This is “scrutanda 2.0” = expanding the focus of posts to include current MBA coursework, the myriad case studies, texts, and lectures, as well as extracurricular readings, random related cultural events, and observations—as they might pertain to and benefit scholarly publishing and the pursuit of new business opportunities.
I will share insights from case studies in other industries and share some of the experience of diving into the multidisciplinary coursework of a highly ranked MBA program (managerial accounting, corporate finance, operations, and marketing management) equipped with extensive communications experience and a diverse humanities background in literary and cultural analysis, including but not limited to a working knowledge of Wittgenstein, Chaucer, and Sallust.
Scrutanda was started to share notes from workshops and panel sessions at the AAUP annual meeting. It was mainly for colleagues who were unable to participate in person or who wanted additional perspective/s. Sharing new learning and discussions of best practices seemed a natural extension of the professional development activity of attending a national conference.
MBA coursework is the largest professional development activity I’ve ever engaged in. It is a privilege to be able to pursue advanced studies in corporate strategy and management at such an august and innovative business school, as it is a privilege to be schooled in the ins and outs of scholarly publishing from colleagues at my institution and across the AAUP. So, I thought, likewise, that I’d share what I learn as I go, for any who might be interested.
Just a couple semesters in, I have had many eye-opening and unexpected discoveries; the Harvard Business School case study, Vans: Skating on Air, yielded fascinating insights into brand, and I believe it could be important reading for everyone interested in the brand of the u-press system.
Given the rate of change in the industry and the potential wealth of upheaval and new opportunities that change can bring, I will do my best to share what I see as potentially relevant in as timely and as candid a manner as possible. I will focus extra attention on key topics (e.g., brand, new products and services, entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, change management) and to admit of a bias early on: I may beat a drum on the polyvalent strategic benefits of a unified AAUP customer-facing online product, from time to time.
Scholarly pub will find unprecedented profitability and stability in new technology. That is inevitable. The real trick will be safeguarding what’s important through this period, so that the most can be made of that profitability once it’s achieved.
Specifically, the u-press system is a valuable intellectual national asset. Protecting the diversity of all that constitutes it (positions and institutions) may well be complexly important, for it to compete most effectively in the new era; therefore, one would need to take care that the nature of change itself isn’t dictating the selection for survival of constituent elements alone; survival of the fittest in the short term upheaval could leave the system less fit for survival (profits) in the long run, when things settle down.
That is what’s drawn me to MBA coursework; a desire to leverage the latest skills and best practices to bring added value to future projects. I.e., the standard definition of professional development; shared herewith in the same spirit.
2012-07-13
plenary 2—collaborating with users...building community
Res ipsa loquitur, modo possunt convenire in quinque minuta. Or, as Shakespeare said, “The gestalt is the thing.” You really had to be there—though luckily this session was videotaped, available here, if you weren’t.
Brilliant session! Each speaker abided the Ignite format of using 20 slides on automatic rotation, 15 seconds per slide, to share stories of successfully collaborating with users, curating content and building community via succinct, targeted messaging, across a WIDE variety of platforms, circumstances, and industries—I’ve already gone over.
Wonderfully inspiring and thought provoking. Check out the video and each of the speakers’ sites via the Wiki, especially: Daniel Kibblesmith, Groupon = hilarious; Christina Kahrl, Baseball Prospectus = impressive; and Tony Sanfilippo, Book Places in the Digital Age = evil genius.
Sanfilippo gets earns evil genius stripes twice over; first, for fitting his May 9 piece in The Digital Digest, here into quinque minuta, and second, for crafting a viable narrative for metadatarium-styled print b-stores in the digital age. It would be good to see such narratives built into a detailed and scalable b-plan/s.
Every one of us who grew up working in bookstores should read both versions—and check out Tony’s blog, here. Don’t miss/revisit his repost of The Old Man and The Sea, here.
Brilliant session! Each speaker abided the Ignite format of using 20 slides on automatic rotation, 15 seconds per slide, to share stories of successfully collaborating with users, curating content and building community via succinct, targeted messaging, across a WIDE variety of platforms, circumstances, and industries—I’ve already gone over.
Wonderfully inspiring and thought provoking. Check out the video and each of the speakers’ sites via the Wiki, especially: Daniel Kibblesmith, Groupon = hilarious; Christina Kahrl, Baseball Prospectus = impressive; and Tony Sanfilippo, Book Places in the Digital Age = evil genius.
Sanfilippo gets earns evil genius stripes twice over; first, for fitting his May 9 piece in The Digital Digest, here into quinque minuta, and second, for crafting a viable narrative for metadatarium-styled print b-stores in the digital age. It would be good to see such narratives built into a detailed and scalable b-plan/s.
Every one of us who grew up working in bookstores should read both versions—and check out Tony’s blog, here. Don’t miss/revisit his repost of The Old Man and The Sea, here.
2012-07-12
fundraising in a tough economy
I heard several people remark that this session was one of the best fundraising sessions they'd attended. Sheila Leary is terrifically frank and open. So too, were her panelists. Together they delivered a rich session covering practical advice for expanding fundraising programs, effective strategies for approaching grants and donors, and a few recent success stories from across the sector. We were also given a thorough presentation of Utah’s analysis and thinking leading to their decision to join the Colorado University Press consortium. Video = recommended viewing.
Key advice: Always be mindful that 5% of donors deliver 95% of dollars. Always build an endowment contribution into each major grant application. Major endowment builds take significant vision and long-term commitment—10 years to 15/20 years to complete. However, as architect David Burnam once said: “Make no little plans.” Big plans get folks excited. Seed monies for major projects/endowments are the hardest; but, once giving begins, behavior gives rise to behavior, more get involved, and targets are reached in accelerant fashion. Flexibility and creativity are key in crafting grants; tying salient aspects of current and future plans, programs, and operations into donors’ targets for support/giving = priceless.
The most impressive part of the session was Michael Spooner’s (Utah) breakdown of Utah’s scenario analysis leading to their decision to merge with Colorado. Faced with closing operations, Spooner and his managers worked up no fewer than six post-funding scenarios, projecting likely requirements and outcomes for each, and then weighed all options. To think most strategically under the circumstances, Spooner and his team realized early on that they needed to keep in mind that a u press does not belong to its staff and as a corollary that a press in fact belongs to its parent institution (the u). Keeping mindful of these parameters opened Spooner’s team up to greater adaptability amid quickly changing circumstances and allowed them to flesh out more options. Spooner’s explication of the scenario analysis gives us an amazing, clearly presented example of strategic thinking, analysis and leadership in difficult times. Any interested should check out the video.
Key advice: Always be mindful that 5% of donors deliver 95% of dollars. Always build an endowment contribution into each major grant application. Major endowment builds take significant vision and long-term commitment—10 years to 15/20 years to complete. However, as architect David Burnam once said: “Make no little plans.” Big plans get folks excited. Seed monies for major projects/endowments are the hardest; but, once giving begins, behavior gives rise to behavior, more get involved, and targets are reached in accelerant fashion. Flexibility and creativity are key in crafting grants; tying salient aspects of current and future plans, programs, and operations into donors’ targets for support/giving = priceless.
The most impressive part of the session was Michael Spooner’s (Utah) breakdown of Utah’s scenario analysis leading to their decision to merge with Colorado. Faced with closing operations, Spooner and his managers worked up no fewer than six post-funding scenarios, projecting likely requirements and outcomes for each, and then weighed all options. To think most strategically under the circumstances, Spooner and his team realized early on that they needed to keep in mind that a u press does not belong to its staff and as a corollary that a press in fact belongs to its parent institution (the u). Keeping mindful of these parameters opened Spooner’s team up to greater adaptability amid quickly changing circumstances and allowed them to flesh out more options. Spooner’s explication of the scenario analysis gives us an amazing, clearly presented example of strategic thinking, analysis and leadership in difficult times. Any interested should check out the video.
