From: Max More (max@maxmore.com)
Date: Wed Jun 06 2001 - 09:21:04 MDT
At 11:05 PM 6/5/01, James Rogers wrote:
>On 6/5/01 10:35 PM, "Ben Goertzel" <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
> >
> > so why did Wired thrive and Extropy and Mondo 2000 not? I guess just
> > *because* Wired became fairly shallow and commercial and mainstream...
>
>Because Wired was sexy, accessible, and had quite a bit of content (in the
>early days at least). Mondo 2000 was sexy, but lacking content and only
>moderately accessible. Extropy had content, but wasn't sexy or very
>accessible.
I would same the same about Wired and Mondo 2000 (though the latter had
some content, depending on your tastes). However, for the most part I think
Extropy was no less accessible than a magazine like Scientific American.
Just look through the issues and you will see many competently written
articles. Certainly it would have continued to improve along those lines if
it had continued past the fateful issue #17. As for sexiness, clearly it
was improving over time as I consciously moved in that direction, and as
Natasha also strongly guided it that way. That last cover worked for many
people...
What Extropy did not have that Wired did have, was good funding to get
started. Extropy (and ExI) began very small, with #1 having 50 copies
photocopied and given out to whoever would take them by T.0.Morrow and
myself. The lack of funds for marketing and the infrequent publication were
limitations even when the look and feel become sexier. By contrast, Wired's
launch came along with massive advertising (I saw it on the sides of many
buses in L.A.) and money for promotion. We did quite well considering. Same
with ExI which we started with practically zero money -- quite the opposite
way that most non-profits get started. (The Electronic Frontier
Foundation's initial directors were very wealthy; The Milken Foundation,
the Getty.... you get the idea.)
The funding point is crucial. If Extropy ever were to be re-launched,
readable content and good design would not be enough. Funding and
distribution would be essential. Considering that we could not afford to
pay anyone to write, we got a good and improving level of writing, but a
major new launch would *have* to be able to pay writers to be sustainable.
We would also need a paid staff to focus on the tedious but important
things like collecting from distributors (who are a major pain), marketing,
and the mechanics of production. I learned those things as I went along
(though I had done four previous small scale magazines), but I was not very
business minded and did not like those tasks. I'm much more business-smart
these days, but still would not want to do those jobs. I did them only
because I had to, and I had the time when I was employed full-time by ExI
to do those jobs among others (although at a pitiful salary).
It's interesting that ExI reached a peak of paid members when the magazine
was coming out -- a level it has not reached since despite the enormous
expansion in awareness of the ideas. (Though we're climbing back up, and we
have a large number of "Free Electronic Members".)
Now I'm tempted to spend an hour looking fondly through the back issues.
Ah, the memories! But no time!
Onward!
Max
_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
Futurist, Speaker, Consultant.
max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
________________________________________________________________
President, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
Chair, 06.15.01, Extro-5: Shaping Things to Come,
http://www.extropy.org/ex5/index.htm
________________________________________________________________
Senior Content Architect, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com
"The Premier Business Strategy Source"
m.more@manyworlds.com
_______________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:59 MST