Re: PAM "adoption"

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

If I read this right, the only difference between your proposal and Dave's
proposal is that yours does not include people who are already AGA
members, and yours also does not pro-rate AGA memberships based on how
much time is remaining on their PAM subscribtion.

Essentially your plan doesn't really seek to take care of the entire PAM
membership in a proportionate manner to how much they were bought into
PAM, but instead offers a uniform 1-year "promo".

To me this seems less like a gift, and more like an advert.  It would,
however, be cheaper to the AGA, and would certainly distance us more than
the other.

I will run this by Dave, but I'm starting to tire of this.  Sounds like we
all have different ideas here, and not a lot of convergance.

  - Erik

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, David VillaSunscape wrote:

> Maybe I didn't make myself clear -- I think that we should only be willing
> to do the following:
> 1) Dave gives us his entire subscription list -- including those who have
> lapsed
> 2) To the ones who have subscriptions with time to run on them we offer one
> year memberships in the AGA (to those who are not already AGa members)
> 3) For each of those Dave gives us "x" back issues, where "x" is a number
> around 3 or 4. We can sell those for the equivalent of the revenue we are
> not getting for the free one year memberships we give out. We offer to buy
> the remainder of his back issues at a lowball price per issue
> There is no net cost to AGA -- except for the time delay of selling the back
> issues of PAM, which I bet we could sell out at the next year convention if
> not before.
> Dave walks away from PAM pissing off the fewest people possible -- if he
> just sends back issues of PAM equivalent to the number of issues remaining
> of their subscription he will really piss off folks, as well as costing him
> money to send them all. The only concession we would need from him would be
> a nice letter to his subscribers explaining that AGA is doing this out of
> the goodness of our heart, that we are not a part of PAM, and that he is
> sorry it didn't work out. I would suggest that our lawyer write or at least
> edit the letter.
> We are offering him a simple way to resolve his problem and he even walks
> away with a little money from the bulk sale of back issues to AGA. If he
> doesn't accept this deal, it will cost him money to send out the issues to
> the remaining subscribers, and he will be net out of pocket the cost for
> mailing and his time.
> Please don't get me wrong. I think that we should help out Dave only to the
> extent that it also benefits AGA. If he keeps pushing then I think we walk
> away and wish him well.
> David
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erik Olson" <erik@thekrib.com>
> To: <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:11 AM
> Subject: Re: PAM "adoption"
> 
> 
> > OK, David and Neil, you should both reread my message with the "numbers"
> > on how much this will cost us to give free aga memberships to the PAM
> > subscribers.  If we take Dave's offer of 3 months AGA (1 issue TAG) for
> > each 3 months (1 issue) of PAM, and he options this for all 1900 of his
> > subscriber-issues, it will cost the AGA approximately $4700 to pay for
> > printing and mailing TAG to these people (lost revenue for existing
> > members, marginal cost for new members). In exchange for this we would get
> > 1900 back issues, which averages out to us paying $2.50 per copy for these
> > back issues.  If we sell them at $5 per copy, we need to sell 1000 of them
> > to make back that money.  This is a cold, hard fact.  In fact, even if he
> > gives us 3000 back issues, we still have to sell 1000 copies at $5 each to
> > make back that money.  (Personally, I think we could do this in a year,
> > especially if we got 40 or so of his "rare" one, bundled all eight into a
> > "complete set" for $40 -- that's 320 copies right there).
> >
> > I talked with Dave last night, and if the AGA agreed to give equivalent
> > AGA memberships to the remaining PAM subscriptions, he would NOT also send
> > them back issues.  It'll be one or the other.  So I very much think that
> > we'll get a lot of anger transferrance.  Neil brings up a good point that
> > we may not have TAG for them either (at least right away... I have faith
> > that we will find a new editor).
> >
> >   - 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".
> 

-- 
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".