Re: MCM - Digest V1 #345

["Mary McCaw" <marymccaw@mediaone.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: MCM - Digest <owner-aga-mcm-digest@thekrib.com>
To: <aga-mcm-digest@thekrib.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 6:12 AM
Subject: MCM - Digest V1 #345


>
> MCM - Digest         Wednesday, July 12 2000         Volume 01 : Number
345
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
> Subject: PAM Ads
>
> > From: Neil Frank <nfrank@mindspring.com>
>
> 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).

I think we should tell Dave that we intend to honor the committment period.
Having already made an agreement, I think we owe him the courtesy of giving
him a full page.  I am going to try to build up a small supply of short
filler articles to avoid being caught in the lurch.  When we have fulfilled
the agreement, before we enter into another one I agree with Neil that we
should allow ourselves more flexibility.
>
>> > 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.

I agree.
>
> > 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?

If I am following you, this would mean that we skipped an issue, so he skips
an issue and then we "owe" one another two more ads?  I think it would be to
our mutual benefit to keep to the original agreement of four reciprocal ads
if David would come down from his ledge.
>
> > 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.

I have no idea what was going through Dave's mind, but the above does sounbd
like a good strategy in dealing with him.
>
> 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.

I would hope so.
>
> >  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.

If an ad is TAG-related, I need to be able to make the final decision.  I
will implement whatever policy the MC or SC decide on.

Mary