Comments on: Liblog Landscape 2007-2010 and C&I: An update http://walt.lishost.org/2011/01/liblog-landscape-2007-2010-and-ci-an-update/ The library voice of the radical middle. Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:30:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.3.1 By: walt http://walt.lishost.org/2011/01/liblog-landscape-2007-2010-and-ci-an-update/comment-page-1/#comment-53984 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 16:01:52 +0000 http://walt.lishost.org/?p=2864#comment-53984 The books probably don’t get covered because I haven’t sent out review copies, and doing so for the newest ones would involve a fair amount of outlay for little or no promised return–particularly after seeing that First Have Something to Say, which has eventually sold fairly well (that is, >1,200 copies), got almost no reviews after all of ALA Editions’ promotion.

I published the list of essays in disContent and have published a few examples.

I did get one strong indication yesterday, apparently representing several people’s opinion, on why people aren’t buying.

I guess I need to look into Kickstarter more.

]]>
By: Steven Kaye http://walt.lishost.org/2011/01/liblog-landscape-2007-2010-and-ci-an-update/comment-page-1/#comment-53977 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:57:48 +0000 http://walt.lishost.org/?p=2864#comment-53977 I’m wondering why the books aren’t getting coverage in eContent or Online or similar publications, myself. Or maybe they have and I’ve missed it. It couldn’t hurt to explain what DisContent actually covered, even if it’s just a direct link to the preview.

It might be worth asking flat out on FriendFeed why people aren’t interested in buying for themselves or their collections.

Kickstarter might be worth trying for future projects, and it might be worth doing a whipround to get a one-time ad in an ITI publication. I’d certainly chip in.

]]>
By: walt http://walt.lishost.org/2011/01/liblog-landscape-2007-2010-and-ci-an-update/comment-page-1/#comment-53941 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:22:41 +0000 http://walt.lishost.org/?p=2864#comment-53941 Mark: You are one of the very few who will pay for this stuff, and it’s greatly appreciated. Little did you know you’d have rare books… And yes, I know there are many other forms of value; otherwise, I would have given up C&I long ago.

Steve: Let’s say there was an editorial change in the blog because (a) I know it’s really more nuanced, and (b) I didn’t want to make anyone look like a bad guy, because it’s not about that. If I thought I’d have a chance with Kickstarter, I might try.

But that leads to, well, Z, a long, thoughtful, well-written email that could have appeared here. Z suggests that I’m overstating the interest in these studies based on C&I stats: That most libloggers will download the issue or article, look for their own names and one or two others, and ignore everything else–that people really don’t care about studies like this. Z also suggests that the studies might be significant in the long run, but that only institutions would plausibly pay for them. And that’s not happening.

I suspect Z may be right. If that’s true, and given that my ability to market to ALISE or library schools is nil (and the chances of their buying anything that doesn’t have the Proper Stamp of Authority isn’t much greater), then the studies really are a waste of my time… which does not inherently extend to Cites & Insights.

So, while I was reluctant to write this post, I may be learning useful things, even if they’re not things I necessarily want to learn.

For now, I’m going to stop pushing the books. Either they sell or they don’t. Which means fewer blog posts but, with luck, ones that are more enjoyable for writer and reader alike.

]]>
By: Steve Lawson http://walt.lishost.org/2011/01/liblog-landscape-2007-2010-and-ci-an-update/comment-page-1/#comment-53940 Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:55:48 +0000 http://walt.lishost.org/?p=2864#comment-53940 I think I’m the “one colleague” who “doesn’t intend to pay for library literature, no matter who writes it.” That’s certainly what I said. I think how I really feel is more nuanced than that, so I’ll work on a more well-rounded way of putting it.

I think in the future, if you want to ensure that you’ll make enough on a project to make it worth your while, you might look to Kickstarter or a similar homegrown way of getting people to fund it before you write it.

]]>
By: Mark http://walt.lishost.org/2011/01/liblog-landscape-2007-2010-and-ci-an-update/comment-page-1/#comment-53937 Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:26:21 +0000 http://walt.lishost.org/?p=2864#comment-53937 Assuming that the only apparent, effective value of something is whether or not someone else will pay for it is a limited view, but perhaps that is simply semantics. I fully understand what you mean and even agree. [And I know that you believe in other forms of value besides the monetary. And I fully understand you need (and deserve) some form of remuneration for the value you provide.]

Then again, under this sort of logic I must not be entitled to an opinion. Nor must I understand value, seeing as I have paid for a majority of those titles. Seems I’m doing something wrong here.

]]>
http://walt.lishost.org/2011/01/liblog-landscape-2007-2010-and-ci-an-update/feed/
walt.lishost.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-48
11995
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2GPCZR5YB4HIABTAFN3J6GYTIQVUC2NR
<urn:uuid:f9dffe9f-8e48-4f66-8210-44a8f7205ae7>
2015-11-26T23:13:13Z
67.228.246.130
sha1:7D5APP4CWYAGE7EVYBAV374HGCGCJVBC
<urn:uuid:3d7c9d68-4151-4f04-b367-3c18e634828d>
http://walt.lishost.org/2011/01/liblog-landscape-2007-2010-and-ci-an-update/feed/
response
<urn:uuid:f4719ea5-8722-4254-857e-fbc5916ad2a1>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-71-132-137.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-48
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for Nov 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf