Are you Interested in an Espresso Pundit Professional Version? Updated

I receive a lot of requests to provide more "hard" news and analysis. 

How's the budget battle likely to unfold?  What's going to happen to key bills?  What are the priorities of the key constituencies and how are they likely to be resolved?  Which legislative districts are in play?  Who are the likely candidates and what are their chances? 

I occasionally feature full-blown analysis--for example when I pointed out that the conventional wisdom leading up to the 2008 election was wrong--but I generally avoid providing the day-to-day updates and analysis that hardcore public affairs professionals require.

That's because that type of analysis can be time consuming to write and it has a limited appeal.  The average espresso pundit reader doesn't care which provisions in the BRBs are considered "must go" and which ones are likely to be eliminated when the budget starts to really move.

Conversely, no one is going to pay big bucks--yes, the professional version would be expensive--for my daily musings about the Arizona Republic's bias or Janet Napolitano's inadequacies.  I write Espresso Pundit because it's cheaper than therapy, and If Stan Barnes and I were the only two people on the planet, I would still write Espresso Pundit and then email him every morning and ask him if he had read it yet.  So let me assure you that Espresso Pundit will always be free.

I've included a screen shot of the sample version.  You can click here for a full sample. I anticipate publishing four or five days a week during session and three days a week in the interim.  I would probably write one or two long analytical pieces a week and the rest would be short news items that I think are likely be important to people whose job it is to know what's happening at the capitol.

My plan is to convert the newsletter to a PDF and email, fax or snail mail it to subscribers.   I would also build a members-only website for subscribers and it would include not only an archive of the daily PDF but a clipping service to provide links to key articles that you might have missed.  Finally, the website would include links to agendas and agency (DEQ, DHS, DOE, DWR, MAG, CAP, SRP etc.) meetings that you otherwise might miss. 

Let me know if you or your company would be interested in subscribing.  If there's enough inerest, I'll crank it up. 

Update:  I've actually had a lot of interest and that's very encouraging.  But I want to make one thing clear.  I'm not planning to compete with the Guardian on either content or price. 

Comments

[Matt Sh.]

Could you make it yellow?

[Brian]

A professional version, eh? Does that mean glossy shots of Nappy versus the plain-jane photos we now see on your blog?

[Bill]

As a political junkie (and occasional campaign worker) who REALLY enjoys reading Espresso Pundit, I'd definitely be interested.

However, I'm not a lobbyist or public affairs person, so whether I would subscribe or not would come down to how much a subscription cost. At about $100 a year or so I'd sign-up immediately. At rates much higher than that, I'd really have to think about it. If I were a lobbyist or public affairs person though, I'd be willing to pay much more than that for a subscription -- the insight and analysis is that good.

[JaneAZ]

Just a thought -- if you're looking to monetize EP, why not get the GOP to fund it and become the first locally-produced blog to be funded by a political party? Newspapers used to be funded by the parties and were a lot spicier back then.

[Doug]

I agree on being interested, depending on the price, but PDF newsletters are horrendous. That's almost as big a concern as the price. A restricted-access website is MUCH more useful, both because it's enormously easier to read and because it's insanely easier to search for past news.

[Gerald]

I would buy it.

Could you also focus on legal/judicial topics. For example, Elena Kagan, the anti-military former dean at Harvard, may be up for the U.S. Supreme Court.

She recently took a case to the Supreme Court that attacked the Solomon Amendment. It requires colleges to either refuse federal funds or allow military recruiters the same access to students as any other employer. The Supreme Court voted unanimously against her views. NBC will likely love her. The name of the case is Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 126 S.Ct. 1297 (2006).

[unpaintedhuffehinz]

I'd be interested in subscribing

[Steve]

Sales pitch would be stronger with correct use of affect/effect -- to be affected, not "effected" -- and plural possessive -- Republicans' backs, not Republican's backs.

[recently deleted]

Careful, Steve....he'll delete your comment if he doesn't like it.

[Col.Smeag]

Do you get a toy prize after you send in 100 box tops.... Go for it ....Capitalism is still in effect so you might as well take advantage of it.

[Simon says:]

Price is important for me too. I agree that 100.00 or so a year is my ceiling unless I lobby etc.

[The Betrayed]

We would rather that you continue to do God's work, rather than serving money.