It’s not easy to confuse Microsoft with Google at the best of times, but you may be excused for doing so with a new MS offering.

When I started Syntagma Media, bookkeeping and accountancy were real problems. We bought a couple of expensive packages — Quickbooks and Sage — but both were far too complex for a simple content business selling only ad space online.

Nowadays we rely on professional services, but for bootstrapping startups a quick, easy and FREE startup accountancy package would be a blessing.

So who’s going to provide this yummy piece of kit, Google? Maybe, but Microsoft got there first and it’s part of its Office suite. Wonders never cease.

Thanks to Rick Segal for the hat tip. Download Microsoft Office Accounting 2007 here.

Rick, of course, has form when it comes to free business offerings. See Syntagma’s piece here from November 2005.

What with builders in the office, and designer Thord Hedengren moving house, we’ve been held up getting our fourth network magazine, Moneyizor, up and firing on all engines.

However, we’re now breaking surface after a long period without the oxygen of productive activity. Happily, we’ll be starting on the portal next week and it may even be visible by then.

So all of you who can’t wait to start making money with Moneyizor don’t have long to wait. Just to remind you, the mag covers finance, business, startups, investments and all things moneyizing.

We also have two sites to get going to make up the full complement of the magazine, but they shouldn’t be long in coming.

Stay close.

My print publishing business, Dial Publishing, is currently in exploratory talks to buy a small, but established print publisher of nonfiction books. This is still at the confidential, due diligence stage, so no names or pack drill.

If the buy comes off it will bring a solid backlist of steady sellers to Dial’s inventory, plus a fund of experience and connections impossible to create overnight. Dial Publishing is a totally separate business from Syntagma Digital Limited, which is our digital publishing company.

These events have ballooned out over the Easter period and have led me to reflect on the essential differences between print and digital publishing. With 20 years of print experience and two years of digital publishing behind me, I’m only now beginning to see the wood from the trees.

Let’s state from the outset that we’re talking profitable projects here, not worthwhile artistic efforts which gain critical acclaim but lose money — they are more in the province of personal blogs. In the commercial sphere, it’s the money that determines the outcome in both cases, as always.

Digital and print publishing are surprisingly complementary over a range of possible output. Speaking very generally, the money in digital publishing is in :

Bite-sized reports on events and products that command large-scale interest.

Most essay-type sites don’t make any money at all. The way still to earn income publishing online (not social networking) remains in a few mega-niches : finance, automotive, gadgets, gossip and miscellaneous products and services. Looking across Syntagma’s 50-60 sites the ones with large numbers of text link ads stand out a mile. That’s a very good test of financial viability. All our projects going forward focus on these areas.

The gold in nonfiction print publishing comes from :

Lengthy exposition and detailed information on essential topics and useful techniques.

Most writers find one of these branches easier to accomplish than the other. Just a few may be good at both.

So, in terms of cash and results, there are two discrete environments — print and digital publishing — to work with. Both are capable of bringing results, but the need to consolidate and move on is ever present, especially online.

Other Considerations
To succeed in digital publishing you need to play the market and its highly volatile readership with a certain degree of cunning. Traffic is driven by keywords and buzz — what we used to call “word of mouth”, but now in a different context. To win online you have to get down and dirty with search engine optimization and a measure of gaming of the system. Google benefits too, so there’s real scope for the dark arts here.

Some people don’t really like that aspect of digital publishing — I confess to being a bit chary of it myself. However, to win a war you have to kill people. There’s no other way.

Print publishing is much more congenial to anyone with scruples, although the scope for shenanigans is increasing by the day, especially as the number of titles being published grows beyond the public’s capacity — and wish — to purchase. Content and reputation count above all in today’s busy marketplace.

Complementarity
If you indulge in both arms of publishing, what are the cross-fertilizations you can call up to improve both businesses?

There are many, but in brief :

* You can sell books online and use websites for publicity.
* Books can contain a list of web addresses to get a new audience logging on.
* Multiple cross-references can drive traffic both ways.
* Websites can provide an introduction, while a book develops the whole picture.
* Books can refer readers to websites for more up-to-date information.

