Comments on: The book is dead! Long live the book! http://savageminds.org/2009/03/23/the-book-is-dead-long-live-the-book/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:06:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: The death and re-birth of books « Entertaining Research http://savageminds.org/2009/03/23/the-book-is-dead-long-live-the-book/comment-page-1/#comment-588529 The death and re-birth of books « Entertaining Research Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:01:49 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1739#comment-588529 [...] death and re-birth of books By Guru The contemporary moment wherein the book on dead trees is (probably) dead and is being reborn on the net (understandable given all the good karma it did that it gets such an exalted reirth): The U Mich [...] [...] death and re-birth of books By Guru The contemporary moment wherein the book on dead trees is (probably) dead and is being reborn on the net (understandable given all the good karma it did that it gets such an exalted reirth): The U Mich [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: ckelty http://savageminds.org/2009/03/23/the-book-is-dead-long-live-the-book/comment-page-1/#comment-588526 ckelty Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:36:32 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1739#comment-588526 @Peter. I agree, thanks for pointing out that slip: usually I make the same argument, that the real expense of producing these books is not the technology (print vs. 'e') but the labor involved, both paid and unpaid. In this I would include not only book design, editing and peer review, but marketing, promotion and the transactions costs that come with having a whole bunch of whiny authors who want the press to do more for them :) That being said, I think there are different ways to think about the economics here. One is to do a cost-per-book analysis and ask how much labor and technical costs go into each book. From this perspective the technology costs probably look pretty low. The other is to consider the long history of sunk costs in constantly updating old software and machinery, sometimes because it needs to be updated (worn out typefaces... as if... more likely toner or dye-sub or something these days), and sometimes because it does not (new software with newer promises and bigger, longer contracts). Our experience at the AAA, for instance, was that massive software and contract costs ate up almost all of the budget, and then 4 years later, another massive contract with someone who was supposed to fix the problem did the same, and for what? Fancy promises of new software that will only result in even bigger contracts in 4-5 years time. So I think this is really a question of how you run your numbers and how you do your accounting... there is always room to make the case for one or the other way (e vs. p) as more or less expensive. That, however, never answers the question of whether one should take new risks and seek new ways to make money off of your, as they say in the business schools, core competencies--in this case, judgment of quality, high-value editing and peer-review, and superb marketing. Those are the core competencies, right? as for metrics, I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, I would really love it if all books were judged individually on their unique merits by qualified scholars. Alas, the problem is much harder. If I can't have that, I would much rather see an open, transparent, and relatively standardized array of richer metrics (far richer than citation counts) which we can all aim at achieving (or gaming, if you're craven). If I knew that the number of times my book was taught in a class, or mentioned in a blog, or excerpted (as opposed to merely cited) could be fairly (if not accurately) measured, then I'd have some sense of competition. As it stands, we have nothing like that... and yet we have the technology. It's probably a pipe dream, but I don't see another alternative... @Peter. I agree, thanks for pointing out that slip: usually I make the same argument, that the real expense of producing these books is not the technology (print vs. ‘e’) but the labor involved, both paid and unpaid. In this I would include not only book design, editing and peer review, but marketing, promotion and the transactions costs that come with having a whole bunch of whiny authors who want the press to do more for them :)

That being said, I think there are different ways to think about the economics here. One is to do a cost-per-book analysis and ask how much labor and technical costs go into each book. From this perspective the technology costs probably look pretty low. The other is to consider the long history of sunk costs in constantly updating old software and machinery, sometimes because it needs to be updated (worn out typefaces… as if… more likely toner or dye-sub or something these days), and sometimes because it does not (new software with newer promises and bigger, longer contracts). Our experience at the AAA, for instance, was that massive software and contract costs ate up almost all of the budget, and then 4 years later, another massive contract with someone who was supposed to fix the problem did the same, and for what? Fancy promises of new software that will only result in even bigger contracts in 4-5 years time.

