By PRRose
From Boulder
Oct 21, 2008
| Jed Pointer wrote: They operated at a loss. What part of that confuses you?
I have known people who took it as a point of pride that they make good on all debts incurred by their businesses--whether or not they were protected by a liability shield. None of them had the wherewithal of Marc Ewing, either, yet they nonetheless stood for personal responsibility.
Does Alpinist have to make their suppliers and subscriber's whole? Probably not, assuming it operated as a liability-limited entity. However, your--and Peter Franzen's--approach that it's stupid or asinine to raise the question of whether an entity should operate honorably and ethically is actually the position that should be ridiculed. | 
FLAG |
By kirra
Oct 21, 2008
| Peter Franzen wrote: You need to look at it from a business standpoint. First you pay off the credit cards and loans, pay the balance on the rent/utilities at the office, pay contributors (if possible), pay off the printer, the warehouse, the billing company, the distribution company, and any other sub-contractors that you owe money to, and then after all of that's done you worry about the subscribers. I know it sucks, but that's just the way it is. Making a few dozen readers happy is just not likely at the top of their priorities right now.
Peter I did look at it that way and from my earlier post I thought I explained. I understand how the *law* works however, I don't agree with the law nor the way that the cookie *may be* crumbling
as I think I also mentioned prior, I do not know all of the exact details within Alpinest, so I cannot judge. All I can say is that if I had-had the opportunity - I would pay the folks first who I believe would stand to take a bigger hit than pay other businesses i.e. my office rent to a realitor. That's just my opinion i.e. individuals take a harder hit on financial loss than another business who could simply write it off against their taxes
Jed Pointer wrote: They operated at a loss. What part of that confuses you?
what perhaps is confusing subscribers is that they didn't know this... and perhaps if they did they might not have sent in for a subscription.
Would you subscribe to a magazine if you thought someday they would not be able to deliver it..? |
FLAG |
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Oct 21, 2008
| kirra wrote: Would you subscribe to a magazine if you thought someday they would not be able to deliver it..?
Do you want Rock And Ice or Climbing. It is your call now. No sense in asking for anything else. (Do they come with red and blue covers, respectively?) We have a 2-party system here, so don't waste your vote!
Now, in all seriousness, as to where I stand morally, clearly, with the side of Personal Responsibility. If the owner of the business has any money- he should find a way to get subscription dollars back into subscriber's hands. Let's see what happens. |
FLAG |
By JLP
From The Internet
Oct 21, 2008
| I'm sure all but the simpler among us know what the business ought to do. Go add some wisdom to a wiki page or something.
What bothers me in this particular case is what the subscribers ought to do - and IMO, the answer is not to openly slander and whine about your money or what you believe the Alpinist did with it. They haven't even said they are or are not going to offer refunds - though they probably won't. They never made any money to begin with, yet worked hard to produce something that added a lot to the community for several years. They also donated a lot of cash they didn't make. Their presense was a net gain for everyone who climbs. Reducing them to "just" a business entity who owes you or doesn't owe you something as a part of some business contract law is, as I said, asinine and selfish. |
FLAG |
By craig512
From Nor-Cal
Oct 21, 2008
| We should probably just ask for the money back from the Access Fund...no? They could pull off a couple of the fancy new hangers from your favorite route and recycle them for cash so they can help refund the money for your scrip...They didn't work for their donation right? It was just your money given to them anyway. But don't come bitchin' here after you take a screamer cuz that bolt is missing!!! |
FLAG |
By kirra
Oct 21, 2008
| Jed Pointer wrote: I'm sure all but the simpler among us know what the business ought to do. Go add some wisdom to a wiki page or something.
well you sure manned up with this one jed :)~ |
FLAG |
By Tevis Blom
Oct 21, 2008
| Try not to get mad on this one... Perhaps if they had charged LESS they would have had more subscribers, granted they would have had to change the layout. The cost of Alpinist always made it more of a 'book store read' than something to buy.