These are real benefits and, used smartly, can make a great deal of difference to success on- and offline.

The convergence of digital and print publishing is therefore more of a complementarity than a merging. That the same people are now often doing both is a sign that a mature marketplace is developing which successfully crosses the seemingly large ravine between the two outlets for publishing.

Which, though, potentially yields the bigger return on investment?

That will have to be left to another post, so stay close.

We’re getting more than a few inquiries about our forthcoming Moneyizor network magazine. Principally, they concern the shape of the content and the policies behind it. These are mainly coming from people who are considering offering their own sites to the magazine, or applying to write an in-house webtitle.

The top question is, what sites are currently scheduled for Moneyizor, and what are the main categories? So here’s a list of the sites that will be in at the launch :

1. LSE Latest – Supporting an Independent London Stock Exchange.

2. Money Finesse – Personal Finance in the USA.

3. Small Business Booster – Tips and Advice for Success. [NEW]

4. The Money Log – Enrichment Daily.

5. Superdemocracy — A New Art of Corporate Governance.

6. Entrepreneur Latest — [Under Development].

7. Innovation Latest — [Under Development].

And the list is still growing in advance of our mid-April launch.

As for the terms we offer to externally-owned sites, we’re currently looking at a 70/30 split in favour of the client. Other aspects of the deal are still under consideration.

Contact : Moneyizor(at)SyntagmaMedia(dot)com.

Syntagma Digital is today embarking on the development of two new webtitles for our Moneyizor network magazine, due next month.

They are Entrepreneur Latest and Innovation Latest, embracing the two most essential features of the modern, globalized economy.

Stay close for further information.

We are now actively working on the next planned development of our network magazine concept. This involves opening them up to suitable sites/blogs outside the Syntagma Digital inventory.

The move will allow external sites inclusion in our rolling feeds, plus graphical representation on the portals and participation in the Editor’s Pick of the Posts. In addition, they will become recipients of any magazine-wide advertising deals we negotiate going forward. Involvement will not change the ownership, hosting arrangements, or running of outside sites in any way.

We are currently looking at the technical and monetary aspects of this proposal and will reach some decisions over the coming month. Inclusion will be open to all four of our network magazines :

Allusionz – Arts and Philosophies
LifeTimes – Lifestyles and Celebrities
21st-century Phi – Sciences and Future Technologies
(Coming Soon) Moneyizor — Money Matters and Small Business.

In the meantime, site/blog owners who may be interested in this proposition can email me to register an interest and be involved in the early stages of the arrangement. The email address is in the footer.

Update : In an interview with 901am, the conversation continued :

How will you split the revenue with participating sites?
We’re currently looking at a 70/30 split in favor of the client for all new magazine-wide advertising. That beats what’s on offer elsewhere, at least to my knowledge. It also has added advantages in terms of traffic.

What’s your goal with adding more sites to the various network magazines? Are there any milestones you want to reach, and where will it lead eventually?
The goal is to use the increased page views from the extra sites to secure better advertising for everyone aggregated in the magazine, including our own authors. It makes sense to maximize the use of the content platforms we’re creating in a way that benefits everyone involved. As for milestones, the system is totally expansible with no limits that I can see.

External sites and blogs will get exposure on our content platforms, traffic back, and 70% of new advertising revenue generated on contributing sites. Owners pay nothing, and virtually do nothing for all that. It’s got to be one of the best deals around.

The great benefit of being open about the building of Syntagma Media as a business and as a digital network is that the posts I write here can easily form the kernel of a book. Indeed they do : The Syntagma Story, to be published by Dial Publishing later this year.

The other less obvious advantage is that it may, in some small way, help others following along the same path. There are lots of pitfalls in this business and sometimes a word to the wise can avert an inevitable disaster.

None more so than in the area of finance. So here are a few notes — nothing more at this stage — on this potential minefield for all businesses.

I’ve long been an advocate of self-dependence in business, particularly at the startup and early stages. This is sometimes called “bootstrapping” in the sense of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps”.

I’ve always preferred “self-resourcing” — using own-resources for the seed funding stage. Thereafter, in an ideal situation, income will fund growth and the business will be self-financing. All other sources of spending muscle introduced into the pot should be treated like fissile material — with great caution.

The power of own-resources can vary, of course, but every time you use the resources of others, whether debt or by share sale, you reduce your power to control the business. Indeed, once the venture capitalists move in you’ve set yourself up for eventual sale or an IPO (Initial Public Offering on the stock market).

Either way, you can no longer look forward to building a business that can be handed down the generations. Unless, of course, you do what Evan Williams did with Odeo and buy back the shares from investors. He had recently sold Blogger.com to Google so was not short of a bob or two. [Update Feb 20 :] Evan Williams has just put Odeo up for sale.

Another own-resource you’ll need to use early on is your brain. Many of the tasks in even a simple business are expensive to outsource. Building a digital network is painstakingly complex, so you’ll need to be up to serverside delvings, setting up websites, understanding Wordpress code, even designing your own inventory. Add to that, the ability to write the first few webtitles, and it comes down to an intimidating package of learning curves to master.

That takes time, and you just have to grin and bear it. Later, you’ll have the cash to induct new writers and splash out on fancy designers, but not at first, unless your credit card limit will bear it.

Those first few sites — Syntagma had 12, all written by me — will mature in the first year and provide the income to grow thereafter. If you bring writers in from the start, you’ll not generate that early supply of funding, especially as a new network needs to offer a good share of the pot in order to attract dependable authors.

If it’s just making money you’re after, you may think the VC route is no bad thing. But if, like me, you build a business for the sheer challenge and exhilaration of it (and as an aid to your writing career), you may not wish to sell chunks of it to often fixed-tracked minds with very different aims from your own.

I’m not saying that VCs are primitive people necessarily, some are extraordinarily civilized : Rick Segal, Fred Wilson and Jason Calacanis (now with Sequoia Capital) spring to mind.

Bootstrapping, though, is not for someone looking for very quick results. If you really are a digital farmer looking for a big buyout, go the venture route by all means. Be aware though, the pitching period is gruelling and long, maybe up to four months even for a relatively small sum. This is because the VCs are already anticipating further rounds of funding. First they put masking tape on your mouth, then they start cutting lengths of twine to restrain your hands, followed by thick ropes to thoroughly encase the rest of your body.

I’m told some people enjoy being trussed up like a turkey, but you may have other ideas.

Bootstrapping a business is for the buccaneers, those swashbucklers who could just as easily appear in a pirate movie. Or else they’re so cashstrapped, there’s no alternative to penny-pinching their way to the top.

So it all comes down to those old antagonists : Time and Money.

If you’re time-rich but cash-poor, bootstrapping is made for you — make sure you have a decent limit on your credit card, though. If you’re cash-rich but time-poor why on earth would you want to start a business in the first place?

Unless, of course, you’re a pirate with a pen — like me.

By its nature, Superdemocracy (SD) uses dynamic flows of energy to create its systems, rather than by assessing the people in aggregated-responsibility positions, i.e., jobs.

If that seems more akin to magic than conventional analysis, it is.

Most jobs have large legacy pots comprising fixed areas of responsibility, usually maintained by protectionist clutter like trade union demarcations, “Spanish practices”, and just sheer inertia. Sometimes a job title is so all-embracing that it is difficult to see the absurdities embedded in it. The UK “Home Secretary” is a case in point.

Looking instead at the dynamic patterns of operation within any organization — the decisions that alter and influence the flow — and determining the Points of Maximum Competence for the execution of those decisions, results in a very different picture of how a system of management works.

Mystics have always known that there are forces at work in the world that are unseen by a vast majority of us. Many view them as “causes and effects” too complicated to be fully understood. Some recognize the essential energies of life at work and know that they are influenced and driven by thought.

Since the mechanism is invisible to most people, the outcomes are largely hit and miss. We build great edifices of operational superstructure to prevent certain outcomes arising by chance : laws, constitutions, training regimes, constant supervision, regulations, red tape. All this saps the energy of every organization and makes it largely unworkable without considerable effort and cost.

