What would I do, though? If I have to dedicate my entire life to the magazine and have no time to make money anywhere else, naturally, I won’t be able to go six months without pay. However, if I was able to at least carry a job on the side or do some freelance for other people, I’d want to have a part of the magazine because I’m all about investments.

In the end, it all depends on the details of it. Chances are, though, I’d want to be a part-owner of the magazine.

OK, let’s extrapolate.

Let’s say that after the first year, the web magazine (I can’t see why anyone would want to start a print mag in this economic climate — but maybe they have an investor on board) is making $30,000 per month. This is on the low side, and it should be making more.

At $30K per month, if the magazine were sold for 20x monthly earnings, that would be $600K. Assuming that the principals keep $300K, that would leave $300,000 to be split among 20 writers… which would be $15,000 for each writer.

What’s not to like? Count me in. :-)

Joking aside, this COULD work very well, depending on:

* The topic

* The management

* The sales team selling advertising on the site

I like it, and as I said, count me in. :-)

Since you are “forcing” me to shed my previous non-committal stance ;) and look at it from the stipulation that it is already a job I am interested in, I would probably go with scenario number one (part ownership model).

I still think it depends on the writer and their current financial position. An interested writer who is concerned about their daily or weekly income levels might want to go for number one, but feel a responsibility to go for number two. Similarly, a writer who isn’t feeling immediate financial pressure may opt for the part ownership model because the need for the regular security that scenario number two provides wouldn’t be as necessary to them.

Looking at it from that point of view, which financial package the magazine offers may determine in a significant way what types of writers end up being eventually interested in the positions.

In this particular case, I think it’s important that you first assume you want the job. The only real question I’m trying to tackle right now is, if those writers who did want the job were presented with these two payment / employment options, which would entice them to not only accept but be more motivated (given that either situation is a long-term commitment and not an article-to-article stint):

1. The part ownership model where they’re paid outright after 6 months, but also have stock in the company to benefit from its future growth,

or

2. Just flat out bi-weekly payments for the writing requirements of the job, with no employee stock options.

Maybe that description will simplify for some. :)

If it were me considering such a venture, I wouldn’t necessarily be jumping for joy nor would I be ruling it out completely. I would probably need more information.

I think there are three determining factors that play into whether a writer would find this arrangement to their liking or not.

#1 – More details. I’m not saying you need to post more details, but those details that you admit are not included just may be the kind of information that would make some, but not all, writers think that the proposition could work out for them.

#2 – The writer’s position. A struggling writer who is having a problem making it financially may not be interested in this sort of delayed payment because they are focused more on their present needs. Likewise, an extremely successful writer may look at this offer as something they don’t need to take a harder look at because they may choose to not risk losing the “good money” they are making now for the possibility of making “good money” in the future with this start-up. A writer somewhere in the middle who is comfortable financially at the time but looking for a chance to grow may be enticed by the terms of the deal though.

#3 – The writer’s personality. No matter how you cut it, this offer is somewhat of a gamble, if only because of the nature of start-ups and whether they last or not. There are those people (not just writers) who don’t like to gamble and prefer to only make choices when they have some sort of guarantee or warranty, or at least track record of past performance. There are also those type of people that believe that the best and biggest payoffs come only when something is being risked and they may really like the look of this potential (I said potential) offer or gig.

From a personal standpoint, I see it as a interesting offer but something I would need to know more details about before I seriously considered it. I also understand exactly why these are the only details being released right now though.

I believe everybody’s feedback as of now has been sent along. :)

I also wouldn’t go so far as to say that this demonstrates neither an ability to attract advertisers or a subscription base. Both are already being actively pursued, and having been privy to the actual numbers on the subscription side stemming from the initial Web-based launch and information available so far on the advertising / marketing side of things, I have no doubt they’re on the right track.

I’ve run quite a few marketing and PR campaigns in the past (and while not specifically in magazines, I have both in print publishing with book promotion and in online magazine campaigns), so I’m reasonably well qualified to understand that side of the equation. I wouldn’t even be considering it if I didn’t feel that it was both A) viable and B) well-planned. That said, readers here weren’t given details on that side yet intentionally, because this isn’t a gig being offered – we’re looking for basic feedback on one very specific aspect of things right now, and that’s all. All of that information would certainly be available to anyone considering a contract involving any kind of ownership model, after being paid outright for the first one or two initial pieces before any offer would even be made – no one’s asking writers to make any kind of commitments without having all of those details.

Again, this is just one small part of the information-gathering process, and one that I’m personally happy to see a new publisher pursuing rather than just jumping in half-cocked and being surprised by writer reactions down the road as so many are.

I do respect your views regarding the rate level. At the same time, I want to clear up that nowhere did I mention someone wouldn’t be paid for 18-24 months. I just want that clear so others don’t assume that’s the case. While I also wouldn’t likely write regular features for a rate of $200, for the type of writing they’re looking for, and the fact that they’re not looking for specialized writers or a great deal of experience especially in the realm of print magazine writing, I’ve also seen far worse from startup publications. So it’s very possible that you and I simply wouldn’t be a good fit in those writer positions for this publication, and that’s perfectly fine. Not all writers are suited to every job, and vice versa.

Again, I appreciate your feedback, and will certainly pass it along. Right now the issue we’re interested in hearing thoughts on is the one of outright payments with no ownership, or the part ownership model giving writers some say in the actual publication and a share of the profits (the reality of which they would all have the opportunity to evaluate and decide on based on the actual financials and projections, or to reject at-will). I hope that at least clears up a thing or two for anyone who may be thinking some of the same things, and I hope to be able to pass along feedback from others.

Thanks all for taking the time. :)