Showing posts with label Conferences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conferences. Show all posts

Monday, March 28, 2022

London Calling - (But I have no fear)

I am excited to get back on the road again and be able to meet face to face with business partners.  I am looking forward to seeing London again as well.  So it is off to the London Bookfair!

APA is exhibiting in the American Collective Stand (6B80) so please drop by and let's touch base.

LBF has never been my favorite conference although I expect this will be very different than past shows. In the past, I never found the interactions as good as Frankfurt but I also seemed to be beset with bad experiences over the years. 

On one visit, a dinner on the eve of the conference to celebrate an acquisition gave me food poisoning so bad I couldn't leave my hotel for four days. On another occasion, I played Batman and chased a would be thief who had stolen a staff member's handbag through the length of Olympia hall. (I got it back). Last (and possibly the worst), we arranged an Ingenta customer lunch at great expense and no one showed up. A classic Ingenta performance.

But this will be different and I am happy to get back on the road again. Happy to get out and meet people and while not everyone is ready to meet physically, I do have meetings set up for the conference. 

Come by our booth (6B80) or email me to set up a meeting; mcairns@apa.org


 

 



Wednesday, December 09, 2020

Program - Frankfurt Academic Conference

 Last week the Frankfurt bookfair held an online (obvs) conference looking at some of the trends in academic publishing.  Here is the link:


https://www.frankfurtacademic.com/program



Wednesday, December 02, 2020

Hating BookExpo: Just Let it Go

Few people will miss BookExpo now that Reed Elsevier has placed a hold on future BookExpo and BookCon conferences. BookExpo has been knocking on deaths door for at least ten years now. Then again, it’s hard to run a vibrant industry conference when the primary constituencies are at war and hate each other. When I first attended BookExpo, it was in the shadow of the American Booksellers Association (ABA) lawsuit over unfair trading practices and when I stopped attending regularly the industry was reeling over Agency pricing. Spaced in between, was Len Riggio berating publishers from the keynote podium. In those early years, we were counting the inexorable increase in Barnes & Noble and Border superstores, but at least we had competition and choice: Now the single Amazon superstore reigns.

As an executive deciding on attendance, BookExpo was important through the mid-2000s but as the show’s focus became narrower and attendance fell with fewer and fewer decision makers, the companies I ran declined to attend at all. But this was not the case with the London and Frankfurt fairs which were far more international and addressed a broader market. Oddly, Bookexpo never brought together the wider range of publisher which the other international fairs managed to do and this contributed to the decline. In retrospect, BooksExpo was always a regional show, we just didn’t see it. A reliance on the New York location was also a sad decision made mainly in the interest of cost cutting. As Trade became narrower and narrower, Reed Elsevier failed to deal with this dynamic.

Way back in 2008, I wrote a complaining piece about the show and encouraged the organizers to bring in actual readers and open the show to the public. This wasn’t a unique view by any means but all that got me was an invite to sit on their advisory group. This turned out to be an annual waste of time but at least I got a free pass to the show. As a group we were never encouraged to reinvent the show and, in the end, the group disbanded. As it turned out, I was excised without notice at some point.

Sadly, as part of the Reed Elsevier announcement they are also placing BookCon on ice. While they were a little late to the party in launching this add-on conference (which does include the public) the direction made more sense. It is a shame Reed Elsevier were unable to do more with BookCon but perhaps this will be revived down the road. I believe someone will fill the gap that exists to support the reading public with an informative and interesting conference but obviously, in the current COVID environment that may not be in our immediate future.

BookExpo will never return. In the old days, conflicts could be diluted across a wider group of somewhat equally powerful participants; there was more respect for equal partners in the fight. Today though, the market has become over weighted – the concentration of trade publishing and the power of Amazon. If you are an independent bookseller, which was the core of the old ABA conference, you have been left out in the cold for a while now. No one will miss BookExpo.


Thursday, December 08, 2016

Digital Book World Relaunches for 2017

For many publishers concerned about digital publishing over the past ten years the annual Digital Book World (DBW) conference has been a must-attend event in New York.

Use this discount code for $100 off the registration fee: MICHAELCAIRNS100

This year it will be a different conference having undergone a needed top-to-bottom revision of content and purpose. I am looking forward to it since I have not attended in several years and, I anticipate a revised interest in new topics and digital constructs which all of us in the industry will be managing through over the next few years.