By mapping the energy flows against the outcomes that exist, it is possible to refine the plan of the enterprise. This may or may not be a necessary first stage for success.

But simply isolating the decisions that need to be made and ensuring they are taken at the Points of Maximum Competence, regardless of job title or seniority, will turn round a business or government more quickly than any inbuilt rigidities, such as plans, maps, layouts or constitutions. My thesis is that these Points are nearly always far below where the decisions are currently taken, especially in governmental systems.

That is why I say that SD is more like magic — the influencing of hidden forces to secure an identified outcome — than any other presently known methodology.

The next point is to identify the hierarchy of decisionmaking : purely local decisions, middle-point decisions, and over-arching, strategic decisions. Of course, under Superdemocracy, a lot of strategic shibboleths are revealed to be worthless, merely underpinning a false position of authority. Pseudo-authority is a major part of the SD analaysis.

More over at Superdemocracy - The Art of Corporate Governance.

Warning : This is totally off-topic and is inspired by yesterday’s news of the rapidly disintegrating state of the British Home Office under Tony Blair’s pitiful administration.

It’s not a rant though. Promise. Just a look at the Panglossian fantasies that drive British policy nowadays : “Everything for the best, in the best of all possible worlds”.

The UK Home Secretary has said that the Home Office is “not fit for purpose”. It has lost control over almost every aspect of the criminal justice system, the prisons and immigration.

The root of the problem is the Blairite Human Rights Act, passed in jubilant self-congratulation in 1998, plus a delegation policy that places key people in post by political persuasion rather than competence. Both break the fundamental principles of Superdemocracy.

The idea of a Rights Society is all the rage in Labour-dominated Britain. It sounds good. We all have defined rights which mean we’re free, yes?

NO.

Freedom is not about giving everyone and anyone “rights” without checks and balances. Many of the rights we have we make for ourselves, through hard work and merit. Merit brings us wealth and allows us the freedom to enjoy the best things in life without too much worry or disturbance.

Basic rights, like equality before the law, God and the ballot box, are the rights of all citizens in any democratic country. Some of these rights should not be given to anybody who simply turns up on its shores. Civil liberties don’t travel beyond the jurisdiction that defines them.

Cast these rights liberally around to everyone on the planet and they will act as magnets for mass, unstoppable immigration of people who know only two words of English, “My rights”.

The so-called Human Rights Act allows anyone who enters Britain full rights to the treasure of its citizens, even as far as mandatory housing, health care, schooling, legal bills, and a “salary” for life. Since newcomers have not earned these “rights” they just impoverish the country’s citizens, without adding a jot to the nation’s well-being.

Of course, if you say that, you risk sounding rather mean-spirited. That’s the weapon of choice in destroying the truth in this case. The government has woven new taboos against challenging any of its equality agenda, even embedding them into statute law. Never mind that this kind of equality : equality of attributes, needs a totalitarian regime to enforce, you are stigmatized if you complain.

The reason for this Home Office-induced catastrophe is that decisions are taken by greenhorn, starry-eyed politicians and their political appointees, who see themselves as benefactors of mankind — albeit with other people’s money and lives. They have no idea of the complexities of the case, nor of the huge response they are initiating.

Moreover, nearly every agency in Britian is now run by knee-jerk Blairites who act according to political received opinion rather than careful, dispassionate, and expert consideration of the situation.

Merit is the way out of this morass of incompetence and waste. A common cry in England now is “Nothing works anymore”. That’s because the “All shall have prizes society” is run by dolts and slackers, as could be predicted before it was imposed on us.

When each critical decision, no matter how small, is taken at the point of maximum competence, near enough, everybody in the community benefits in an cumulative way. The small increments of improvement mount up over time, completely transforming the landscape and the way it operates. That’s Superdemocracy.

So-called Human Rights are a way of moving resources from the competent who have worked for them, to the incompetent who have not. It depletes a society’s level of expertise and tilts the slope of impoverishment ever more steeply downwards.

The Rights Society should be replaced with Superdemocracy, especially in the public sector where chaos finds its natural breeding ground. The Home Office is just one example that needs to be addressed in haste.