Turtlerock Forum

This thread continues a discussion started here - http://www.turtlerockmastering.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5806

I recommend reading that entire thread in order to understand what is going on here.

--------------------------------

OK, I can get us a Wordpress webhost with 100GB of space and unlimited data transfer for $250 for 3 years (including domains, etc). I'm willing to gamble that cash on our crazy little idea. (*However* - see item #1 below)

Initial concept is effectively a "multiple contributor" blog. We'll use Wordpress which is a 'content management system' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_conten ... ent_system) to control the development and release of content.

Items for discussion:

1 - Is this a Turtlerock branded concept? While I presume most of us would be perfectly happy with that idea, needless to say the only opinion that matters is Rick's. If not, then we need a name and domain.

2 - As Hudan and others have pointed out, there is no reason to be bound by the restrictions inherent in print media. Video and audio can all be incorporated. (f course, this means someone has to actually create this video and audio.)

3 - Platform: Wordpress (http://www.wordpress.org) definitely looks like the go. I was a bit dismissive of this idea at first because when I first dabbled with Wordpress (about 8 years ago) it was just awful. However, all that has changed and it is now a seriously schmick piece of software.

4 - When do we launch? I suggest we aim for an April 1 public opening. This gives us time to build up a backlog of articles and to generally find our feet. (The mag will be vieawble by Trockers in that time however.)

5 - Forum - Yes or No? with Wordpress we can add one later. Reason against - distracts us from Trock. Reason for - keeps potentially unwanted distractions off Trock.

5 - We need category suggestions. Here's an initial list to get discussion started:

• Industry interest (articles on market trends, law, whatever)
• Interesting/innovative projects - be they tiny or massive.
• Studio tours
• Industry Heavyweights (interviews)
• New Gear reviews
• Old gear reviews
• DIY Audio gear - beginner
• DIY Audio gear - advanced
• Studio design and outfitting
• Live sound
• Broadcast
• Software tips
• Recordings and publications

If you want to add/delete categories, just say so. If you want to volunteer to write something, just say so. If you want to abuse me, join the queue.

Add this to the list:

Interviews/expose on local projects. I like reading about others here in our industry that aren't working on unlimited budgets/amazingly unbelievable studios/12 producers/100 engineers/50 of the rarest microphones that you will never see or hear etc. Actually that would be an interesting read and might kind of end up like WWF but lets do local as well as 'heavyweights'.

Added.

By the way, by "heavyweight" I mean "someone more successful than me". That's... um... a pretty large group.

Ok that's taking the bull by the horns.

Good one.

I like the bit about putting audio production guys in a ring and letting them battle for their lives. Nobody said this industry was easy.
We will need video for that.

Lets put them in a studio and see how much damage they can make. ProAudio FIGHT CLUB!

"Oh yeah, last time I used a u47 longbody... well I gave better than I got..."

"oh yeah bob, I thought I had him but when he pushed my head into the rewinding tape machine I had to let go...so then I just spiked him with 240 and that got me over the line in the end."

First rule of pro audio fight club is..... There is no pro audio fight club.

The domain www.proaudiofightclub.com.au is available.

I'm going to make mixerman look like the lightweight he is...

"Is this is a test, sir?"

Any videos we publish will need to have single frames of Rick inserted at key moments.

Manning wrote: OK, I can get us a Wordpress webhost with 100GB of space and unlimited data transfer for $250 for 3 years (including domains, etc). I'm willing to gamble that cash on our crazy little idea. (*However* - see item #1 below)

Think you may be overpaying here slightly - check out http://www.webhostinghub.com/

Manning wrote:1 - Is this a Turtlerock branded concept? While I presume most of us would be perfectly happy with that idea, needless to say the only opinion that matters is Rick's. If not, then we need a name and domain.

Absolutely not imo – while I'd hope some of the guys on here would read / contribute I don't think it's at all reasonable to trade of someone else's brand. This brings up a couple of other points for me:

- you'd probably need a name (and logo) that could be trademarked
- someone or someones would need to own it (and the site etc.)

Which in turn begs the question, assuming the intent would be to seek advertising as a way to allay costs / generate $$ (not always easy to do online, but a fair prospect if readership is large enough), who profits?

Manning wrote:
2 - As Hudan and others have pointed out, there is no reason to be bound by the restrictions inherent in print media. Video and audio can all be incorporated. (f course, this means someone has to actually create this video and audio.)

And video needs to be hosted somewhere – youtube is fine for small segments but if video is likely to be a major part of the site a service like Vimeo is a much better option in my experience (better quality / larger files can be uploaded and you can customize the player / remove the hosts branding).

