Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Public Access

July 5, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The following is based on my talk at the session on "Publicity in the Digital Age” at last month’s conference of the Association of American University Presses. For a report on the meeting itself, please check here.

For someone whose best waking hours are devoted to the printed page, it can be difficult to think of digital media as anything but a distraction, at best -- if not, in fact, a violation of the proper use of the eyeballs and brain. People who have made careers in print and ink often have a vested interest in thinking this way. The very word "blog" seems to elicit an almost Pavlovian reaction in editors, writers, and academics over a certain age –- not drooling in hunger, but snarling in  self-defense.

I share some of this conditioning, having spent the past two decades contributing reviews and essays to various magazines and newspapers. Of late, however, I've learned to move between what Marshall McLuhan called "the Gutenberg galaxy" (the cultural universe created by movable type) and "the broadband flatland" (as we might dub the uncharted frontier landscape of digital media).

Over the past 18 months, I've published about 200,000 words that have appeared strictly online, while also contributing to print publications. It feels as if the difference between them means less and less.

Yet with regard to making university-press books known to the public, it appears that the old gap remains deep and wide. On the one hand, there may now be more opportunities than ever to connect up readers with the books that will interest them. (That includes not just new titles, but books from the backlist.)

So much for the good news. The bad news is that, for the most part, it isn’t happening.

There are important exceptions. Colleen Lanick, who handles publicity for MIT Press, recently had an informative and encouraging article in the AAUP newsletter discussing how some university presses have set up blogs to promote their titles.

But my strong impression -- confirmed by a series of interviews in early June -- is that very few people at university presses have made the transition to full engagement with the developing digital public sphere.

Consider something I learned while talking to a couple of people who run fairly high-visibility venues in the world of what we might call "general interest academic blogs." One is Ralph Luker, the founder of Cliopatria -- a group blog devoted to history, which has been online since 2003. Cliopatria recently announced that it has  been visited by 400,000 distinct readers, so far.

The other person was Alfredo Perez, profiled in my column last year. His site Political Theory Daily Review is not, strictly speaking, a blog. It provides a running digest of scholarly papers and serious journalism covering a variety of fields of the humanities and social sciences. The site gets around 2,000 visitors a day, though that probably understates its influence. "Aggregator" sites like PTDR have a way of quietly affecting what gets noticed and discussed elsewhere online.

I asked Ralph and Alfredo how often they receive books from university presses "over the transom" -- that is, strictly on the publisher's initiative, in hopes that their sites would help make it known. As a reviewer, I get several books that way each week, usually in a pre-publication editions that costs the publisher relatively little to produce.

My guess had been that Ralph and Alfredo examined at least a few forthcoming books this way each month. It only stood to reason.  but it made sense to ask.

Both of them replied that it had happened just three or four times -- in as many years. They also confirmed what several other people have indicated in conversation: A few academic presses are willing to send a review copy to a blogger who asks for it. But most won’t. Often, publicists just ignore the request entirely.

That might sound like someone keeping an eye on the bottom line -- though it certainly doesn’t cost much to send a courteous e-mail message in reply to a query. In any case, it is a matter of being penny wise but pound foolish.

That realization hit home while interviewing Scott Eric Kaufman, a graduate student in English at the University of California at Irvine. He participates in a group blog on literary studies called The Valve and he also has a personal blog.

The Valve -- which gets around 10,000 visitors a day – has established a fairly amicable modus vivendi with Columbia University Press, which has provided examination copies of several recent titles to Valve members who wanted to devote symposia to the books. Kaufman told me it was not a matter of anyone at the blog having especially cozy relations with the anyone at press. It's as simple as the fact that the publicity department at Columbia will actually answer their requests.

Kaufman also told me about his experience in writing an essay on a recent novel. He provided a link to the Amazon page for it. The bookseller gave Kaufmann a small credit for each copy purchased by someone following his link. He estimates that he sold about 75 copies of the book.

Now, for a trade press (able to issue large print runs and to benefit from economies of scale), selling 75 copies of a given title in a few days would be a pleasant enough development. But it would hardly make or break anyone’s budget.

By contrast, scholarly publishers usually produce much smaller editions, even in paperback. The impact of even modestly increased sales would be much larger.

Providing bloggers with finished hardbacks could prove an expensive proposition, of course. But the prepublication galleys -- which I sometimes get in spiral binding, like a course packet -- would often be just as serviceable.

It would also help if more publishers were inclined to make extracts from their new books available online. For his daily roundup at Political Theory Daily Review, Alfredo Perez is always on the lookout for chapters of scholarly books to which he can link. "Very few presses do it, as far I can tell," he told me.

