Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!lsuc!jimomura From: jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) Subject: Publishers Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) Organization: Consultant, Toronto Date: Fri, 10 May 1991 18:56:52 GMT Message-ID: <1991May10.185652.19983@lsuc.on.ca> I've just finished a program and magazine article and I sent it off to STart Magazine. So right now, I'm planning my next bit of work and I'm wondering which direction I'm going to work towards. The biggest problem is deciding marketing methods. 1. Shareware: I'm getting more and more convinced that this is a bad idea. It's not just a matter of how little money most shareware publishers are getting. I think there's a much more important problem. For the last decade, "the big lie" in the computer field was the availability of tons and tons of "Public Domain" software. Ask yourself whether you were told this by somebody back when you were deciding whether to buy your first computer. "There's so much you can do" and "all you have to do is buy a computer!" Absolute B*llsh*t! You had to do *much* more than just buy a computer. And furthermore, if you looked into the situation, there simply wasn't "tons and tons of Public Domain" software. Oh, there was a lot of software that people were telling you was Public Domain, but if you really looked into it, and did some digging around, like phoning some of the authors of so-called Public Domain software, often it was "ripped off" software or software with specific limitations on how you could use it. Some of the authors I've contacted were irate about the mis-use of their software. Shareware just succeeds in muddying the water even more. There are so many variations of restrictions on re-distribution and usage of software, most BBS sysops who care at all about legalities are even reaching the point where they can't be bothered worrying about it anymore. This could get so bad that we'll see the publishers getting the police out confiscating equipment. They already have been to a small extent. On Usenet, this is even more obnoxious. The basic concept of all networks is "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." That is to say, I'll do you the favour of carrying your files to other people and you do the same for me. In the News style systems this goes further: "I'll help you with your problems, and give you valuable information, if you'll help me, someday." That is to say we share the information because we *all* get something out of it, or at least expect to. Stating it further, we should expect to get equal "benefit" for the help we give others -- both in terms of advice and in terms of files. When you demand payment from people based on whether they are a "commercial site", for example, you're really snubbing them. It's like your saying "you are 'allowed' to see me picking your pocket as you pay for the transfer and storage of my file, but if you want any 'benefit' for having done so, you'll have to pay me extra!" And the bigger joke is that this "commercial" site may be some individual working hard just to make ends meet getting a small time consulting company off the ground with less disposable cash than some student sitting in an EDU site paid for by his/her parents! In the long run, there's no real justification for having *any* restrictions on *any* files posted to a newsgroup. Even the GNU "copyleft" is nothing by hypocritical masterbation in that sense. I will do my best to "respect" such restrictions, but I believe it is only right to post TRUE PUBLIC DOMAIN files in Usenet Newsgroups. 2. Traditional Publishers: The cost of packaging an "store shelf" product is pretty high. It seems to me that only the most widely popular products are worth marketting this way. 3. Magazines: Magazines can justify the inclusion of much small programs and programs of less general interest because over a year a subscriber can count on finding *some* programs of interest. STart Magazine, for all the criticism levelled against it, has paid good rates to writers, making many of the lesser programs viable. Furthermore, because it integrated a "store shelf" publishing business with its "magazine disk" business, it was possible for people like Tom Hudson and Jim Kent to develop large bodies of programs which they might not have had the opportunity to develop in other ways. Many other magazines crow about their "Public Domain" disks, but they don't *pay*. As such, they survive off the scroungings from BBS files and "crippleware" demo files. As such, they are really not doing much to promote real development. Don't expect to see the "next Tom Hudson" working for them. At best they may get some good stuff from people living off the money of others -- more students living off their parents and such. Now if you're a student you might want to submit something to them, but what good is it *really* going to do you? Reputation? To an extent, you can take your reputation from such publications and a buck and buy a cuppa coffee. A career? Forget it. I've done so much free work over the years you could wallpaper a shopping mall with the printouts. The only thing it gets you is more requests to do more free work. Anyway, as you can see, my belief is clearly that the only "good" ways to market software are either "store shelf" or magazine, and if by magazine, one that *pays*. But that leads me to wonder who's left in the Atari Publishing world? In particular, which magazines are paying for programs and what happens if I want to develop a program further? All I've seen lately in North America for paying work is STart Magazine. The other stuff seem to all be "fanzine" and beg for contributions. Pay? Money? "Why aren't you glad for the opportunity to do something for others? [#define others the-publisher]" Also, exactly what *did* happen at STart? Did they sell off all their "store shelf" business or is "The Catalogue" still part of their overall business? I haven't seen ads for it lately. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura