 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
| ||||||
|
2004 Annual Meeting Information2004 Highlights 2004 Minority Grant ProgramIn addition to providing practical information on publishing matters, AAUP’s annual meeting is a great opportunity for attendees to meet colleagues at other presses. So for the second year, AAUP offered five scholarships to minority staff at member presses to attend the annual meeting. Thirteen individuals applied. Reports from the grant recipients on their experiences at the meeting are available below. Walter Biggins, Assistant Editor, University Press
of Mississippi Walter Biggins, Assistant Editor, University Press of Mississippi I knew we were in good shape as soon as I opened the purple program folder.
Snuggled amidst the maps, meeting program, schedules and name tag, there
was a curious, homemade "Guide to The guide was a near-perfect representation of the 2004 AAUP Annual Meeting
itself. One of the earliest sessions I attended, a packed symposium titled
"What to Tell Authors, What Not to Tell Authors, and How to Tell
the Difference," was such a laugh riot that the audience could be
forgiven for forgetting how much useful, practical advice they were receiving
from the panelists. The panelists’ remarks ranged from broad humor–Harvard
director William Sisler saying that we should "tell them nothing!
NOTHING!"–to very articulate (and slyly funny) advice from MIT’s
promotions director Gita Manaktala about how to get a sense of authors’
temperaments from their marketing questionnaires and subtle hints in phone
conversations with them. Each panelist brought radically different sets
of issues to the table, and the lively audience fired back ever more complicated
questions at the panelists. A session with an equally interesting title, "Hands Off My Author!: Ethics in Acquisitions," differed from "What Not to Tell Authors" in its level of intimacy. The crowd was smaller, and so the interaction between audience and panelists was greater. There were some points of general agreement–authors should always inform editors of simultaneous submissions, editors should not accept reader’s reports originally intended for other presses–but also plenty of minor arguments. Topics ranged from the ethics of accepting a project based on the author’s ability to get a subvention, to competition between presses for a major project, and even to ways in which to delicately phrase a rejection letter intended for a prominent scholar. It became clear that situational ethics plays a major role in the acquisitions process, and that these ethics don’t necessarily apply equally to all presses. Good judgment and fair, transparent methods should, however, underline all of our endeavors. As an assistant editor who is just beginning to acquire books, I spent most of my time attending useful sessions on the vagaries and travails of acquiring, including sessions on income goals for acquiring editors, on how to get authors to supply artwork that is suitable for reproduction, on how to effectively raise money for expensive projects. For a younger, less-experienced editor such as myself, these sessions were invaluable. Even during the meals and receptions, I spent much more time listening than speaking. The gifts I received were physical as well as verbal: a complete guide, with illustrations and statistics, on the use of digital artwork; pamphlets and guides to applying for NEH grants; the handbook to this year’s book and jacket show. The plenary sessions were also useful, as they provided a more general overview of the issues faced in scholarly publishing. The major theme of the meeting, if there could truly be said to be one, was the future of our enterprise. I spend so much time mired in the present that the plenaries were thoughtful reminders that we need to press forward and plan ahead, particularly while living amidst an ever-fluctuating cultural climate and ever-uncertain economy. In the first plenary session, respondent Cathy Davidson merged the past and the present, reminding us forcefully that the struggles we are currently experiencing are rooted in troubles publishing has had since the dawn of the Gutenberg printing press. I was impressed by the variety of sessions offered, and even attended the designer’s overview of university press jackets and covers. There were several sessions, particularly on databases and design, that I wanted to attend (but couldn’t). Hard choices had to be made, which is always a good sign for a conference. Perhaps most importantly, I came away from the meeting invigorated by the role university press publishing plays in the larger culture, and by my (small) part in that role. Meeting others in publishing–particularly those with whom I had previously had only email and phone working relationships–reminded me that the AAUP is a singular community and not just a collection of individual presses mashed together. It’s a cliché of our times to say that, for all the influence of telephones and computers, there’s nothing quite like meeting someone face to face. Taking part in dinner conversations, bus rides, and casual talks after sessions, I was reminded of how true the cliché is. There’s much about the subtleties of scholarly publishing that can be best gleaned from actual conversation, and not as fully from even the most detailed list-serv messages. So, the conference left me better informed and cautiously optimistic about scholarly publishing, while at the same time contemplative about what we’ll face in the future. Catering to both specific demands and broader publishing issues, the meeting was a success and an important step in my development as an acquisitions editor. Dafina Blacksher Diabate, Publicity Assistant, Duke University Press Workshop Highlights The Sales Task Force Engagement was quite informative. Commissioned by AAUP and still a work-in-progress, this group is seeking ways for university publishers to work more effectively with their clients. At this point the task force members reported on B&N college stores, B&N.com, B&N trade stores HQ, Borders, Ingram, B&N regional buyers, B&T, and YBP. It was surprising to see the similarities in the findings presented by the four panelists. They all affirmed the urgent need for data early, accurate, and electronically. Several panelists explicitly stated the connection between publicity and sales; "The Publicist is a Sales Director’s best friend." John Kessler reported that Ingram is rarely prepared for a big surge in publicity for a title. But others confirmed that buyers did want publicity information; it not an intrusion to send them materials. Another person reported that publicity drives sales, not advertising. Susan Donnelly commented that university presses "tend to let reviewers shape what the book is." Instead they need to frame the book in-house before going to the reps and press. She emphasized that having a marketing plan helps and is important to articulate to customers. Returns were a big issue both in this session and also brought up by Peter Givler at a morning Plenary Session. Directing his questions to speaker Joe Gonnella from B&N, Peter regretted having to bring up the "thorny issue" but returns continue to cloud the relationship many university presses have with B&N. "The power of publicity is mighty and you never quite know where it is coming from." This quote came from Mary Bisbee-Beek during Show it Off! The How & Why of Exhibiting at Trade Shows. This characterizes my brief experience in publicity and reassures me in my efforts to increase publicity for Duke books. The panelists explored the pros and cons of attending BEA and the majority opinion was that it is undoubtedly worth the expense. Some of the suggestions from a bookstore buyer were entertaining: publishers should provide water, seating, good lighting, be willing and eager to take orders, and consider hosting dinner for university booksellers at a restaurant. Surprisingly there were no comments after the speakers finished. The Institutional PR session was eye-opening, even though the activities are not my direct responsibility. The general emphasis was on the importance to align allies well in advance of any signs of peril. The three Ds were identified as key targets: deans, directors, and department heads. Professors were an obvious suggestion, because they benefit directly from the services of university presses and could attest to their value. Influential professors with a high profile or with close ties to the president, provost could be especially beneficial. Walter Lippincott explained that it’s best to have the press director report to the person with the highest standing in the university, ideally the provost or president; the higher their standing, the more stability for the press. Outside the university, it is also good to have professionals from trade publishers on the Board, to provide the industry context. Alumni website postings and magazine ads, positive author communication, and student internships were other ways to increase advocates for the press within a larger community. This aspect of network building resembles publicity because establishing a foundation is so crucial but the extent and timing of its benefits so unpredictable. General Comments Rebecca Gimenez, Book Designer, Duke University Press For me, this program's strength came from its variety. With the exception of the first morning's plenary—which was one of the best talks I attended—I confined myself to the design & production sessions, many of which were very informative. I took home a lot of useful ideas and materials to share with my colleagues at Duke. Some of the sessions were less instructive than I expected them to be, mostly because I come from a larger press that has had to establish systems for dealing with problems that smaller presses can handle on a case-by-case basis. However, I felt like even these sessions were a good learning experience—not least because they required me to think about what I do in more abstract terms than I am accustomed. Attending the Book and Jacket Show sessions was probably the highlight of the program for me, as well as having a chance to look through the selected (and rejected) entries. I have paid close attention to the Book and Jacket Show ever since the beginning of my university press career (as a messenger for the University of Wisconsin Press in 1995!), so to participate that closely was very exciting for me. Probably the most significant thing I took away from this conference was meeting all of the other designers in attendance and establishing professional friendships with many of them. I was surprised and pleased at how much everyone seemed to share a sense of purpose, and how many people had chosen university press publishing in particular as a place to make a design career. I found it inspiring and gratifying. William Hammell, Assistant Editor, Temple University Press The panels that I attended were very stimulating and relevant to my daily experience: quite frequently, I find myself wrestling with author-supplied digital art and wondering how to communicate with authors in sensitive situations. By absorbing the useful information presented by the panelists and hearing specific anecdotes to which I could relate, I have come to feel much more comfortable and confident in carrying out my day-to-day responsibilities and setting long-term career goals. I found it especially interesting to talk to my counterparts at other presses (namely Duke, Harvard, and Mississippi) about issues specific to being an assistant editor. How to balance administrative responsibilities with acquisitions, how to stake out one’s own acquisitions territories, how to deal with an author who might be uncomfortable with an ASSISTANT editor working on his/her book. Finally, the AAUP was for me an ideal context for networking and socializing with peers as well as senior members. The structured and unstructured interactions with people from other presses gave me insight into how things work beyond the walls of home press. These interactions have also given me a much stronger sense of community and professional identity. Patty Park, Publicity Assistant, Columbia University Press Overall, I found attending the conference to be a positive experience; it was great to become a part of such a welcoming network of people who are passionate about academic publishing. Although there were more than 500 people in attendance, the meeting felt like a more intimate group. The sessions seemed to address many of the current topics in the industry, and I appreciated the camaraderie among member presses, as we are all faced with similar situations. AAUP provided an open-forum where people can voice their problems and propose solutions for shared issues. It was definitely a rewarding experience to meet with my fellow junior colleagues, as well as with my senior-level counterparts. While I really enjoyed being in the community of academic publishers, there seemed to be a somewhat discouraging tone towards the financial future of academic publishing. Because I am still new to the industry and have entered at a moment when the business (and profit) cycle was at its low point, I did not really get a sense of the industry as a bigger picture. However, I appreciated that everyone was honest and forthright about the current crises faced by publishers, and some of the lectures I attended worked to address this point. Had there been some panel sessions that gave a better overview to the business of publishing, then I feel that I would have benefited even more from the conference. Nonetheless attending AAUP gave me the very valuable opportunity to learn about—and hopefully explore—new alternatives for the future of academic publishing. Most importantly, the annual meeting has heightened my curiosity and desire to learn more about the industry, and I now am better aided with the right resources to help answer my questions. The sessions I attended include: I particularly enjoyed this last session because it addressed many of the issues we face in marketing and publicity. I will walk away with the mantra "Embrace the Flatness!" as coined by panelist Darrin Pratt, director of University Press of Colorado. |
|
