42 replies to this topic

[David Nishimura]

When people ask me about pen collecting, one of the things I always mention is the collectors. I've dabbled in many fields of collecting, and pen collectors are, as a whole, a notably good bunch. The sparks that have been flying around this discussion are less an indication of any lack of goodwill, than of the difficulty of the issues we've been wrestling with.

In a time of upheaval, there's bound to be uncertainty and confusion, along with an inevitable measure of fear. Some people want to live in the past, while others can't wait to leave it behind. It's not surprising we end up hearing a wide variation of opinions about the proper nature of an organization working its way through these changing, challenging times.

Marc, you clearly place a very high value on completely unfettered access to information. It's a noble aim, but speaking as a practical idealist, I'm OK with working in that direction incrementally -- so let's see what we can accomplish now. Let's find out, for example. how many people who own rare original pen publications are willing to let them be shared without restriction, and if those who are doing the scanning would be equally willing to do so under those conditions. Perhaps some will, while others will not, in which case we might restrict distribution only as necessary. Principles matter, but so does patience and flexibility, if we want to see real progress and fundamental change.

In this, your mention of "other revenue models" is apropos. If digitization of old pen-related documents and archiving of current online pen information is to be recognized as an essential part of the PCA's mission, it may be time for the organization to look into seeking out outside grants. Certainly there is much to be done, even with material where ownership and access isn't an issue. While many copies of old stationery and jewelry trade journals have already been digitized, for example, inquiries to Google and other big players about when the rest might get scanned have been met with the response, "we'll scan if you'll pay".
 

[marcshiman]

Here's a few thoughts at alternative streams of income:

 

1) if general membership was made free, and there were regular visitors to the website, it would make it more reasonable to attempt to attract advertisers. If there are 1000 members (most of whom know each other already), advertising may not be so monetizable. But if there were 10,000 members, then all of a sudden, advertisements might have some value. 

2) I've noticed that some Ebay listers are advertising themselves as "Member of PCA" as if that speaks to their integrity. Perhaps it could. Perhaps we could leverage it somehow as a sign of some combination of pen knowledge / integrity as a seller. Perhaps someone wishing to use that would pay more than $100

3) I've always felt that the typical message board marketplaces - green board, Zoss, FPN, etc left a lot to be desired. Maybe PCA could rent "storefronts" off their server using some sort of e-commerce application and then collect a small percentage of sales. 

4) Maybe PCA should be more aggressive at soliciting donations of pens that can either be auctioned on ebay, sold on the site, or auctioned at a show. 

5) I would be less opposed to selling individual catalogs / back issues of Pennant per item to the general public than making it an all-you-can-eat buffet reserved for members.

 

You are right, I have a passion for open source and freedom of information, and I'm totally behind Google's grand vision. I'm passionate enough about it and our hobby that I'm more than willing to invest my time and money to achieve that from PCA if it were so inclined.

 

I could be in a minority of one on this, so obviously its only my opinion. I guess when I get to Columbus this year, I'll put my two cents in and see whether its met with laughter or.....

[Roger W.]

Marc;

 

Get on the Board of the PCA and effect the changes or get someone elected to the Board that shares your views.  Trying to convince the current Board could work too but, it is better to be on the Board.

 

Roger W.