|
10/27/2009 6:05:54 PM
|
Soon Lee
Posts 571
|
Interview with Sheila Williams, Brian Bieniowski, Jeremy Tolbert, Jeff VanderMeer.
Link here to listen online or download the mp3 (45MB). It's a loonng (~1.5 hr) discussion
edited by Soon Lee on 10/28/2009
|
|
10/27/2009 9:32:58 PM
|
Soon Lee
Posts 571
|
It's a fascinating, sometimes boisterous discussion exploring some of the backstage stuff involved in publishing Asimov's.
|
|
10/28/2009 4:21:30 AM
|
dolphintornsea
Posts 297
|
I put myself through the discussion, although I didn't realise I was downloading 45 megs!
Sheila sounded very upbeat about the magazine and seems to be saying that subscriptions have risen to about 17,000, which is more than I thought. I didn't listen to the earlier discussion, though.
Jeff Vandermeer was quite vocal about what the short fiction magazines should be doing, but he seems to have more hope for Asimov's than for F & SF ... I believe that "doomed" was the word. But I must have missed something because it isn't clear why he thinks that.
|
|
10/28/2009 6:03:24 AM
|
bluetyson
Posts 982
|
I think that is Tolbert that thinks that FSF is doomed.
Not sure why, because they are more advanced in most of the stuff they were talking about.
--
Free SF Reader
Not Free SF Reader
Super Reader
Australian SF Reader
Space Opera Reader
|
|
10/28/2009 6:07:39 AM
|
Soon Lee
Posts 571
|
I found fascinating the comments about the relative lack of influence the editor(s) have on matters of marketing/promotion/online presence.
There was discussion on the staleness of the Asimov's website, that the site could use some updating to attract new readers. Me, I'm not unhappy about the current look. I prefer content to flashy graphics. Charles Stross' blog is a good example of this. But then, I am already an Asimov's subscriber...
edited by Soon Lee on 10/28/2009
|
|
10/28/2009 7:47:40 AM
|
dolphintornsea
Posts 297
|
My apologies to Jeff VanderMeer if it was Jeremy Tolbert who thunk that F & SF was doomed.
I agree about the current look of the website. I have no problem with it. How is it supposed to look, anyway? Most of the websites that I like the most don't have much eye candy or system-straining graphics. And what's this about a logo change? I like the present logo. There's nothing wrong with it.
I will say this - I prefer the average F & SF cover to the average one of our magazine, but Sheila addressed this and the position is very understandable.
|
|
10/28/2009 8:42:56 AM
|
Gordon Van Gelder
Posts 127
|
I usually participate in these things, just because I think it's bad for business to have people predicting doom for the digests---I still remember reading James Gunn's 1975 prediction that the SF magazines would all be gone by the year 2000---but with World Fantasy Con coming, a new issue to finish, and a three-year-old to tend to, I just didn't have time for this one. Haven't even had time to listen to it, in fact.
One question: was there much discussion of the actual *contents* of the magazines? I know Jeff V. has been critical of some of the fiction appearing in the digests, but otherwise, it seems to me that the bulk of the discussion has been about everything except the stories themselves. Was this the case?
---Gordon V.G.
|
|
10/28/2009 10:08:06 AM
|
bluetyson
Posts 982
|
Gordon,
As far as I recall, Jeff made it pretty clear that he thought the fiction in the mags was good, generally speaking. e.g. no-one is going to like everything, and I think his preferred taste intersects with them a bit less than some of us.
Other than that, no particular discussion of contents except for perception of the writing stable. e.g. that Stableford/Resnick now is same as fifteen years ago.
The rest of us should always take such with a fairly serious chunk of sodium chloride, of course. VanderMeer and Tolbert are of course writers, so there's always a whiff of complaining bias underlying that 'they aren't publishing me, or the people I like the most, or my friends, etc.'
There's an amusing comeback to that one I haven't seen anyone use. Carousel after say 15 years then, is it? How many years you got left then JV? 
Also design talk - e.g. about actually reading the physical mag - really wide text close to the edges, that sort of thing. Which I agree, I don't like either. Don't like big hardbacks and trade paperbacks for the same reason - harder to read, wastes my time.
The communications and channel and image thing were talked about a lot, too. Also submissions - e.g. no electronic variety. They are right in that case that this does limit the talent pool. Also makes it more insular. Which I suppose relates to the who is in it thing, if the people actually sending stuff as a percentage declines too much.
Websites were mentioned, too, and Tolbert certainly has some authority there, being a reasonably talented producer of such.
The current versions with their rollover aren't very google friendly. E.g. new issue comes, old issue gone, rather than being archived so to speak - imagine if there was a page for FSF like the current one for every issue - or what is allowed to be stored, anyway, contents, story excerpts, etc. Much more content, much higher ranking for search. Paper based approach is what they came from I suppose. Contrast with the JBU or Clarkesworld 'issue' approach.
For you search for a recent well regarded story probably more likely to bring it up on a random blog mention than the magazine it came from.
Easy enough to send your blog feed to a twitter account or facebook via twitterfeed or something like that. Which, given the major search engines have said they are going to have tweet search engines also will help there.
--
Free SF Reader
Not Free SF Reader
Super Reader
Australian SF Reader
Space Opera Reader
|
|
10/28/2009 5:48:20 PM
|
Gordon Van Gelder
Posts 127
|
Thanks for the summation, Blue.
---Gordon V.G.
|
|
10/28/2009 8:11:38 PM
|
Dave_Truesdale
Posts 417
|
Take a listen when you get the chance, Gordon. Lots of talk about e-markets, marketing, and PR in the first half hour. Jeff stresses the point of perception and how marketing differs from PR, and why he believes Asimov's is failing in this aspect. Sheila mentioned that while Asimov's lost 111 print subscribers last year, they were up overall 10% in subscriptions thanks to ereader, kindle, etc.
A lot of stuff Jeff put forth is of course Jeff being Jeff (not necessarily good or bad, just Jeff) and it sounds eminently reasonable, but I'm not sure he supported some of his beliefs as well as he could have if he'd had a few more facts as to the outcome of his views on PR vs. marketing (i.e. concrete examples of how it worked toward a positive financial benefit for a magazine or whatever). Some of the various marketing strategies he and Jeremy put forth seemed to end up with them saying, in essence, "But who knows if it really works?" Brian gives the example of how Asimov's threw a lot of money at Comic con a few years ago, but the gist of this experiment, and those others mentioned, is that they just made their best guess at what target audience they might hit with either this, or that, strategy.
Anyway, it was an interesting hour and forty minutes. :-)
--
"When any category of science fiction writing has become dull and repetitive, there is always a brilliant story waiting to be written by giving up the assumptions that made the story easy to write." --Damon Knight
|
|
11/3/2009 9:47:40 PM
|
Marian
Posts 2178
|
Just bumping this up to go along with the other thread. 
--
"Know the truth and the truth shall make you odd."
|
|
11/4/2009 10:32:08 PM
|
Thomas R
Posts 2725
|
Marian wrote:
Just bumping this up to go along with the other thread.
Okay
--
To God be humble, to thy friend be kind, and with thy neighbors gladly lend and borrow His chance is tonight it might be thine tomorrow - William Dunbar
I don't lend money to eight-year-olds, at least not anymore. And if you see Billy tell him I'm looking for him - Coach McGuirk
|
|
pages:
1 |
|---|
