful to promote Chattanooga
or the showcase.  Only do this if the AGA beleives it is WORTHWHILE".

But on the other hand, he also said several times to me something along
the lines of "the AGA is sitting on this huge treasury, yet they don't
even fulfill more than 1/6 of their committments [he assumed we still
publish 6x per year], while I have fulfilled 3/4 of mine [he's put the TAG
in PAM #2 and #3 already] and have given you guys two free plugs, Karen's
announcement for the Chattanooga event, and James Purchase's announcement
for the showcase [which would have been in TAG #2, but apparently isn't
due to a screwup by Herlong].  I'm bleeding here!"

This was a useful piece of the puzzle to me.  

Just so you know, I think things are squared away.  I explained that the
lack of the PAM ad was a communication error and we'll get one in the next
three issues.  I also explained it's a total of four, not six, since we
publish quarterly.  I've told him we voted not to do the $300 ad because
we don't think it would be worthwhile at this time. I should also probably
tell him not to put in the James Purchase thing because it won't be useful
by the time #4 comes out either, and would merely waste valuable space!

Without trying to get too finger-pointy, it sounds like the reciprocal ad
issue was decided on and executed without even bringing it to either
committee.  From our conversation, there are lots of things Dave would
"like to do with us", but even the sensible-sounding ones should have
input so that we're at least on the same page!

  - Erik

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com