So I think this is really a question of how you run your numbers and how you do your accounting… there is always room to make the case for one or the other way (e vs. p) as more or less expensive. That, however, never answers the question of whether one should take new risks and seek new ways to make money off of your, as they say in the business schools, core competencies–in this case, judgment of quality, high-value editing and peer-review, and superb marketing. Those are the core competencies, right?

as for metrics, I’m ambivalent. On the one hand, I would really love it if all books were judged individually on their unique merits by qualified scholars. Alas, the problem is much harder. If I can’t have that, I would much rather see an open, transparent, and relatively standardized array of richer metrics (far richer than citation counts) which we can all aim at achieving (or gaming, if you’re craven). If I knew that the number of times my book was taught in a class, or mentioned in a blog, or excerpted (as opposed to merely cited) could be fairly (if not accurately) measured, then I’d have some sense of competition. As it stands, we have nothing like that… and yet we have the technology. It’s probably a pipe dream, but I don’t see another alternative…

Report this comment

]]> By: Tim http://savageminds.org/2009/03/23/the-book-is-dead-long-live-the-book/comment-page-1/#comment-588310 Tim Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:09:49 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1739#comment-588310 It is interesting to compare smaller University Presses - I think the benefits cost wise would be much greater there. Many smaller presses probably never sold enough books to releive the burden of the infrastructure. Take for example the "ANU e-press":http://epress.anu.edu.au/titles/index.html which has been running since 2003. They offer free PDFs and print on demand. A lot of the pre-digital back catalogue is also available. The data is hosted by the IT Division at the university. 1,252,735 e-titles were downloaded in 2007 (according to their About page). I think that would be measured as an improvement. It is interesting to compare smaller University Presses – I think the benefits cost wise would be much greater there. Many smaller presses probably never sold enough books to releive the burden of the infrastructure. Take for example the “ANU e-press”:http://epress.anu.edu.au/titles/index.html which has been running since 2003. They offer free PDFs and print on demand. A lot of the pre-digital back catalogue is also available. The data is hosted by the IT Division at the university. 1,252,735 e-titles were downloaded in 2007 (according to their About page). I think that would be measured as an improvement.

Report this comment

]]> By: Peter Wissoker http://savageminds.org/2009/03/23/the-book-is-dead-long-live-the-book/comment-page-1/#comment-588293 Peter Wissoker Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:21:13 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1739#comment-588293 In my experience, one part of Chris's first sentence is probably more urbane myth than reality, and that is the question of the cost and time savings involved in producing a book for electronic rather than paper dispersal (and the related benefits of shifting to an all-electronic process). Although printing a typical academic book does take time (4-6 weeks, usually) and cost some money to print, the majority of the time and costs involved are dedicated to finding high-quality manuscripts, having them peer reviewed, working with authors on revisions, not to mention copyediting and producing error-free page proofs. In other words, producing electronic versions may relieve some financial strain from the average university press, but not as much as one might think. Once one pays for electronic prep, webhosting, etc. I wonder whether the Michigan model will be as liberating as it might appear on the surface. I’m not convinced that they will be able to produce that many more e-books if they aim to maintain the same level of copyediting and (e-)book design. One place where the model may have a larger pay off is in the production of books with many illustrations. But then these sometimes come with significant electronic costs. Chris’s question about how success will be determined at the university level if not by sales or gaining public attention is closely tied to the question of how long a press like Michigan will be able to publish without worrying about the market for individual titles. My own guess is that before long we will begin to see universities deploy the same tired metrics used for judging professors–most notably citation indexes. If presses find themselves trying to sign only books that are likely to widely cited in order to justify their publishing program then I think they end up chasing the exact same works with “larger markets” that they sought when sales rather than citations were a primary metric of success. Sorry if this sounds gloomy... In my experience, one part of Chris’s first sentence is probably more urbane myth than reality, and that is the question of the cost and time savings involved in producing a book for electronic rather than paper dispersal (and the related benefits of shifting to an all-electronic process). Although printing a typical academic book does take time (4-6 weeks, usually) and cost some money to print, the majority of the time and costs involved are dedicated to finding high-quality manuscripts, having them peer reviewed, working with authors on revisions, not to mention copyediting and producing error-free page proofs. In other words, producing electronic versions may relieve some financial strain from the average university press, but not as much as one might think.

Once one pays for electronic prep, webhosting, etc. I wonder whether the Michigan model will be as liberating as it might appear on the surface. I’m not convinced that they will be able to produce that many more e-books if they aim to maintain the same level of copyediting and (e-)book design. One place where the model may have a larger pay off is in the production of books with many illustrations. But then these sometimes come with significant electronic costs.

Chris’s question about how success will be determined at the university level if not by sales or gaining public attention is closely tied to the question of how long a press like Michigan will be able to publish without worrying about the market for individual titles. My own guess is that before long we will begin to see universities deploy the same tired metrics used for judging professors–most notably citation indexes. If presses find themselves trying to sign only books that are likely to widely cited in order to justify their publishing program then I think they end up chasing the exact same works with “larger markets” that they sought when sales rather than citations were a primary metric of success.

Sorry if this sounds gloomy…

Report this comment

]]> By: ckelty http://savageminds.org/2009/03/23/the-book-is-dead-long-live-the-book/comment-page-1/#comment-588084 ckelty Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:06:43 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1739#comment-588084 well of course it does... but now also seems like the worst time to go in the opposite direction, e.g. seeking investment to grow the business, whether in print books or in new ideas. It's two different models, but they both need money to run. I guess part of what is confusing is that there really aren't that many signals in the university (from the administration) as to what counts as valuable scholarship today... it certainly seems to me that has nothing to do with whether scholarly monographs are printed or not, and much more to do with whether anyone other than 5 other academics pay attention to your work. The administration doesn't care if your work fundamentally changes the field, causing those other 5 academics to upend their research and go in a new direction... but they never did anyways. But if your book gets mentioned in the New York Times, then they seem to care... as do a lot of other people. So I guess what I would ask is: does becoming an arm of the library somehow mean you no longer have to try to get the books you publish into the New York Times? If that's the case, then there isn't much defending you against the administrations hatchets. But if you can show that you have done that by choosing good scholarship and marketing it well, it seems to me that it doesn't matter (to the administration) whether you are a library or a commercial press? no? well of course it does… but now also seems like the worst time to go in the opposite direction, e.g. seeking investment to grow the business, whether in print books or in new ideas. It’s two different models, but they both need money to run.

I guess part of what is confusing is that there really aren’t that many signals in the university (from the administration) as to what counts as valuable scholarship today… it certainly seems to me that has nothing to do with whether scholarly monographs are printed or not, and much more to do with whether anyone other than 5 other academics pay attention to your work. The administration doesn’t care if your work fundamentally changes the field, causing those other 5 academics to upend their research and go in a new direction… but they never did anyways. But if your book gets mentioned in the New York Times, then they seem to care… as do a lot of other people. So I guess what I would ask is: does becoming an arm of the library somehow mean you no longer have to try to get the books you publish into the New York Times? If that’s the case, then there isn’t much defending you against the administrations hatchets. But if you can show that you have done that by choosing good scholarship and marketing it well, it seems to me that it doesn’t matter (to the administration) whether you are a library or a commercial press? no?

Report this comment

]]> By: Ken Wissoker http://savageminds.org/2009/03/23/the-book-is-dead-long-live-the-book/comment-page-1/#comment-587986 Ken Wissoker Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:17:01 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1739#comment-587986 Thanks for the characteristically smart post, Chris. Here's what I've been thinking about today: In the accounts of the Michigan announcement, Phil Pochoda, the Director, sounded very relieved to be outside of the "find a way to pay for yourself by selling things" economy and into the library one, where universities spend money for resources and services they need to provide scholars and students. With such support, U Michigan Press should be free to publish interesting scholarship, rather than have to find interesting scholarship that might also sell enough copies (e- or print) to help a bottom line. So that's good, right? Well here's what I wonder about. What happens at a time (for instance... now), when funding or endowments are cut? Duke is cutting the support for most things 10%; UNC is planning to cut out PhD's in Spanish and the Program in Cultural Studies. Something like 70 programs overall. I've heard equally scary things at U Washington and in the UC system. So, if scholarly publishing is supposed to be supported on the same basis as library budgets for monographs and added journals in the humanities or social sciences (ahem), how much of an improvement is this? Doesn't this make scholarly publishing another thing that can be cut back by people who don't use it, to meet the bottom line? Thanks for the characteristically smart post, Chris. Here’s what I’ve been thinking about today: In the accounts of the Michigan announcement, Phil Pochoda, the Director, sounded very relieved to be outside of the “find a way to pay for yourself by selling things” economy and into the library one, where universities spend money for resources and services they need to provide scholars and students. With such support, U Michigan Press should be free to publish interesting scholarship, rather than have to find interesting scholarship that might also sell enough copies (e- or print) to help a bottom line. So that’s good, right? Well here’s what I wonder about. What happens at a time (for instance… now), when funding or endowments are cut? Duke is cutting the support for most things 10%; UNC is planning to cut out PhD’s in Spanish and the Program in Cultural Studies. Something like 70 programs overall. I’ve heard equally scary things at U Washington and in the UC system. So, if scholarly publishing is supposed to be supported on the same basis as library budgets for monographs and added journals in the humanities or social sciences (ahem), how much of an improvement is this? Doesn’t this make scholarly publishing another thing that can be cut back by people who don’t use it, to meet the bottom line?

Report this comment

]]>