PAM Ads

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

> From: Neil Frank <nfrank@mindspring.com>

> I thought I already seconded the motion, with comments. Doesn't that count?
> :-)

I'm a little grumpy & frustrated here, so pardon me if it comes off that
way. I don't recall having heard much from Neil in the last few weeks, so
I looked for the post in question.  This is the post, in its entirely,
sent to the steering committe June 28th: "I move that we place a
reciprocal ad in TAG each issue and not buy the ad in PAM".

The latter part was seconding the original motion, but the former part was
some sort of ammendment, so was not considered part of the motion. I am
sorry if I am dragging things out, but at the time we voted on the first
issue last week, we did not have the information from Dave as to WHY he
was trying to get us to purchase a $300 ad.  We now know exactly how much
the committment was for, we now know where he stands, and I am just trying
to poke everybody into making SOME kind of comment, such as the one
below, so that we can vote on the reciprocal ad and/or tell Dave
how we stand:

Neil continues:
> I reiterate my previous suggestion that we TELL DAVE that we intend to
> honor the committment, but since we are not a professional magazine (i.e.
> have paid personnel), that we reserve the right to provide a half page or
> less if circumstances beyone our control prevent this (ie. The magazine
> layout can't come to 32 pages (or another multiple of 4).

This is great, and exactly what I think we're looking for in the
discussion.  Again (grump, grump) I could not find a previous post
"iterating" this statement, only this one on June 23rd: "I suggest that we
continue to advertise PAM on the reciprocal basis."  Neil, this, this
really is the first time you've stated anything more than the two
sentences I quoted.


> Dave will ask for stuff that he knows he may or may not get. Can you fault
> the guy for asking?

Except he's not asking.  He's flat out TELLING us that he's changed his
mind and this is how it's gonna be.  I think he thinks he can get away
with it because we messed up and forgot one issue.

> It is my impression (please correct me) that he is not
> renegging on the 1for 1 ad deal.

All I know is that as of last week, he planned on printing no more ads
past PAM #2 unless he heard from us, and even if he does, his commitment
is to print only one more ad.  Perhaps we should let him skip a month (or
two if the Chattanooga issue resolves differently), so we'll be in sync
for the last two?

> I agree with the others that the Chattnooga ANNOUNCEMENT does not
> constitute an ad. We did not ask for 1 page, he did. Karen was nice enough
> to write it. I will be kind and say this was a miscommunication. Period. 

Could be, but it didn't seem that way when he talked or e-mailed about it.
It seemed very clear that he didn't care under what conditions or
agreements the announcement was printed; what was important was that the
AGA was getting free plugs on his dime.  I beleive that he is reminded of
the agreement, and explained that plugs are a good thing, then he could be
talked down off this ledge.

Karen told me she was going to talk to him if/when he called last weekend.  
Karen, any luck?

>  If that doesn't seem like a good idea, how about
> >Erik giving the OK?  I think that there ought to be someone designated to
> >make these kinds of decisions.
> 
> This is a good idea on any BIG or potentially controversial decision. Eric,
> if you don't mind, you should do it. Otherwise, it should come from someone
> else on the SC or an appropriate  designated individual.

I'm confused exactly what we're refering to here.  Tt's perfectly
appropriate for me to be the messenger of decisions (I think this is what
Neil is saying), but I think it's INappropriate for me to make a decision
like this on my own (what Paul was suggesting?).  This is precisely what
happened earlier with Bob and Dave, and why we are picking up the mess
now.  If any one person has authority for this kind of thing, it would be
Mary, not me.  If it would be a website-related ad, that would be me. But
this is TAG-related, so Mary should be the one.

I think we should get through this particular discussion (which will have
ended by the time you read this), vote, send the message to Dave, and with
the decision set, Mary and Dave would be communicating directly.

  - Erik

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com