2012-07-11
chunking content
Our content is being actively solicited at the chunk level by commercial publishers targeting large revenues. [This wasn’t in the session, but I can add it from the Rights and Permissions perspective.] For years, commercial pubs have attempted to “tack on” custom pub platform use to reprint permission requests. Now, we are seeing a rise in direct requests from commercial publishing houses to place our chunks into their custom pub platforms. [This too has been going on for some; but, it is becoming more common.] By analysis of the requests, discussions, and trends, they are projecting considerable growth and revenues from the custom pub/chunk segment. This conclusion was supported by Michael Cairns’ presentation. Chunking our own content more creatively will provide additional channels for increased dissemination, course adoption, and revenue. This session provided a gloss of current examples how u presses are working to access direct-to-consumer platforms and chunking their content in new ways.
Custom Pub
Michael Cairns (AcademicPub) gave an excellent overview of market trends and prospects for custom pub. Major takeaways: Custom pub is a growing source of revenue for commercial scholarly presses. Permissions revenue will be a larger portion of overall revenue than ever before. In this space, survival will be a matter of the fittest metadata, i.e., chapter-level metadata.
All commercial houses and some institutions are fielding custom pub platforms of their own. Custom pub fits the changing needs of universities and faculty. It is growing at a faster rate than the overall market. IU, MIT, and UC are all leaders in this space. IU and UC platforms are powered by Courseload in Indianapolis. MIT has worked with Open Courseware since the later nineties. AcademicPub allows scholarly presses to host their own content, in aggregate and on their own sites—direct-to-consumers. NB: AcademicPub allows scholars to self-publish works into the platform.
Research has indicated a correlation between improved metadata and increased sales. Permissions/chunks will likely be a greater portion of publishers’ revenue in the future. With each university press and each commercial press currently publishing thousands (and in some cases many thousands) of new “chunks” per season, chapter-level metadata (key words, abstract/summary) will be key in increasing the amount of revenue generated within custom pub platforms. In a separate context, Nic Newman, BBC, is quoted as having said: “You can’t afford to create a piece of content for any one platform. Instead of crafting a website [book], you have to put more effort into crafting the description of the different bits of an asset, so they can be reused more effectively, so they can deliver [generate] more value.” Early movers can gain leverage with enhanced, chapter-level metadata. E.g., Duke, who already has chapter-level metadata for all of its books.
Shorts & Briefs
Alan Harvey (Stanford u press) and Marjorie Fowler (UNC press) shared experiences with and views on eShorts and Briefs. Major takeaways: Both the UNC eShorts and the Stanford Briefs programs are driven by editorial and marketing working closely together; editorial makes final decisions. There is no clear answer as to whether either approach will drive sales & revenue; however, both presses are continuing the projects, and Stanford expects the new form may be attractive to certain disciplines, especially Philosophy and Lit Crit, providing a new product category for academics and u presses in the long run.
UNC eBook Shorts program: Though UNC has started with Shorts (excerpts/chapters from UNC books), they are looking to original shorts as well (a.k.a., Briefs). Editors have been discussing the approach with authors for a long time. They felt shorts would be the easier to bring forward as finished products, and strategic goals include driving book sales; so, excerpts again seemed a best fit, in the short term. To maintain a connection between short and long forms, “Excerpted from…” is included in the subtitle to each UNC eShort.
As to the question of whether this is all worth it = no clear answer. 100 total Short units have sold to date across all 7 titles. Not clear if Shorts have increased long-form sales. There was some thinking that shorts could be adoptable as texts. No results. They are looking at marketing them as such; but, value remains in question here as well. Selection of chunks from texts = the editorial department/director makes the final decision.
Stanford Briefs digital imprint: SUP noted that while long-form sales plummeted, rights/permissions revenue spiked. They started experimenting in-house with what else might be done to access “chunk-level” sales/revenue. Acquisitions editorial (Harvey in particular) observed that if one removes all the interstitial bits from a monograph: long intro; summaries; references/treatment of existing literature; traverses between sections of the text, you are left with a Brief draft of an argument. Here one hears faint echoes of both David Simon (The Wire) and Grant McCracken (Transformations and Culturematic) from last year’s meeting.
