[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]
Re: Round 2 with Gomberg
Heeding Erik's request, I went through the roof yesterday, and thought about
it overnight -- but I am still pretty torqued at Gomberg's proposal.
First off -- to compare PAM to TFH is a little ridiculous, and tells us a
lot about the high esteem in which Gomberg holds himself.. PAM is a new
venture that comes out 4 times a year pitched to a very specialized (and to
my way of thinking much too scientific) audience. For him to say it is
reasonable for someone who would pay $29 to receive TFH to pay $27 to
receive PAM is absurd.
Essentially I think Gomberg is asking us to cover his losses in the vague
hope that this will keep him going and keep PAM afloat. The one thing I
think we should really consider is -- what do we do if a year into the thing
Gomberg decides he still isn't making any/enough money and folds PAM. Is the
AGA then willing to step up to the entire nut of this? If he is losing
$1,300 per issue NOT COUNTING HIS TIME it seems to me that he is trying to
make that up by charging us the $4,800 per year in "advertising".
My take on this is, even after sleeping on it, that this is a very good, and
perhaps quick, way for AGA to spend the not unsubstantial nest egg that we
have been accumulating over the years. AGA has been really starting to get
its act together, and we have gotten excellent response to the convention,
the contest and TAG all by ourselves, and I think that bailing out Dave
Gomberg and PAM is a real mistake.
However, I have a suggestion.
This is an important enough decision that I think we should put it off til
the November convention, when we can discuss it amongst the SC (or what will
hopefully be the Board of Directors of the newly incorporated AGA,Inc.) face
to face, and then discuss it face to face with Gomberg. This will also give
Gomberg the chance to tell us, which I think he will, that if AGA does not
come to his rescue he is folding PAM. We would also have some time to get
the real numbers of AGA members, PAM subscribers, the overlap and thus any
increased revenues.
So -- that is one man's opinion.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Olson" <erik@thekrib.com>
To: <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 3:10 PM
Subject: Round 2 with Gomberg
> So talked with Gomberg some more today; things are progressing very well.
> Some of the areas in which we're clearly still on different pages are that
> of...hmm... let's call it "customer support vs. PAM financial viability".
>
> Now before you even read the examples below, please keep in mind that
> WE'RE JUST TALKING, and things are going GREAT. We're working through
> these issues, and I (who usually goes through the roof on stuff like this)
> think we'll come to an agreement.
>
> OK, so stickler point #1: My initial thought was for AGA to pay PAM $15
> per subscriber year, its lowest bulk subscription rate, and for the AGA
> to collect additional $5 in dues, for a total of $20 per subscriber year,
> and PAM would provide the AGA two pages free for AGA business.
>
> However, Dave's initial idea was for AGA to pay PAM $16 per subscription
> per year (his high end bulk rate), plus the actual advertising rate for
> two pages of AGA business ($4800 per year). Add to this $5 for the AGA,
> and you have about $27 per membership. To Dave this seems very
> reasonable, as TFH costs $29 per year. But to me, it seems like that
> wouldn't fly with our members. Talking with Kathy, she confirmed my
> feeling: for us there's a sort of "sweet spot" at things costing $20 or
> less, between $20 and $25 we have to think about it, and no way above $25.
>
> Another related issue is what to do with overlapping memberships. Dave's
> proposal is that both PAM and AGA "shorten" remaining memberships to
> account for the increased benefits, and then add them to make a combined
> PAM+AGA subscription. My feeling is that our membership won't stand for
> this either... you don't promise four issues of something and then say "oh
> sorry, you only get three! but hey, it's in color..."
>
> Soo...
>
> Currently PAM's circulation is around 400, and he's losing about $1300 per
> issue not counting his time. What we need here is a deal to make PAM
> float, AGA get its fair dues, and have our members happy with the
> arrangement. Though I think he's clueless in terms of understanding
> customer satisfaction, Dave is (as usual) open to negotiaton. We need to
> actually figure out what we're negotiating. Specifically, we need to find
> out numbers:
>
> * how many new subscribers PAM would be getting,
> * and how many new members AGA would be getting, and
> * how many are overlapping (and by how many years)
>
> To this end, I propose we bring in Jack, or ask for a snapshot of the
> membership database. I will filter out all but name, zip and expiration
> date, and Dave can correlate it with his database.
>
> - Erik
>
> --
> Erik Olson
> erik at thekrib dot com
>
> ------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
> with "unsubscribe aga-sc" in the body of the message.
> Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-sc
> When asked, log in as username is "aga-sc", and password "showy".
>
>
------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
with "unsubscribe aga-sc" in the body of the message.
Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-sc
When asked, log in as username is "aga-sc", and password "showy".