Kindle versions of BFS journal and other publications

[David A. Riley]

Good to see the forum liven up again.

From which it looks obvious, at least so far as the people on here are concerned, the society's publications are well worth the money and what they get the most value from.

I must say I am looking forward to the next issue of the Journal.

[cavscott]

From the next issue we're going to try to push the forum more in the Journal, try to get people on here discussing the points raised in the articles.

Cheers,

Cav

[CarolineC]

From the next issue we're going to try to push the forum more in the Journal, try to get people on here discussing the points raised in the articles.

Cheers,

Cav

I think that's an excellent idea. We need a more active forum imo. But we'll need someone actively sparking off discussion and keeping it going - probably more than one person. Moderating a forum isn't just about dealing with technical issues - it's about keeping it lively and making people feel like it's a good place to go for discussion and chat. Perhaps we need a couple of volunteers to help make that happen?

[Jec]

From the next issue we're going to try to push the forum more in the Journal, try to get people on here discussing the points raised in the articles.

Cheers,



I've always disliked forums myself... so I doubt  you will see very often.

[jared]

From which it looks obvious, at least so far as the people on here are concerned, the society's publications are well worth the money and what they get the most value from.

Just to be clear, I was in no way espousing that we stop the publications, just that we rethink how they are actually published. The fact that we have a proud publication tradition is great, and it shouldn't be removed or slimmed down or anything. Etc. Changing something to a digital format isn't losing it.

For example, what if we didn't even do the ebook, but we did a website. Everyone presumably has internet access, even if they don't have e-readers. And if that website paid folks - all BFS members - for their content. It would create a paying market for writers and artists (OUR writers and artists), get our members more work (at pro rates), produce content that the entire world could be impressed by, attract new members ("they do that?" "wait, they're a paying market?" etc.) and show off new work year round, rather than occasionally. If we felt nervous about showing off all our content, we could always slap some of it behind a member-wall or pay-wall or whatever.

I don't think this is necessarily the right thing, but it is at least a different way of going about it. "We've always done it this way" is a rubbish reason to keep doing things a certain way, and if we're serious about giving our members value, rethinking a publication strategy that slurps up the vast majority of the dues seems first and foremost. This is in no way a criticism of the quality of the BFS publications, only the means of production and distribution.

When it comes down to it, I'd rather give my £40 to another BFS member (and get them a paying credit) than the post office.

[cavscott]

That's an interesting model. The question, I guess, is whether the majority of the membership would effectively pay for web content. I pay for a number of websites personally, but I suspect I'm in the minority.

[Stephen Theaker]

The BFS may one day go ebook-only, a decade or two down the line, but there's no reason to force it. If it offers cheap ebook-only memberships and the usual paper+ebook we'd be able to tell within a year or two just how attached members are to their paper. The funny thing is, print and postage cost so much that even if people were paying half-price for ebook memberships, the BFS would end up with much more money in its pocket.

I don't think paying for fiction for the journal is a good idea. If you start paying for that, why not the non-fiction, the editors, the typesetter, the webmaster, the illustrators? And if you're going to do all that, aren't you just running a professional magazine? We already have plenty of those struggling to survive...

But BFS Special Publications, on the other hand, is the perfect venue for paid content. Does anyone know what's happened to it? Nobody's listed as SP Editor on the website. Was the money in the SP bank account siphoned off into the BFS account or is it still there?

[Jen]

But BFS Special Publications, on the other hand, is the perfect venue for paid content. Does anyone know what's happened to it? Nobody's listed as SP Editor on the website. Was the money in the SP bank account siphoned off into the BFS account or is it still there?

Thought it had been ditched by the new management?  There was a thingy in Graham Joyce's chairman blurb in the winter journal saying

"...one or two things I think we should not be doing and one of those is trying to compete with publishers. Firstly, we do it less well, secondly, it's an expensive drain on members funds that we never recoup and thirdly it so often puts the Society in an invidious position..."

  So possibly it slid in as official policy?  Think the bank accounts have been merged for simplicity as well.  (Think that was in the EGM report?)

[cavscott]

I think that was Graham's personal thought rather than an official position, but I have asked the committee and will come back with an answer as soon as possible.

[Stephen Theaker]

Thanks for that Jen! Do you know if the FantasyCon account is still intact?

Going back to Jared's post, something that tells you quite a bit about the unlikeliness of the BFS ever going ebook-only overall is that when I said in an AGM that cheaper ebook-only memberships would leave us with more money overall, one well-respected member said that we should therefore charge full price for ebook-only memberships and use all that extra money to pay for more expensive printing....

If I'm going to pay full price for an ebook-only membership that money should go on special ebook-only treats!

My feeling is that the BFS should leave the print folks to enjoy the handful of paper publications that their subs will buy, but expand around them. (With things like like Shelflings!)

[jared]

If I'm going to pay full price for an ebook-only membership that money should go on special ebook-only treats!

My feeling is that the BFS should leave the print folks to enjoy the handful of paper publications that their subs will buy, but expand around them. (With things like like Shelflings!)

Agree with both those points...

I'm not wedded to any of the heretical ideas that I'm throwing around. It'd just be good to consider something. Or if I'm the only one that thinks the current financial model is goofy, that's also cool. As long as folks are considering the options and not letting inertia take its course.

[Jen]

Oooh yes, e-book specials! Gimme! 

[Stephen Theaker]

The thing is, while the cost of print is one thing that holds the society back, the other is having people to do the work. I'm sure the committee is massively overstretched again at the moment following the two resignations, and I wouldn't tell them they should introduce a bunch of extra publications. But I hope other members will look at what I'm doing with Shelflings and think, I could do a twice a year steampunk ezine, or a monthly gossip rag, or an annual Halloween anthology, and take that proposal to the chair.

Now we're not held back by the cost of print and postage, what value can we as members offer to each other? What projects could we produce together? What fun could we have? And if anyone reading this likes the idea of doing something like that for the BFS, I'd probably be happy to do the work of creating the ebook for you.

By the way, going back to Jen's earlier post, I do agree with Graham Joyce that the move into more expensive anthologies and hardbacks didn't work out (to put it mildly). If the BFS were to pay for special publications content, I would like it to be much smaller one-off projects, paying a big name a little bit of money for a one-off short story chapbook or something.

[Stephen Theaker]

I said this before on Facebook, but I think this could be the start of another golden age for the BFS. We were getting four magazines a year before I came up with Shelflings, now we're getting eight. If another member or two gets an idea we could easily be getting a BFS publication every month...

We all have different ideas about what BFS publications should do - now there's no need to argue: each of us could just produce the publication we want to see. (So long as Lee doesn't think it sounds rubbish!)

[Stephen Theaker]

The other nice thing about the introduction of e-only publications is that it starts to move us away from one of the BFS's long-standing problems - the interdependency that a postal mailing creates, which inevitably causes problems when everyone is doing this as a hobby and gets stuck from time to time. If I'm too busy in July to finish an issue of Shelflings in time, it won't affect anyone else's work...