Business was seen as the most remunerative subject area and so is where they started: The Physics of Business Growth: Mindsets, System, and Processes. As mentioned, SUP feels Philosophy and Literary Studies lend themselves well to such lengths; Philosophy in particular might be receptive as a discipline. The form might also lend itself well to “updates” to an existing book.
Custom Pub
Michael Cairns (AcademicPub) gave an excellent overview of market trends and prospects for custom pub. Major takeaways: Custom pub is a growing source of revenue for commercial scholarly presses. Permissions revenue will be a larger portion of overall revenue than ever before. In this space, survival will be a matter of the fittest metadata, i.e., chapter-level metadata.
All commercial houses and some institutions are fielding custom pub platforms of their own. Custom pub fits the changing needs of universities and faculty. It is growing at a faster rate than the overall market. IU, MIT, and UC are all leaders in this space. IU and UC platforms are powered by Courseload in Indianapolis. MIT has worked with Open Courseware since the later nineties. AcademicPub allows scholarly presses to host their own content, in aggregate and on their own sites—direct-to-consumers. NB: AcademicPub allows scholars to self-publish works into the platform.
Research has indicated a correlation between improved metadata and increased sales. Permissions/chunks will likely be a greater portion of publishers’ revenue in the future. With each university press and each commercial press currently publishing thousands (and in some cases many thousands) of new “chunks” per season, chapter-level metadata (key words, abstract/summary) will be key in increasing the amount of revenue generated within custom pub platforms. In a separate context, Nic Newman, BBC, is quoted as having said: “You can’t afford to create a piece of content for any one platform. Instead of crafting a website [book], you have to put more effort into crafting the description of the different bits of an asset, so they can be reused more effectively, so they can deliver [generate] more value.” Early movers can gain leverage with enhanced, chapter-level metadata. E.g., Duke, who already has chapter-level metadata for all of its books.
Shorts & Briefs
Alan Harvey (Stanford u press) and Marjorie Fowler (UNC press) shared experiences with and views on eShorts and Briefs. Major takeaways: Both the UNC eShorts and the Stanford Briefs programs are driven by editorial and marketing working closely together; editorial makes final decisions. There is no clear answer as to whether either approach will drive sales & revenue; however, both presses are continuing the projects, and Stanford expects the new form may be attractive to certain disciplines, especially Philosophy and Lit Crit, providing a new product category for academics and u presses in the long run.
UNC eBook Shorts program: Though UNC has started with Shorts (excerpts/chapters from UNC books), they are looking to original shorts as well (a.k.a., Briefs). Editors have been discussing the approach with authors for a long time. They felt shorts would be the easier to bring forward as finished products, and strategic goals include driving book sales; so, excerpts again seemed a best fit, in the short term. To maintain a connection between short and long forms, “Excerpted from…” is included in the subtitle to each UNC eShort.
As to the question of whether this is all worth it = no clear answer. 100 total Short units have sold to date across all 7 titles. Not clear if Shorts have increased long-form sales. There was some thinking that shorts could be adoptable as texts. No results. They are looking at marketing them as such; but, value remains in question here as well. Selection of chunks from texts = the editorial department/director makes the final decision.
Stanford Briefs digital imprint: SUP noted that while long-form sales plummeted, rights/permissions revenue spiked. They started experimenting in-house with what else might be done to access “chunk-level” sales/revenue. Acquisitions editorial (Harvey in particular) observed that if one removes all the interstitial bits from a monograph: long intro; summaries; references/treatment of existing literature; traverses between sections of the text, you are left with a Brief draft of an argument. Here one hears faint echoes of both David Simon (The Wire) and Grant McCracken (Transformations and Culturematic) from last year’s meeting.
Business was seen as the most remunerative subject area and so is where they started: The Physics of Business Growth: Mindsets, System, and Processes. As mentioned, SUP feels Philosophy and Literary Studies lend themselves well to such lengths; Philosophy in particular might be receptive as a discipline. The form might also lend itself well to “updates” to an existing book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)