HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
If Y'all Will Pay, I'll Sink U-K  By Ron Lewis July 19, 2007 ----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Lewis
To: Recipient List Suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:42 PM
Subject: Useless Knowledge Hi Folks, as some of you may be aware, I have been
contemplating starting a web site that might appeal to a few of you, but that
would definitely be different than Useless Knowledge - in format and current
editorial policy. However, it occured to me that Matt James might
consider selling U-K. I contacted him about the possibility and he is
open to receiving an offer. Here is his response:
~~~~~~~~~
How much are we talking here? The site currently
brings in a little more than $2000 a year. If it could be re-listed in
some of the search engine news sites, it could make double or tripple that the
first year and grow considerable after that. That is why I pay someone to
run it now, because I see it's potential. If I didn't want the site, I
would just let it sit or link it to the forum and continue to collect the income
from the old articles still listed in the search engines. That being said,
sure, I will certainly listen to offers.
~~~~~~~~~
I expect that by "brings in," he doesn't mean "profit."
Even if so, that's not a lot of money - a typical business sells for
around triple earnings or double revenue. I have the ability to make
a reasonable offer to him on my own, but I would rather invest in the other site
I have envisioned. I would also feel better if my fellow writers were
involved.
Would any of you consider investing as a group to buy
U-K? A primary motivation might be to regain ownership of all of your
writings. Or, maybe you, like me, want to change its current editorial
policy. Obviously, as Matt suggests, there is potential for increasing its
revenue. I have some expertise in that area, and some ideas (my portfolio and my resume). However, I would
not look at it as a profit-making venture immediately.
Yet, I think that if the site were a co-operative venture
(dang, it's almost socialist), and writers were acting as Owners and not just
contributors, together we could do some great things.
Obviously, there would have to be mutual agreement on the new
editorial policy. In case many of you think I would be the major
impediment, I promise you I wouldn't. In fact, I really don't care what
the policy is, as long as it doesn't allow the vulgarity and fraudulent posting
of articles under other people's names that the Editor is doing now. And,
I would want to insure that it is non-partisan, which, again, the current Editor
is not doing. I'm going to save my aggressive style that many people hate
for the site I build some day.
The little bit of revenue that does come in would be, of
course, divided among us - after bills (hosting and bandwidth). At least
until our initial investments have been recouped, then we should consider
reinvesting to improve the site.
This email is being sent to about 20 people. I could
include more but did not want to alert those that might want to sabatogue [sic] any
effort like this. If everyone pitched in as little as a couple of hundred
dollars, we would probably be there (I'll research market values and get back to
those who express interest). With the deal struck, I'd approach the others
for contributions.
Finally, I would consider making up the difference if too few
of you want to be involved. I would be reimbursed according to the
percentage of my investment to the whole.
Let me know if you want in. I'll open the recepient list
when I reply to the responders so y'all can all collaborate. Also, I have
a little experience drawing up legal documents.
Regards,
Ron Lewis
I could even envision a business model where we charge
contributors some VERY modest fee for Premier Status (a search engine accessible
bio page included) - $5-10. |