Manning wrote:
3 - Platform: Wordpress (http://www.wordpress.org) definitely looks like the go. I was a bit dismissive of this idea at first because when I first dabbled with Wordpress (about 8 years ago) it was just awful. However, all that has changed and it is now a seriously schmick piece of software.

There are many examples of commercial blogs using Wordpress - best thing is it's free / open source so the code keeps getting patched / improved. The only real trick is to make sure you customize the back end / user area so that it's not possible to muck anything up. As previously stated, I'm happy to develop / repurpose a theme if there are enough hands up.

Manning wrote:
4 - When do we launch? I suggest we aim for an April 1 public opening. This gives us time to build up a backlog of articles and to generally find our feet. (The mag will be vieawble by Trockers in that time however.)

I only count 8 hands up to contribute so far? 2-3 month lead is ideal?

Manning wrote:5 - Forum - Yes or No? with Wordpress we can add one later. Reason against - distracts us from Trock. Reason for - keeps potentially unwanted distractions off Trock.

No - as previously discussed it's a different platform, user interactions with content would be via comments / social media?

Manning wrote:
5 - We need category suggestions. Here's an initial list to get discussion started:

• Industry interest (articles on market trends, law, whatever)
• Interesting/innovative projects - be they tiny or massive.
• Studio tours
• Industry Heavyweights (interviews)
• New Gear reviews
• Old gear reviews
• DIY Audio gear - beginner
• DIY Audio gear - advanced
• Studio design and outfitting
• Live sound
• Broadcast
• Software tips
• Recordings and publications

I'd suggest content be organised by broad type based on how you want them to look on the site e.g. text interviews / features / videos / etc and made searchable via an archive / tags / search bar / etc. This means you don't end up with orphan categories and the organisational schema is responsive rather than prescriptive (e.g. if someone wants to contribute a story on recording dung beetle mating calls you don't have to figure out how to categories it).

Honestly though, for a multi-user blog type publication that wants to attract a regular readership I think the best option is a really clean single column format that shows the last 8-12 posts – the focus being on new content and encouraging readers to check back frequently.

I'd also second Myles' comment that interviewing / uncovering local guys / girls would be much more interesting (and provide a broader scope for content) than hunting 'name' subjects.

Finally I think the idea of reviews needs to be thrashed out a little – I'm broadly of the opinion that it's fraught; already covered by every other audio pub and forum under the sun; would add an inordinate amount of work to co-ordinate / manage; and isn't the type of thing I want to read anyway. But that's just my opinion, let's say a gear manufacturer got in contact offering a bit of gear for review – how would it work?

might sound like a downer but i am not in
but feel free to go forth and conquer

the thing about this stuff is content .. and trust me you have to not just be good at providing it
you must really want to provide it .
there are all kinds of reasons to want to do it
branding is the obvious one , money , good karma and for the hell of it



I have some plans and i have thoughts just not the headspace to add the timing or money or rally the troops into anything that i cannot sustain but as i said
go forth and conquer .. maybe i'll catch up later

Dave

Great input, thanks. Too hard to quote/thread your post, sorry for that.

1 - Um, the webhost you listed actually works out as slightly more expensive. Plus I prefer to have Australian -based hosting - calling a US support line is a hassle. I've used Crazydomains for other sites and their support is decent, plus its in Australia.

2 - Re the Turtlerock thing, this discussion started on Rick's forum and in response to one of Rick's thread, so IMO it is entirely Rick's call to decide if he wants to keep this idea under his banner. I suspect he doesn't (based on his earlier comments), so if we get his blessing we can go and develop our own ideas. (Update - Rick has now issued said blessings... I wrote this comment offline before posting).

3 - Let me be upfront: my objective is "content for its own sake". As per Rick's comment, my only desired outcome is 'good karma' (and shared knowledge and a sense of community).

If the idea is creating a commercially viable venture, then I'm out - I can make a lot more money by investing my time elsewhere. If in the unlikely circumstance this turns into a genuine money-spinner, then we can revisit the concept of ownership.

Hence I'm willing to fund it entirely for the entertainment value and because I can afford to throw away a couple of hundred on a crazy notion. This is far more practical than it appears - managing advertisers is time-consuming, and unless the revenue potential is sufficiently high (which frankly, it isn't) then ad management costs more than it earns. The low maintenance option - Google ad-words - pays very little and look like crap.

Finally there is great editorial freedom that goes with being 'ad-free'. The minute someone else's money is involved, they feel entitled to influence content (which is fair enough). I was involved in the decision to keep Wikipedia ad-free, which was a superb decision IMO.

3 - It costs $550 to register a trademark. I'm far from convinced of the value in that exercise until the commercial viability is demonstrated. Even then, trademark law is geared towards protecting physical goods. Web domains are effectively a trademark (buying correlated domain names is always a good idea though).

4 - Video- definitely Vimeo. Youtube is crap.

5 - Agreed about Wordpress. I've got extensive experience in Joomla and DNN, but Wordpress looks like it has taken the lead in the CMS space.

6 - Reviews. I'm also not convinced these are a good idea, but I put it out there for discussion anyway. In the absence of advertiser pressure, this potentially becomes a lot more fun. Of course, vendors tend to be unenthused about truly objectives reviews.

Sorry if I missed any of your points.

1 - odd I total $180 for 3 years + domain reg?

2- cool

3 - great, completely agree, just wanted to clarify.

4 - trademarking would be of the logo / name, not really necessary if non-commercial but may still be useful in terms of 'ownership'.

5 + 6 - cool

Dave - $250 was a number I plucked at random without actually checking domain prices. The Oz costs are also $180 + $36 domain for three years. I should have mentioned that above, no idea why I didn't (as it was the basis of my "slightly more expensive" claim once you factor in the exchange rate and 4% currency conversion costs).

------------

Here's another random idea I had while walking out to buy lunch.

We write a 30 second jingle for the website. (I've got the name "Ratbag Audio" in my head which I used to mentally composed the jingle). Perform it with electric guitar, acoustic guitar, drums, bass, male lead vocal, female backing vocal.

We then approach a variety of studios to record the jingle (using the same arrangement and performers). These studios would range from a competent home setup to the "big boys" (just assume for the moment that they elect to play along).

There's a series of articles in that idea alone, including the final comparison. We could even extend the idea to comparing mixdown services. The obvious downside is the studios would all need to be in the same city (to use the same performers cheaply). However it could serve to demonstrate the value of a "real" studio (or disprove the value... hmmm, objectivity is a bitch).

Manning wrote:If in the unlikely circumstance this turns into a genuine money-spinner, then we can revisit the concept of ownership.

Looks good. Hosting and domain should be kept in aus. Trying to deal with OS providers is not a good way to go.

My advise would be to sort out any of the "ownership" crap up front. Without that properly addressed things can be unclear and messy. And revisting doesn't sound right for some reason. If there's 12 contributors then maybe the 250 should be split 12 ways for the purpose of keeping things even. Sounds petty, but means much more I guess.
Put simply... I'm happy to contribute what I can and don't think we are going to change the face of online publishing, however...
Once pro audio fight club starts who knows what will happen!?

Signed
Bulk Eraser (aka ben)

What do you think about a downloadable PDF version of each issue?

Ben - I gotta disagree. Establishing ownership at this point in time will cause WAY more problems than it solves. I really don't want to get caught up in potentially complex discussions of ownership of something that doesn't even exist.

Also, if someone chips in financially at the start, then does nothing while the project develops, you'll create resentment from those who actually put the effort in. The $25 bucks chipped in as a starting cost contribution is trivial compared to the effort of creating content, and IMO the contributors are the rightful owners.

Here's my solution:

For the first 12 months I'll "own" the site (which currently means nothing). In 12 months time I will give an equal equity share to those people who have contributed the most (capped at nine people for a minimum 10% share). If the site appears to have commercial viability these people can then discuss the costs of company registration, etc. I personally don't think there will ever be any commercial viability, but if I'm wrong, this approach solves the problem. The only potential issue is in deciding "who contributed the most" where there are more than nine candidates, but I strongly suspect that won't happen .

This way we can focus on creating the site, and the rightful ownership will evolve organically.

Lee wrote:What do you think about a downloadable PDF version of each issue?

Lee, we're not really considering the "issue" approach - we'll update the site one article at a time on an (ideally) frequent basis, rather than deliver a monthly "issue". Hence the PDF idea doesn't really apply. RSS feeds could be emplyed of course.

Manning wrote:Ben - I gotta disagree. Establishing ownership at this point in time will cause WAY more problems than it solves. I really don't want to get caught up in potentially complex discussions of ownership of something that doesn't even exist.

Also, if someone chips in financially at the start, then does nothing while the project develops, you'll create resentment from those who actually put the effort in. The $25 bucks chipped in as a starting cost contribution is trivial compared to the effort of creating content, and IMO the contributors are the rightful owners.

Here's my solution:

For the first 12 months I'll "own" the site (which currently means nothing). In 12 months time I will give an equal equity share to those people who have contributed the most (capped at nine people for a minimum 10% share). If the site appears to have commercial viability these people can then discuss the costs of company registration, etc. I personally don't think there will ever be any commercial viability, but if I'm wrong, this approach solves the problem. The only potential issue is in deciding "who contributed the most" where there are more than nine candidates, but I strongly suspect that won't happen .