He also finds that signing up for e-mail notifications of new books from university presses rarely pays off: "They don't send out updates very often," he says, "and sometimes they don't do it at all." Academic publishers are now more likely to put their catalogs up online than a few years ago. But most seem not to have made the additional commitment of resources necessary to get the word out about their books.

Meanwhile, some commercial houses are starting to treat bloggers as just another part of the mass media. Wendi Kaufmann, who covers literary happenings around Washington at her blog The Happy Booker,  hears from trade presses regularly. Other literary bloggers have told me the same thing, as have some academic bloggers.

At least one internationally known publisher considers it worthwhile to send out dozens of its titles to The Happy Booker, in hopes that she'll give the spotlight to at least one – the same treatment given to the reviews editor for a large newspaper. "I get a box of books from Penguin every two weeks," she told me.

For any publisher or author trying to get some traction in this landscape, the situation can be confusing. It might be helpful to frame things in terms of what I’ve come to call "the price paradox." In short, the cost of making books known in the digital public sphere is both very small and incredibly intensive.

On the one hand, the monetary outlay involved in making content available online is relatively low. The cost of starting a blog, for example, is quite small -– in some cases approaching zero. And the potential audience is very large.

On the other hand, the expense of actually reaching that audience cannot be calculated in terms of simple bookkeeping. It involves significant investments of cultural capital. Time must be spent learning about the existing array of blogs, online journals, podcasts, etc.

As Richard A. Lanham indicates in his recent book The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information (University of Chicago Press), the most valuable thing in an "information economy" is not information, which is abundant. Rather, it is attention. Attention is a scarce resource: the supply is limited and difficult to renew. That, in turn, makes it important to be able to tap whatever pools of attention already exist. And doing so effectively requires some exploration.

Perhaps I should quit with the implicit metaphor here before this discussion turns into one big analogy to the film Syriana.... Instead, it's time to consider the practical implications. What does all of this mean to someone at a university press who is trying to get out word about a new title?

For one thing, the emerging situation requires doing some research to find out if a given blog or Web publication is likely to take an interest in the book. And the research involved might not be a one-time thing. Having a more or less standard list of journals to send review copies in any given field was appropriate at one point. But somewhat more flexibility is necessary now.

At the very least, it is worthwhile to spend some time learning to use blog search engines -- and also to get a feel for how various sites link up to one another. Google Blog Search is particularly helpful for making an initial survey of which blogs might be relevant to a specific topic. Technorati indicates how many links a given blog has received from other sites. It also lets you examine and follow those links -- perhaps the quickest way to learn how the conversational terrain is structured.

And when a blogger asks for a review copy, these tools would help a publicist reach an informed decision about whether sending one is a good use of resources.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to learning to move between the print and the digital domains comes from a certain unstated but powerful assumption. It could be called the ham-radio hypothesis. (Having indavertantly offended the Esperanto people a while back, I want to make clear to any ham-radio enthusiasts that the following is not meant as an insult.)

In short, there is still a tendency to think of bloggers, podcasters, etc. as some distinct group that operates apart from the worlds of academia, publishing, or offline culture. To treat them, in effect, as ham-radio operators -- people who possess a certain technical knowhow, and who talk mainly to each other.

The reality is very different. The relationship between online communities and other kinds of social or professional networks is a complicated topic. Scholarly careers will be made exploring this matter.

But it is fair to say that the ability to produce and distribute content online is less and less like being able to talk on shortwave frequencies -- and more and more like the skills involved in driving, or reading a map. You can get along without these skills, but that leaves you dependent on the people who do possess them.

UPDATE. A reader asks if there is a central index of academic blogs. There is no completely comprehensive list, but one valuable resource is the directory provided by Crooked Timber.

Scott McLemee writes Intellectual Affairs each week. Suggestions and ideas for future columns are welcome.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Public Access

  • Source of information abundance & attention connection
  • Posted by Eszter Hargittai on July 5, 2006 at 7:50am EDT
  • You cite Robert A. Lanham's recent book regarding a point about how it is attention that is scarce in an information economy, not information.

    Note the following 1971 observation by Herbert Simon, likely the first person to articulate something along these lines:

    "What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it."

    This appeared in Simon, Herbert. 1971. Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World. In Martin Greenberger (ed.) Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 37-53. p.40.

    This quote got a lot of play back in the mid-90s when Hal Varian quoted it (with attribution) in his Scientific American piece about The Information Economy.