In simple economic terms, their shelf price may have discouraged many a potential reader (read buyer). |
FLAG |
By darrell hodges
From elk ridge utah
Oct 21, 2008
| Jed Pointer wrote: What bothers me in this particular case is what the subscribers ought to do - and IMO, the answer is not to openly slander and whine about your money or what you believe the Alpinist did with it. They haven't even said they are or are not going to offer refunds - though they probably won't. They never made any money to begin with, yet worked hard to produce something that added a lot to the community for several years. They also donated a lot of cash they didn't make. Their presense was a net gain for everyone who climbs. Reducing them to "just" a business entity who owes you or doesn't owe you something as a part of some business contract law is, as I said, asinine and selfish.
I agree with you on this.
My wife had renewed my subscription a little while ago. So, I guess we're out some money.
Oh well. Shit happens.
It's too bad they didn't make but it I'm not going to say anything bad about them. |
FLAG |
By PRRose
From Boulder
Oct 21, 2008
| Jed Pointer wrote: I'm sure all but the simpler among us know what the business ought to do. Go add some wisdom to a wiki page or something. What bothers me in this particular case is what the subscribers ought to do - and IMO, the answer is not to openly slander and whine about your money or what you believe the Alpinist did with it. They haven't even said they are or are not going to offer refunds - though they probably won't. They never made any money to begin with, yet worked hard to produce something that added a lot to the community for several years. They also donated a lot of cash they didn't make. Their presense was a net gain for everyone who climbs. Reducing them to "just" a business entity who owes you or doesn't owe you something as a part of some business contract law is, as I said, asinine and selfish.
Get a fricken' clue--Alpinist was a business, not a charity. Donating cash they didn't make is laudable? Maybe not to someone with an unpaid bill or an unfulfilled subscription. By the way, unless they were organized as a C corporation, contributions were essentially contributions from the owners to the AF.
Jed Pointer wrote: If a 100 bucks hurts you that badly, stay a little later this week and boil some extra fries to cover it.
Classy. {Added} It's always better to put the boot to the the guy who works hard for his money then, say, the millionaire (many times over) publisher. |
FLAG |
By bsmoot
Oct 21, 2008
| Alpinist shouldn't have been donating 20k to the Access fund.
I don't think losing a prepaid subscription is going to put anyone out on the street. It's too bad the focus here has changed from a great magazine to complaining about losing a little money. |
FLAG |
By Michael Ybarra
From on the road
Oct 21, 2008
| Will S wrote: I'm not too put out by losing the money and I don't quarrel with the idea that there will be no refunds etc, that's just how bk works out. But I think that painting a handful of future contributers, who retain their work, as somehow getting a worse deal than 9000 subscribers who lost their money was, and is, ridiculous.
Really? So how about you spend a week or whatever working at whatever you do, then finding out you're not getting paid? Sure, the writers can resell their work elsewhere--at all three of the U.S. climbing pubs, two of which sometimes publish pieces about alpinism and neither of which pays crap, all of which probably have a bigger backlog of stories then they need. In reality, the Alpinist was the only place besides possibly the AAJ for this kind of writing and I don't believe the AAJ pays anything.
So as a subscriber I'm out $34 or something like that. If I had taken the assignment I talked to CB about a few months ago, I would have been out a lot more in lost income. Either way, as a reader I'm out far more with the mag gone.
Mike Larson wrote a great tribute to the book. RIP. |
FLAG |
By Mike Larson
From New York, NY
Oct 21, 2008
| bsmoot wrote: I don't think losing a prepaid subscription is going to put anyone out on the street. It's too bad the focus here has changed from a great magazine to complaining about losing a little money.
