Re: Clarification Re: Showcase plug (fwd)

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

OK, it sounds like Dave's latest position is "one page exchanges with one
page", whether that is an ad or an "announcement".  This means that
because Karen wrote an announcement of the Chatanooga conference, we are
now "two behind" in exchanges for PAM, not "one" as we had originally
surmised, and that we are meant to either pay for more PAM space or "make
it up" with exchange ads until we are "even".

Original message follows:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 13:28:24 -0700
From: Dave Gomberg <gomberg@wcf.com>
To: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
Subject: Re: Clarification Re: Showcase plug

I think you are right that this is best conducted in writing to reduce the 
chance of misunderstanding.

At 11:42 AM 7/4/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Dave, I am very confused by your reply.  I was just trying to confirm you
>were not going to print James Purchase's announcement of the showcase in
>PAM 3 or 4.  That was all.

My current plans are shown in the chart I sent you.  They are subject to 
revision by whatever you and I might agree, with the concurrence of the AGA 
"power structure".

>It sounds like you still have some unresolved issues about what
>constitutes an advertisement in PAM, and whether the AGA is keeping its
>end of your agreement.

That is right.   As of now, AGA has three full color pages in PAM (as of 
issue two).  It has run one ad.  When I suggested that maybe AGA NEEDED 
more PAM space (and should PAY for it) that was summarily rejected by AGA 
"management".  So my current position is back to the original agreement 
with Bob, 1 for 1.   By that agreement, I am currently 2 up on AGA.

>I had thought that based on our phone conversation, you did NOT consider
>Karen's announcement of Chattanooga (or James' showcase blurb) as
>advertisements, and as such not part of the agreement for exchange of
>advertisements.  Thus, it should not even be considered on your chart
>below.

No, that was my point.   I am happy to support AGA by running lots of AGA 
stuff in PAM, but I cannot take a loss on the space, esp. when AGA has 
plenty of resources to carry its own end of the arrangement.

>I had thought that the only problem was that one ad for PAM was mistakenly
>not printed in the latest TAG.  It was my understanding that we had agreed
>that the AGA would run three more ads for PAM to make a full year, in
>exchange for the full year you are running.  TAG would just be one
>month behind.  This is what I beleive I had said to you both in e-mail and
>in our phone conversation.

The lost ad was what brought matters to a head.   But the underlying 
problem is that at least for now it feels like AGA needs more that a page 
in each PAM, but expects me to pay for it.

>Now, if it is your plan to drop the ads for TAG in issues 3 and 4, you
>didn't state this at all, or I misunderstood.  If this is your plan,
>please state explicitly what you are going to do, so I can run this by the
>AGA folks.  If you are asking that announcements be considered
>advertisements, or that we should pay for the missed advertisement, please
>say so explicitly as well.  Do not beat around the bush here, because it
>will get lost in the translation to the steering committee.

It is my plan to cooperate with AGA and run whatever AGA wants run.  But 
each page must either be an exchange page or a paid page or .....,  not a 
paid-for by Dave page.