  • Posted by Ezra Gilgh on July 5, 2006 at 10:55am EDT
  • The comment by Hargittai is on target; the implied contrast itself raises the question of attention. And how small is the mean or median number of sites a Google user will visit in response to a set of search results?

  • asking the right questions
  • Posted by tom abeles , editor at on the horizon on July 5, 2006 at 12:45pm EDT
  • If the "academic monograph" is to survive, and those who publish such are also to survive, then one has to ask the question as to why such volumes are published in the current format, and why, as we move to the next level, digital media, they should continue to exist in their current format.

    The MLA has observed that its not the volume of sales of a book, but the number of books that need to be published to meet the basic demand, primarily in the humanities, to publish or perish in this format. This, of course, is both a rationale for publishers to exist and is an issue which is not totally resolved, even in a world of "print on demand".

    Academic volumes have other issues such as the "half-life" of the content. If attention is the "currency" in an information society, then one has to ask how critical and timely such information is in a bound volume and whether much of such information can best be developed and distributed, on demand, in other formats.

    Similarly, many academics have chosen to enter the market that the author suggests, not through an "academic monograph" but through the trade press, with some books even reaching the list of best sellers. This, of course, indicates the ability of the subject to meet current public interest along with a spectrum of volumes available in brick or click space. This speaks to content, style and timing, issues eschewed by many who want their volumes published.

    This has not gone unnoticed by academic presses, many of which have chosen to broaden their catalogue to reach this market.

    One might look at Clayton Christensen's books such as "Seeing What's Next" and his other volumes published by Harvard Business School Press, not only to see volumes that have escaped the academic but which might speak to the business of the academic presses.

  • It's about time
  • Posted by Mitch Allen , Publisher at Left Coast Press, Inc. on July 6, 2006 at 3:55pm EDT
  • I don't think you'll find much disagreement from scholarly publishers, Scott. But, having worked for several, I know that just keeping up with the current reviewers in the print media is a never-ending challenge. To add the blogosphere taxes resources even further. There are several bloggers in the fields in which we publish who are central to those fields. They are on our regular review lists. For others, as for new journals who ask us to send them review copies, we have to have the time to do the research on who they are before we add them.

    To be proactive, to seek out a comprehensive list of appropriate bloggers in our fields, takes a lot more work, particularly in trying to sort out which ones can truly help promote a book and which can't.

  • 18th Century Coffehouses and Ham Radio
  • Posted by JeanneE Hand-Boniakowski on July 7, 2006 at 10:50am EDT
  • From the outside, you may have missed one very important way the Internet is an echo of ham radio, and that is a wonderful anonymity. Imagine a kid, bursting with curiosity, burbling with ideas, who can get on the air with Morse code and have conversations with people in which no one knows he is a kid. No one reflexively talks down to him or assumes the many social conventions that separate them in the rest of the world. And, unlike the rest of his world, he can talk like this with people all over the globe.

    Sound familiar? Sure, a lot of conversations were about antenna gain and iambic keys, but specialized knowledge is one of the indulgent pleasures of shared academic passions as well. But, that kid, who was able to widen his world and be friends with folks with whom age, looks, "race", gender were not a factor, that kid who was my husband half a century ago, is reflected today in cyberspace.

    Also, in the pre-cell past, and in much of the world still, hams were the cornerstone of emergency communication. And there was a technical expertise and scientific knowledge which were needed to become licensed and to operate. (This has been seriously watered down, from essay exams to multiple choice, from advancing Morse code requirements to few or none, but if you want to here that rant, go to some ham blogs.) Volunteers who string cables from trees and stay up for days in disaster zones, as well as those who huddle over coffee in their basement hamshacks in New Jersey running emergency traffic for eathquakes in Nicaragua, and act as medics and rescuers in floods. That is part of ham radio as well, and part of our licensure.

    And, yes, I find most hams' chat as dull as I find most Nascar chat. It is a matter of taste. But I know no Nascar fans who don't have a lot of other things to talk about, same with hams, same with physicists, same with scholars who specialize in 13th century Italian vellum manuscripts.

    I like to think of the blogosphere as sharing something with the thousands of coffeehouses during the Enlightenment. Not everyone had access (or literacy) to read the books and pamphlets, but folks would read aloud for others and yak about anything. While we may like to look back with a wistful imagination, in reality we would likely find most of the talk there in those fabled coffeehouses similar to most of the yak in the blogs today: flashes of brilliance percolating out of gossipy, noisy, semi-informed mess of folks. Some of these bloggers and bloggees select in and out, formally and informally, and perhaps this skimming the cream is more like salons of the same era, with similar benefits and pitfalls of elitism.