Amen. To say this is getting tiring is an major understatement. The law is the law: individual subscribers are at the bottom of list when it comes to settling debts. People are not going to get their money back, so deal with it. People need to stop bitching about it. The tradegy is not subscribers losing a little money; it's the fact that Alpinist is no longer going to be published. And to those who say Ewing should reinburse the people who subscribed, Jed is absolutely right when he said that Ewing already has been footing part of the bill for them by subsidizing each issue and operating the magazine for a loss. The man has already taken enough losses for something that we all loved; he need not take more. If you want to take your anger out on something or someone, take it out on Climbing and R&I for putting out such a subpar product; or take it out on all your bouldering friends who didn't want to read about the ascents in the climbing world that actually matter; or take it out on cheapskates who will pay hundreds and thousands of dollars on climbing gear but didn't want to plop down $14 once every three months for an first-rate pub. Don't take it out on Alpinist. |
FLAG |
By PRRose
From Boulder
Oct 21, 2008
| Mike Larson wrote: Amen. To say this is getting tiring is an major understatement. The law is the law: individual subscribers are at the bottom of list when it comes to settling debts. People are not going to get their money back, so deal with it. People need to stop bitching about it. The tradegy is not subscribers losing a little money; it's the fact that Alpinist is no longer going to be published. And to those who say Ewing should reinburse the people who subscribed, Jed is absolutely right when he said that Ewing already has been footing part of the bill for them by subsidizing each issue and operating the magazine for a loss. The man has already taken enough losses for something that we all loved; he need not take more. If you want to take your anger out on something or someone, take it out on Climbing and R&I for putting out such a subpar product; or take it out on all your bouldering friends who didn't want to read about the ascents in the climbing world that actually matter; or take it out on cheapskates who will pay hundreds and thousands of dollars on climbing gear but didn't want to plop down $14 once every three months for an first-rate pub. Don't take it out on Alpinist.
No one disputes the law. In this case, the law is the minimum required, and is not necessarily the ethical or honorable thing to do.
Your fanboy enthusiasm notwithstanding, taking a little bit of money from lots of people so a very rich guy can have a plaything does not seem like a model worth emulating. |
FLAG |
By kirra
Oct 21, 2008
| 9,000 x $14 (as mentioned above) = $126,000 |
FLAG |
By jack roberts
Oct 21, 2008
| PR............
Take a DEEP breath. Get a grip. Going out of business, especially in this style is NOT what Christian and Alpinist were all about. Grow up. |
FLAG |
By PRRose
From Boulder
Oct 22, 2008
| jack roberts wrote: PR............ Take a DEEP breath. Get a grip. Going out of business, especially in this style is NOT what Christian and Alpinist were all about. Grow up.
Eh, another fanboy? I'm talking about Ewing. |
FLAG |
By Rick Witting
Oct 22, 2008
| PR, you're a lawyer. If you wanted protection as a preferred creditor in case Alpinist went bankrupt, you could have filed a UCC-1 lien so you could be a the top of the list.
I'm disappointed I won't have Alpinist to read anymore, but even though I just renewed my subscription, I'm happy I was able to enjoy issues 0-25. |
FLAG |
By brent armstrong
From Closer to RR than the Strip
Oct 22, 2008
| We've been scammed...pure and simple.
They've known for years they were on borrowed time.
Sure I LOVE LOVE LOVE chasing the "ideal" LOVE LOVE LOVE...
this was not a donation, I will donate to the access fund.
This was a purchase, and I have not received what is due to me. |
FLAG |
By Beagle
From Your Mama
Oct 22, 2008
| I knew there had to be a good reason I let my subscription run out with #24, I just thought it was because I couldn't take another "alpinist" telling me how cold and hungry they were on their route. No shit, it's alpine climbing! |
FLAG |
By Eric D
From Flagstaff, AZ
Oct 23, 2008
| Does anyone have a group of alpinist back issues they would be willing to sell?
If so, please PM me. |
FLAG |
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Oct 23, 2008
| Eric D wrote: Does anyone have a group of alpinist back issues they would be willing to sell? If so, please PM me.
I sold most all of mine, but have 21 and 23 at cover price if you want them. |
FLAG |
By Nick Stayner
From Billings, MT
Nov 1, 2008
| FWIW, there's a great editorial/obituary type piece here
I didn't check to see if it'd already been posted, but certainly worth the read. |
FLAG |
By J. Fox
From Black Hawk, CO
Mar 5, 2009
| So I'm just curious...has anyone gotten the new Alpinist yet? Issue #26 should've been released on 3/1 according to "them". No luck on my end so far. |
FLAG |
By Tits McGee
From Boulder, CO
Mar 5, 2009
| When I renewed my subscription for 30 bucks (sweet) the subscription manager said mid march hopefully...don't know if that helps at all. |
FLAG |
|
[ Forums > General Climbing ]
12 more...
RSS Feed
