Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".

Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.

In the fiscal year ending May 30, 2008, three weeks from today, the
USCF will have lost $300,000.

Bill Goichberg seems to think that this change will stop the horrific
losses the USCF has suffered every year EXCEPT FOR THE ONE YEAR THAT I
WAS ON THE BOARD.

However, Goichberg is ignoring the fact that during the one year that
I was on the board membership increased and the year ended with a
small surplus.

Bill Goichberg is claiming that it is because of the "Internet" that
the USCF lost money this year.

We had the Internet last year too.

Bill Goichberg is losing money this year because of mismanagement.
That is the reason, pure and simple.

Of course, my posting about this over on the USCF Issues Forum will
probably be pulled as a violation of the AUG, but at least it can not
be said that I did not try to tell the members.

Bill Goichberg needs to resign. However, Goichberg is playing the
Truong card well. By now, everybody knows that Goichberg is not the
right man for the job, but we also know that Truong is an outright
crook and a thief. Nobody wants to try to force Goichberg out knowing
that he might be replaced by Truong.

Sam Sloan

On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan wrote:
Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".

Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.

So, the magazine doesn't have enough of a circulation in order to be
able to have the advertising pay for its circulation? If it were done
right, with a large enough subscriber base, the magazine could be
free.

Oh well. Good luck on the USCF getting this going.

- Rich

Rich Hutnik wrote:
On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan wrote:
Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".

Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.

So, the magazine doesn't have enough of a circulation in order to be
able to have the advertising pay for its circulation? If it were done
right, with a large enough subscriber base, the magazine could be
free.

Oh well. Good luck on the USCF getting this going.

- Rich


Really? And how many free magazines do you know of? Since all you need
is "a large enough subscriber base," where go I go to get my free
copies to /Time/, /Newsweek/ and /People/?

On May 12, 11:03 pm, wrote:

Really? And how many free magazines do you know of? Since all you need
is "a large enough subscriber base," where go I go to get my free
copies to /Time/, /Newsweek/ and /People/?

Many magazines are sold at very low rates for a one-
year subscription, including those which are far better
-- and thicker -- than Chess Lies. They make money
from the heavy advertising, while using the minimal
subscription fees to offset postage costs. When you
consider how skimpy Chess Lies magazine is and its
"captive audience" of rated chess players, I see no
good reason why it could not be free. However, the
low, low rates I mentioned are often reserved for new
subscribers; after the first year, most will try to get
renewals at substantially higher rates to augment
their advertising profits.


-- help bot

help bot wrote:
On May 12, 11:03 pm, wrote:

Really? And how many free magazines do you know of? Since all you need
is "a large enough subscriber base," where go I go to get my free
copies to /Time/, /Newsweek/ and /People/?

Many magazines are sold at very low rates for a one-
year subscription, including those which are far better
-- and thicker -- than Chess Lies. They make money
from the heavy advertising, while using the minimal
subscription fees to offset postage costs. When you
consider how skimpy Chess Lies magazine is and its
"captive audience" of rated chess players, I see no
good reason why it could not be free. However, the
low, low rates I mentioned are often reserved for new
subscribers; after the first year, most will try to get
renewals at substantially higher rates to augment
their advertising profits.


-- help bot


I suggest you stop and read what you wrote. Those "loss leader" rates
are designed to attract new people, on the assumption that enough of
them will become subscribers (at the _real_ rates) to earn out over
time. This makes sense for a "new" publication which has not yet found
its market, less for for "mature" magazines which have already reached
most people who might be interested. There is an extensive literature
on this subject, and it would be interesting to discuss it with
someone who actually knows something about it. But I suppose instead
we'll get another spitting match from the usual suspects.

BTW, if the "captive audience" comment was meant to refer to you, it's
silly. At your current rate of activity, you'd come out about the same
with the $12/event "tournament membership."

On May 12, 11:03 pm, wrote:
Rich Hutnik wrote:
On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan wrote:
Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".

Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.

So, the magazine doesn't have enough of a circulation in order to be
able to have the advertising pay for its circulation? If it were done
right, with a large enough subscriber base, the magazine could be
free.

Oh well. Good luck on the USCF getting this going.

- Rich

Really? And how many free magazines do you know of? Since all you need
is "a large enough subscriber base," where go I go to get my free
copies to /Time/, /Newsweek/ and /People/?

Consider the likes of trade publications I get. I have multiple
subscriptions in the area of sales and so on, which are free to me.
Advertising is supposed to pay for all, if not most, of the publishing
costs. Money paid for the publication is supposed to be profit. And
people pay for Time, Newsweek, etc... because the publisher can charge
for it.

- Rich

On May 13, 1:46 am, wrote:
help bot wrote:
On May 12, 11:03 pm, wrote:

Really? And how many free magazines do you know of? Since all you need
is "a large enough subscriber base," where go I go to get my free
copies to /Time/, /Newsweek/ and /People/?

Many magazines are sold at very low rates for a one-
year subscription, including those which are far better
-- and thicker -- than Chess Lies. They make money
from the heavy advertising, while using the minimal
subscription fees to offset postage costs. When you
consider how skimpy Chess Lies magazine is and its
"captive audience" of rated chess players, I see no
good reason why it could not be free. However, the
low, low rates I mentioned are often reserved for new
subscribers; after the first year, most will try to get
renewals at substantially higher rates to augment
their advertising profits.

-- help bot

I suggest you stop and read what you wrote. Those "loss leader" rates
are designed to attract new people, on the assumption that enough of
them will become subscribers (at the _real_ rates) to earn out over
time. This makes sense for a "new" publication which has not yet found
its market, less for for "mature" magazines which have already reached
most people who might be interested. There is an extensive literature
on this subject, and it would be interesting to discuss it with
someone who actually knows something about it. But I suppose instead
we'll get another spitting match from the usual suspects.

BTW, if the "captive audience" comment was meant to refer to you, it's
silly. At your current rate of activity, you'd come out about the same
with the $12/event "tournament membership."

Go look up trade publications. A large number come free. Advertisers
can pay to cover the cost of a publication. If this was impossible,
then you wouldn't see things like the Pennysaver (Perhaps Thrifty
Nickel is identical). Websites also run on the same model. You make
a profit from the subscribers, however.

- Rich