In an effort to manage the content and subject coverage for DWB this year Ted Hill, the new conference manager, has created the following focus areas which are all being led by 'captains' who have managed the selection of speakers and scope of their respective channels:
  • Editorial Acquisitions + Development: Laura Dail, president of Laura Dail Literary Agency, Inc.
  • Production + Distribution: Bill Kasdorf, vice president and principal consultant of Apex Content Solutions
  • Marketing + Sales: Rick Pascocello, marketing consultant and literary agent with Glass Literary Management
  • Analysis + Reporting: Kempton Mooney, senior director of research and analytics for Nielsen Book
  • DBW Indie Author: Jane Friedman, editor and publisher of TheHotSheet, columnist with PublishersWeekly, a professor with The Great Courses, and an award-winning blogger at JaneFriedman.com; and Porter Anderson, co-founder of The Hot Sheet, editor-in-chief of PublishingPerspectives, and principal of Porter Anderson Media
DBW gives attendees the opportunity to learn new approaches to old and new problems in digital publishing and to learn about new ideas and products. The forum is also exceptional in creating an environment for networking. There is more than ample time during the conference to mix with attendees and, if years past are any indication, there are always a lot of attendees for active mingling.
If you haven't been to DBW in a number of years - or even if you have - the 2017 conference will be a well-timed revision and well worth a look. Let me know if you are there and we can plan to meet.

Use this discount code for $100 off the registration fee: MICHAELCAIRNS100

Thursday, June 06, 2013

Society of Scholarly Publishers Panel: Remixing Content

There are four or five sessions devoted to remixing and reusing content here at the SSP conference which speaks to how much publishers are starting to really think about how they produce content that can be used in a multitude of ways.  I am hosting a Panel and here are my opening comments and the slide deck.




Chart 2: This session will explore ways to rethink and remix content in numerous ways that can be searched, browsed, repackaged and sold to achieve the publisher’s strategic objectives.  In this session today we will try to cover fragmenting, bundling, collections, cross selling, flexible e-commerce, academic adoptions, community networks, SEO and the ability to provide the right content when, where and how users want it.  That’s ambitious and if you don’t think a then end of the panel discussion we’ve covered it then please ask about it during the q&a.

Chart 3: On our panel today are Brian Erwin from Slicebooks, Alan Noren from O’Reilly Media and Catherine Flack from Cambridge University Press.  I will introduce each speaker as they present their section in a few minutes.  What I thought I would do was provide an introduction of this topic and then have each panelist provide a brief 10-15 minute presentation which we will then follow up with questions at the end.

First my introduction, I am Chief Operating Officer for the Online division of Publishing Technology which is a publishing applications and software provider based in Oxford, UK.  We are a sponsor of this conference and we have a stand in the exhibit hall so please come by and say hello.   I only accepted by position a month ago and this panel was suggested by my predecessor Louise Russell, but don’t let that worry you because I’ve been working with publishers on their content strategy for most of my career both as a consultant and as an operations executive.  Since 2006 I’ve consulted with publishers such as Wolters Kluwer and start-up businesses such as CourseLoad which are looking to re-invent part or all of their businesses with respect to how they create, manage and distribute content.   Prior to 2006, I ran RR Bowker which is primarily a bibliographic database company; but then, metadata is just another form of ‘content’.

Before Bowker, I was with PriceWaterhouseCoopers as a consultant in their Entertainment, Media and Communication practice.  Back in the mid-nineties we frequently made presentations to prospective and existing clients about ‘non-format specific publishing’ meaning we could help them create content process that were not dependent on the output format of that content.  Of course in those days the primarily output was print but the fact is that even today most publishers are not much further along in creating flexible, modular, componentized – call it what you will – content than they were in the mid-nineties.  Our charts during those presentations looked great but in reality they were almost irrelevant given the capabilities of the audiences we were addressing. 

Chart 4: Over the past three or four years I’ve worked with a wide spectrum of publishers in the scholarly and academic market who are only now beginning to recognize that they need to make fundamental changes in the manner in which they manage their content workflows. 

In one initiative over 18mths, I created a very large library of publisher content from academic journal and book publishers which eventually comprised approximately 200 publishers and 7million items of content.  In that effort I worked with many of you in this room and maybe this is your chance to put a face to a name.

Chart 5: In the process of this exercise it was clear to me that many publishers were not thinking about their content processes in a strategic way.  Not only are publishers still oriented to the ‘document’ but they find it very difficult to get their constituencies – author, editor, production managers, owners, etc. to allocate time, money and effort to implement real change in how their businesses operate.

Chart 6: All companies producing content should develop a content strategy.  Your business may have a set of big picture strategic objectives but what I am recommending is a programmatic, strategic re-think about how you manage your content creation process.  If you were to stop thinking about the ‘format’ or ‘document’ and more about the content item; then what would this mean for your business?  Which processes and relationships would need to change?  What technology might you need, etc. etc?  Are you able to establish some strategic targets around the answers to these questions and define some tactical objectives for reaching your objectives?

