On Wed, 29 May 1996, Bart Preecs wrote:

> Rosalind has done us a service by making it clear that there are at least
> two models for funding online news to choose from:  1) a cooperative model
> and 2) a business model.  

Nonsense.  The model you call "cooperative" is in fact no model at all. 
Try taking this so-called model to any bank in the country, and presenting
it as the foundation for a loan application and watch what happens. 
Beg-a-thon is no model.  So why, one may ask, does npr/pbs use this
technique?  Because the language of the legislation that provides the cpb
subsidy requires it, that's why.  Is Steve going to apply to the cpb/
Congress for a subsidy to run his list?  Somehow, I doubt it.

There are ONLY commercial models, three distinct ones, with sub categories
of each. The beg-a-thon is a stopgap measure only, one I will respond to,
but a poor one at best.  It is, moreover, morally, ethically, financially,
and intellectually undesireable, at best.
 
> I'd like to urge Steve and other list members not to brush past the first
> model before embracing the second. despite the obvious appeal it has to some
> on the list.

I repeat, the beg-a-thon is NOT a model.

> With all due respect and gratitude for Steve's efforts, I think it's
> safe to say that at least 50 percent of the value of this list is the
> contributions from the members. 

I'd say more than 50%......but this observation does not support the
conclusion which Bart makes dependent upon it.

> This suggests to me that a co-op model may well be a
> better choice than a straightforward buyer-seller relationship. ( I'd love
> to believe that a technological fix [microcash disbursements for
> readers/posters] was just around the corner, but I've been around the
> computer industry too long to believe it until I see it. )

You'll see it before the end of this year.......IT IS THE WAY TO GO. It
allows the market to vote with its dollars at a VERY fine level of detail.

> The objections that Rosalind raises to the co-op model  (administrative
> overhead, cumbersome bylaws) cannot be dismissed, but I think they are less
> real than we might think.  I belong to a nonprofit group that recently
> discovered it had never officially been chartered by either the IRS or the
> state of Washington.  That lack of formal structure hadn't prevented the
> group from raising 10s of thousands of dollars to support its cause.  

So far, eh?  Why in the name of all that's decent would anyone want to
prevent online-news, or any worthwhile endeavor, from achieving profitable
status?  Denigrating the profit motive isn't merely a fool's exercise, it
is immoral and corrupting at its foundation.

> I suggest that the friction free environment of cyberspace is well suited
> for experiments in co-operative publishing in which the list owner and most
> participants have both altruistic and egotistical motives.  Steve's been
> clear about his desires to both complement his for-profit activities and
> provide a public service.  I know I post here for similarly mixed motives.
> Steve's request for donations is entirely in harmony with those motives.
> This may invalidate the model for some who prefer a purely altruistic
> approach and others who prefer a clear-cut capitalistic model, but I think
> we could survive some ambiguity.  

Why prefer ambiguity?  It is Steve's right, (it is EVERYONE's RIGHT) to
run a business, and no one should try to pressure him otherwise. I never
heard Steve announce his intention to run a public service......he merely
said that he feared losing participants if he charged.  He would lose some
participation if he charged......Vig would leave, I'll wager.  And two or
three others of his fellow sufferers.  GEE WHIZ.....I just feel terrible.

Now, Vin told us that he would leave if Steve sold the list (but anyone
can get the list at the moment for free, and I suspect many folks, perhaps
including Roz, eh?, have done so already).  But Vin did not mention if he
would leave the list if there were a small charge for messages.  Suppose
there were a charge of 10 cents per 40 messages.  That is about $19
annually by my calculations.  AND, readers can elect not to receive
particular threads or authors, OR a combination of both.

We'd lose some folks, to be sure, but not most.



------------------------------

End of online-news-digest V1 #668
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Thu May 30 10:14:33 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [206.168.5.232]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA18352 ; for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 10:14:31 -0400