This way we can focus on creating the site, and the rightful ownership will evolve organically.

That's cool. I'm not narky about "ownership" but it should be clearer than just saying we'll "revisit" it. You just made it clearer by replying to my post.

Cool.

Well with all that resolved, and having received Rick's blessings, we now need a name.

For some reason I'm infatuated with "Ratbag Audio", although "Pro Audio Fight club" has charm.

+1 for Pro Audio Fight Club

Another quick thought on ownership – wonder if best bet might be if contributors:

- retain ownership of the content they produce (though of course give permission for publication),

- are involved in decisions that affect them (e.g. whether to review gear / accept advertising / etc) and,

- in the very unlikely event there's ever money involved, are given a share commensurate with their contributions.

Dave

I fully agree with the first two points. The project will be run on a full consensus basis from the outset.

The third (while not insurmountable) is a little bit more challenging, insofar as how do you assess the volume/worth of a contribution?

But while there is no content, there is nothing to discuss. As the project evolves, I suspect the natural ownership will emerge organically.

I'm still thinking this all through, but here is some more thought on how this might all work.

Point 1 - All content will permanently remain the intellectual property of the authors. This could only ever change if there was (a) available money to pay for contributions. and (b) contributors actually wished to sell their rights.

Point 2 (governance): Again, based on my Wikipedia experience, the project will be run on a consensus basis from the outset. At the beginning, whoever participates in the project is entitled to a say.

However I'd like to impose some ground rules for the first 12 months (as measured from the "launch" date):

- no paid advertising
- no payment for contribution
- no reimbursement for any incurred expenses

All of these ground rules can be reviewed once 12 months has elapsed and the "ownership" has been decided. For the first year they keep the process as simple as possible.

Furthermore I'd like to impose at least one permanent rule:
- no "compensated" reviews (be that compensation financial or material).

As before, it's all just ideas for now.

ratbag audio ? suggested by a guy whos studio name is laughing duck studios? sniggered at by a guy whos company is called turtlerock ?

trust me manning ... the further you or me are from naming things the cooler they will be

Manning wrote:I'm still thinking this all through, but here is some more thought on how this might all work.

Point 1 - All content will permanently remain the intellectual property of the authors. This could only ever change if there was (a) available money to pay for contributions. and (b) contributors actually wished to sell their rights.

Point 2 (governance): Again, based on my Wikipedia experience, the project will be run on a consensus basis from the outset. At the beginning, whoever participates in the project is entitled to a say.

However I'd like to impose some ground rules for the first 12 months (as measured from the "launch" date):

- no paid advertising
- no payment for contribution
- no reimbursement for any incurred expenses

All of these ground rules can be reviewed once 12 months has elapsed and the "ownership" has been decided. For the first year they keep the process as simple as possible.

Furthermore I'd like to impose at least one permanent rule:
- no "compensated" reviews (be that compensation financial or material).

As before, it's all just ideas for now.

Manning wrote:Ben - I gotta disagree. Establishing ownership at this point in time will cause WAY more problems than it solves. I really don't want to get caught up in potentially complex discussions of ownership of something that doesn't even exist.

Hey Manning- what you've pushed out in the space of a few hours with Dave is about 75% of what I was originally talking about in relation to basic ownership ground rules.
The content is a bit like the cream in the bun. With no cream you still have a bun.....so that's....a weird metaphor.

Anyho....I'll leave now....

rick wrote:ratbag audio ? suggested by a guy whos studio name is laughing duck studios? sniggered at by a guy whos company is called turtlerock ?

trust me manning ... the further you or me are from naming things the cooler they will be

Rick

I am *deeply* offended at your suggestion that I am somehow not living on the bleeding edge of "coolness".

FWIW, my studio is in a barn on a duck farm, and the ducks cackle endlessly.

Furthermore, the new project is about audio, and well... referring to ourselves as a bunch of ratbags is not entirely unjustified.

(Of course, I remain open to suggestions).

I like Pro Audio Fight Club

Audio Quackery has a certain appeal....

oh make no mistake manning , and believe me i know what i am about to write from experience

if you have to explain your studio name .. your internet handle , your song lyrics or
your childs first name to anybody ever...
you have missed a golden oppurtunity to not be dumb

and on a scale of 1 to cool amongst audio dweebs
most of us on this site better accept
I rate much much higher then them ..

and on a cool scale of 1 to keith urban ,
we all should start looking for a name badge
that says "less then one "

Hey Rick where did Turtlerock come from?

Manning not to be pedantic but I think Ratbag Audio sounds like a shop, whereas Audio Ratbags sounds more like a website/ clubhouse.