4 ms·

I've been involved in the publishing industry as both a freelance writer and a publisher who has hired freelance writers. If you have a modicum of experience an

by hluska 9y ago

I've been involved in the publishing industry as both a freelance writer and a publisher who has hired freelance writers. If you have a modicum of experience and relatively good financial records, it's quite easy to estimate your publication's cash flow. In this case, by his own words, John Steele is either completely unqualified to run a publication or he is completely full of shit. Grants don't just magically disappear...you know one will expire for several months before it does. Subscribers don't just magically stop subscribing...a qualified publisher will see complaints build and will recognize a groundswell of frustration for what it is. And, seriously, who keeps commissioning work because they're convinced a merger is right around the corner??

barrkel 9y ago
And, seriously, who keeps commissioning work because they're convinced a merger is right around the corner?? I think almost every founder of a new enterprise makes promises like this.
- hluska 9y ago
  Because they're convinced a merger is right around the corner?? I'd agree if you said they were convinced a big accounts receivable was sending a cheque, but counting on a merger to pay all your debt to contributors is naive at best.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - markbnj 9y ago
    Ha, no it's worse for a startup, because you take on obligations hoping that you'll make a big sale of your new thing to a market that hasn't heard about you, has no reason to trust you, and no current intention of sending you any money at all, ever.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  There's the famous case of the FedEx guy who told his staff he could pay for fuel for the planes or pay their wages. He then went to Vegas and gambled the money to keep the business going. That's how we got FedEx. Irresponsibility and recklessness. It's not an isolated story. For every successful business that doesn't something insane and wins there are 10 that fail. We never heard about all the other shipping startups that failed and whose employees went home with empty paychecks. We praise this fucked up psychopathic level of risk taking, and then we end up with companies and cut throat and toxic as Uber.
jonnycomputer 9y ago
A little off. Nautilus is a fantastic publication, and if John Steele was completely unqualified it probably wouldn't be. On the other hand, not everyone is really well suited to run business operations.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jseliger 9y ago
Grants don't just magically disappear...you know one will expire for several months before it does I do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies (and some research-based businesses). Publicly funded grants generally don't just disappear, except in the case of recission: http://seliger.com/2011/01/09/as-predicted-in-january-2010-the-r-word-rescission-is-finally-here/ http://seliger.com/2011/01/09/as-predicted-in-january-2010-t... . We've had clients who've suffered from recissions. Private foundations, however, can play by just about whatever rules they want, as long as they give away 5% of their assets every year. So a foundation that promises $1 million over three years (say), may give away a third of that in the first year and then say "just kidding" in year two. Or it may say nothing at all. I'm not saying that happened here, but I am saying that it's possible for grants to "just disappear," even if that isn't common. I've had clients experience just that.
tylermenezes 9y ago
> Grants don't just magically disappear...you know one will expire for several months before it does. That is absolutely not true. Even if the grant is well-managed and the outlook seems positive, a foundation can simply change their priorities or staff.
danielfoster 9y ago
I also wonder on what promises the grants were awarded. Was Nautilus up-front in grant applications about how the funds would be used to pay off debt?

by hluska 9y ago

barrkel 9y ago

And, seriously, who keeps commissioning work because they're convinced a merger is right around the corner?? I think almost every founder of a new enterprise makes promises like this.

hluska 9y ago
Because they're convinced a merger is right around the corner?? I'd agree if you said they were convinced a big accounts receivable was sending a cheque, but counting on a merger to pay all your debt to contributors is naive at best.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- markbnj 9y ago
  Ha, no it's worse for a startup, because you take on obligations hoping that you'll make a big sale of your new thing to a market that hasn't heard about you, has no reason to trust you, and no current intention of sending you any money at all, ever.
djsumdog 9y ago
There's the famous case of the FedEx guy who told his staff he could pay for fuel for the planes or pay their wages. He then went to Vegas and gambled the money to keep the business going. That's how we got FedEx. Irresponsibility and recklessness. It's not an isolated story. For every successful business that doesn't something insane and wins there are 10 that fail. We never heard about all the other shipping startups that failed and whose employees went home with empty paychecks. We praise this fucked up psychopathic level of risk taking, and then we end up with companies and cut throat and toxic as Uber.

jonnycomputer 9y ago

A little off. Nautilus is a fantastic publication, and if John Steele was completely unqualified it probably wouldn't be. On the other hand, not everyone is really well suited to run business operations.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jseliger 9y ago

Grants don't just magically disappear...you know one will expire for several months before it does I do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies (and some research-based businesses). Publicly funded grants generally don't just disappear, except in the case of recission: http://seliger.com/2011/01/09/as-predicted-in-january-2010-the-r-word-rescission-is-finally-here/ http://seliger.com/2011/01/09/as-predicted-in-january-2010-t... . We've had clients who've suffered from recissions. Private foundations, however, can play by just about whatever rules they want, as long as they give away 5% of their assets every year. So a foundation that promises $1 million over three years (say), may give away a third of that in the first year and then say "just kidding" in year two. Or it may say nothing at all. I'm not saying that happened here, but I am saying that it's possible for grants to "just disappear," even if that isn't common. I've had clients experience just that.

tylermenezes 9y ago

> Grants don't just magically disappear...you know one will expire for several months before it does. That is absolutely not true. Even if the grant is well-managed and the outlook seems positive, a foundation can simply change their priorities or staff.

danielfoster 9y ago

I also wonder on what promises the grants were awarded. Was Nautilus up-front in grant applications about how the funds would be used to pay off debt?