| Me. | ||
Much of my perspective here stems from my direct experience. I have been directly involved in publishing for nearly the last seven years. If we go back even further than that, say fifteen years, I was certainly producing publishable works even then. I had no idea then what publishing was, or how to get involved. I always figured I never would be involved. Nobody seemed to care what I had to say, and I didn’t find a great deal of what I saw pouring off the big commercial presses each day all that compelling or interesting, so why would I bother getting involved in publishing? During my teenage years, though, I became aware that there were many marvelously interesting and insightful publications available, if I did some digging. Many of the best of these were local, and free of cost. I was fortunate enough to grow up in an area where there was a viable (if not strong) small press presence. There were also many national publications available, but these cost money. These local and national small publications—mostly magazines and small newspapers--often contained ideas that I couldn’t find any hint of anywhere else. I was exposed to ideas similar to my own, as well as those almost too strange to mention. But I liked it all. To this day, no matter how weird anyone’s ideas are, I will read them. In my younger days, I found cultural criticism, honest (often radical) political expression, and (thankfully) music reviews for bands that I actually liked--music that would never be on MTV, commercial radio, or in Rolling Stone magazine. So, I treasured and collected these small publications, and read whatever I could find. By the time I was 23 I helped publish a local bi-monthly youth culture magazine with some friends, and some meager financial backing. It was called Pure, and attracted attention and stories in big corporate periodicals like Newsweek and The Chicago Tribune. It lasted for about two and a half years. I learned more about the nuts and bolts of putting out a magazine in the couple of years I was lucky enough to have that experience than I could have ever hoped for. I was a part-time contributor, and eventually became a full-time advertising director. I even made money at it. Good money, too. One day I made $800.00 selling ads. I thought I had arrived at the pinnacle of success. But, I soon found out, that’s not the way publishing works. The $800.00 was mine—my sales commission—and I used it to pay my own bills and so on. In retrospect, if had intended to succeed in independent publishing I would have taken all that money and used it to but my own advertising somewhere else. I was too excited then to see the reality of how this all works. You have to pay to play. You have to sell. I could have purchased a radio spot with that money. I could have found liquor or beer distributor for sponsorship, and a couple bands and a venue for a promotional party to bolster interest in the magazine. Or, I could have hired a famous local personality to appear on the cover, or write an article. I could have spent it on postage for media kits, or on printing and distributing another 2,000 copies. I could have made the next issue four color process instead of a two color wrapper with black and white on the inside. I could have spent the money on 100 pound enamel paper. All of these things would have improved the appeal and quality of the magazine, and the likelihood of continued success. What I learned was that you need money, you need promotion, you need a name, and you need a certain amount of hard-earned credibility to get anywhere in publishing. You also need two other things: hype (a valuable subset of marketing); and a second or third job to pay your own bills. The key to success--beyond quality--is recognition. People have to 1.) know they want your publication, and, 2.) they have to know how to get it quickly and easily. Without the former, you have no chance; without the latter, people will give up and find other things to do with their time, even if they enjoy your work. This is why so many people are pefectly content with the mainstream press: they don't know any alternative exists, and even if they do, low budgets for distribution and marketing make even the highest quality small publications very hard to physically find. The Internet carries the promise of changing this, but more on that later... |
For the record, it’s not that inventing marketing ploys and focusing on crass commercial interests appeals to me, but without some awareness--and use--of these techniques (barring the introduction of a captive, dedicated, wealthy readership), you are in trouble in the world of small publishing. In my experience, very few people care what you are doing unless you make them care. | |
| More recently, in the last three years, I have helped publish an electronic journal at school. I also ran (into the ground) my own retail-based independent print magazine distributorship in Northern Colorado. (Not the place you want to try that, believe me.) The level of apathy and strange, puzzled looks I got ("What? What do you mean "independent?" Why would you want to do that?" " Ummm, O.K. Whatever!") was very refreshing and instructive in itself, there can be no doubt about that. But, in all seriousness, what my failed venture did do over the last two years was put me in direct contact with thirty or more smart, creative, inventive, and often desperately struggling independent publishers all over the U.S. Many of their publications have online versions, such as Lumpen, and Motorbooty. | Lumpen
(be persistent, Netscape likes to say it can't find the Lumpen site, but it can.) (To return from these sites, use your browsers "Back" button.) |
|
| In short, I am self-educated as far as publishing
goes. My initial experience with publishing was on my own terms. I didn’t do anything
quite the way you are "supposed to" do it, or (from what I have seen) how
they insist it must be done in journalism school. I didn’t have anyone directly
telling me how it all worked, what to write, or even how to sell advertising. I just did
it on my own, by whatever fate befell me. Later, here in grad school, I ran my
distributorship the same way. I just called up the publishers and asked for their
participation. In every instance, I was a nobody with no money and no name, and--in the
last three years--I have operated in a town that no one I ever called had even heard of.
Through all of this, somehow I got started. It can be done, but it is difficult. But, all
of this was print publishing, not electronic publishing. My first experience with
publishing predated the Internet as any viable source for publishing by about five years,
if indeed it is yet a viable source. As far as I can tell, my personal perspective here mainly stems from two areas. The first is my direct experience with (and respect for) independent publishing and publishers. The second is my graduate study at CSU over the last two years. Many of my theoretical references and assumptions here are derived from what I have learned over the last two years. As for my normative commitments, here’s how I see it: I support independent publishing, free speech, free thinking, diversity, and the open distribution and dissemination of all information from all marginalized voices anywhere and everywhere to the extent that this is possible. I hope that these voices may find expression in "the small press," and that this activity leads to greater political awareness and participation. If this "small press" needs to be transferred either all or in part to electronic mediums as the result of inevitable technological change and advancement, I have no outright objections, as long as these electronic mediums can be shown to either increase the flow of information from diverse sources, or at least not harm the status quo. If, however, transition to electronic forms of media will do any of the following things-- increase censorship; decrease the efforts of independent publishers; further prevent marginalized individuals and groups from voicing there findings and opinions; isolate individuals and harm the formation and maintenance of meaningful communities; further decrease broad based political participation and debate; enhance corporate ideology and domination of media; or increase government regulation on behalf of the conglomerates or religious fundamentalists, then I am completely opposed. I hope this makes my biases plain. |