So you should be asking, how might you approach this effort?  The process may begin with an evaluation of your content: how is it created and who does that work.  What happens internally with the content once it is submitted by authors?  Externally, how does the market want to use and work with your content?   In my example in building the content library, many of the book publishers I worked with did not have chapter level content.  No abstracts, key words or metadata for their chapters.  In some cases the chapters had no titles merely sequential numbers.  This is not the way to present content to support flexible use by customers and I don’t think any of those publishers would disagree with me.  At the AAUP meeting last year, I heard from many publishers that their permissions revenues were rising year on year and I see this as a reflection of the faculty and researcher’s need to be able to find, use and even pay for just the right part of your content.  If you are not facilitating that you are missing out.

Chart 7: In the academic market there are numerous start-up businesses that want to enable content delivery at the base unit level: journal articles via Deep Dyve, book chapters and business case content via Gingotree, Symtext or full textbook content via CourseLoad.  These companies struggle with your content to make it usable for their clients whether they are researchers, academics, students or consumers.  It shouldn’t be that way but even more importantly you – as the publisher - should be able to offer this level of content flexibility directly to your customers.

These struggles with content may all come to a head in the mobile space.  As consumers rush to mobile devices for their content consumption it will be impossible for a content producer to supply content across all these devices unless they can COPE. 

Chart 8: What is COPE:  Create Once Publish Everywhere and increasingly we are seeing publishing adopt this principle.  It’s another way of saying ‘non-format specific content’ which is where we were in 1997 at PriceWaterhouse.

Chart 9: At Publishing Technology we are at the center of this effort with our pub2web solution which is a built from the ground up content management solution supporting all manner of business models, distribution services and content administration tools.  Our publisher clients are traditional academic publishers, associations and government agencies around the world and if you come by our stand we can tell you more about what we are doing.

Chart 10: In summary, you as a publisher need to begin to think of your content as a strategic asset of the business and as such you should devise a strategic plan for that aspect of your business.  Managed appropriately assets should return capital invested and the content you invest in should be no different. 

Chart 11:  When you get back to the office next week think about the following:
  • What do we need to do with our content creation process (and our author relationships) to make the content less dependent on an output format?
    • Chunking content while maintaining a web of interrelationships across the content.
    •  Can we actively involve authors in the process: Maybe give them an office!
  • How can we establish templates that support flexible content: Book>Chapter>Image>Diagram; Description>Abstract>Key words> Concepts>Author bios;
  • Who is doing this well?  Can we deconstruct their activity and build our own way?
  • What do our customers want: Content everywhere – so how do we deliver it?

Chart 12: I hope that my comments form a good introduction to this topic and let me know hand it over to the panel for our discussion.

Questions:
1.      How do publishers merge content separated by legacy systems?
2.      How can increased smaller offerings boost discoverability and find new markets?
3.      How to monetize backlists and granular content?
4.      How can publishers compete with free web models and go on the offensive again?
5.       How will it impact academic adoptions?
6.       How can this content organically find new markets?
7.       How can this tool keep backlist alive at no/low cost and with no accompanying inventory costs?
8.       How can this greatly increased amount of online content grow your company’s Search Engine Optimization and allow your company to compete with inferior content available on the Internet?

Friday, March 01, 2013

Presentation at NFAIS Conference on 2013 Predictions


Nfais 2013 from Michael Cairns

Presentation to NFAIS Annual Conference, February 25th, 2013

Thank you for inviting me.

Slide 1: Many years ago, I moderated a strategy workshop with a group of executives.  To kick things off, I wrote 12 potential business scenarios that could impact the future of the business and placed each separately on posters around the room.  I then asked each of the participating executives to agree or disagree with the premise of each scenario which they were to do without speaking to each other.  Once done we convened and discussed the results.  This exercise can be lots of fun and drive intense discussion about strategy and is always useful in breaking the ice if you have a group of executives who don’t know each other that well.  My client was a trade publisher and one of the scenarios was titled “Oprah is elected President” which was intended to drive discussion about what would happen when Oprah’s book club ended.  Such was Oprah’s power at the time that all the participants agreed she would be elected. 

Slide 2 I bring this up now because when we predict the future, which is what I am about to do, we sometimes leave ourselves open to ridicule later on.  I hope I don’t leave you all laughing by the end of this presentation.  I’ve been blogging for seven years and each year I spend some time thinking about the industry and post my predictions in the first week of January.  It is not intended to be comprehensive; just what interests me about what I see happening.  I have around 10,000 subscribers – who they are I have no idea - but I am fairly confident that 1% of this number are actual readers.  I say that facetiously, but if you happen to be one of the 1%, firstly thanks and secondly, I apologize that some of what I’ll be talking about today is duplicative.  Thanks to Jill O’Neil, who is clearly one of the 1% and, who asked me to speak today.

Slide 3 I’ve am very interested in the concept of content delivery ‘platforms’ which aggregate, serve and engage users around specific types of activity.  Several years ago I spoke at the Frankfurt Bookfair where I used the example of LexisNexis to show how they had used the platform construct to radically redefine their competitive marketplace.  Delivery platforms aren’t a new idea and professional publishers have done a lot of work with the concept over the past ten years.  It is still true however that many content owners and publishers have trouble with the idea that their traditional product – books, journals, etc.  – must be extensible to include applications, source data, user data, third-party content and “functionality”. 

Slide 4: Even using the word “functionality” together with ‘book’ or ‘journal’ bemuses them.
As I thought about this year’s predictions, I was especially interested in how the platform construct would apply to educational publishing.  This is actually my little secret: Blogging, in particular the longer pieces I’ve written – predictions being an example – flow from my need to make sense of what I see going on in the markets where I work. 

Slide 5: Blogging represents an important aspect of my knowledge and understanding of the business.  My specific interest in higher education has been fueled by my recent work with several education companies.  I’ve seen firsthand how the influences I will speak about are starting to become main stream.   Before we get into that, let’s catch-up on what has happened in publishing over the past year or so.

Slide 6: Most of the innovation and change in publishing is happening on the edges of the publishing industry and we’ll get to that in a minute.  To most traditionalists – or those still clinging to traditional publishing - it might seem that we’ve entered a period of stasis as publishing transforms itself.  At the end of 2011, it seemed to me that in their routine operations many publishers had realized the transition to electronic content delivery and absorbed the implications.  (That’s not the same thing as saying they have solved their problems.) So, perhaps, the past twelve months have been about catching our collective breath given the huge changes the Kindle and the iPad forced on publishers. 

Slide 7: That said, anyone who thinks the big changes are behind us is probably fooling himself, and may be lulling himself into catastrophic inaction.  Harbingers of dislocation and change are easy to see: You don’t have to go far. 

Slide 8: In the second half of 2012, we saw a slowdown in the growth rate of eBook unit sales; indications of a possibly significant substitution of tablets for eBook readers; a reconfirmation in several examples of a lack of enthusiasm by students for eBook based learning; a major strategic publishing merger destined to create a trade publishing goliath; and the sale of one of the big three education companies. 

Slide 9: Each of these would be significant in their own right but taken as a group suggest to me that more-- rather than fewer-- changes are on their way.  The expectation that the big trade houses would consolidate has persisted for at least five years: In fact, it is more surprising that the Random House/Penguin deal didn’t happen sooner, and now that it has, it’s a foregone conclusion that there will be another trade merger announced in the next few months, involving some combination of Harpercollins, Simon & Schuster and Hachette.  Perhaps all three will combine which would equal the deal announced last year in scale and significance.  But that’s unlikely.  One publisher will almost certainly end up the “odd one out” and it will be interesting to see which it is and what they do next.

Slide 10: To segue slightly and to think about the merger activity, the justification for a merger is often presented as an opportunity to save cost and expense, apply economies of scale and/or gain access to a new market.  At this point, expense and efficiency gains are more likely to be the primary drivers in both the McGraw-Hill and Random House Penguin cases. 

Slide 11: Each publisher will reduce headcount, facilities, distribution and other areas in order to deliver the same total quantity of titles.  They will be able to apply their investment over a larger number of products particularly important as they take full advantage of the move to digital.  In all publishing segments the value chain is compacting, making it far easier for content producers/authors to reach consumers directly.  This in turn, is changing the financial model on which publishing is based.  The functional areas where publishers added margin in order to make a profit – overhead, distribution, marketing & sales--are becoming less important (though not unimportant).  The implications of these changes for publishing houses in the context of the transition to digital have been clear for many years, but addressing how their businesses must change to cope with them is nowhere near complete in the larger houses in both trade and educational publishing.  Smaller, more nimble trade publishing companies like Hay House and SourceBooks have travelled much further down this path and I should make a clarifying point here.  Professional publishing is far, far down Transition Highway.  I’ve frequently used examples from professional publishing such as LexisNexis to show what change may look like to some of the laggards in the other segments.

Slide 12: On the education front, there has been widespread speculation that some merger of Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education will take place this year, since the two companies may end up with a common owner.  If they do, there may not be a full combination in the short term but some trading of assets may take place immediately to rationalize the respective businesses with deeper integration to come, perhaps, in 2014-2015.  Ultimately, 2013 may bring more significant change in the trade and educational landscape than we’ve seen in many recent years.  There will be a lot of focus on the big trade merger and, the industry’s other players will have to fight aggressively not to lose any advantage.  “Bigger will be better” when it comes to applying economies of scale in a business whose underlying business model is changing radically.  In education, we may be paying attention to McGraw-Hill and Cengage but Pearson, as the market leader, is likely to embark on even more aggressive strategies this year.  Under its new CEO, and with the divestiture of Penguin and possible sale of the FT Group, the company has forcefully declared education to be its focus.  In summary, a fairly active last 12 months with indications that there is more to come.  Now, I’d like to return to discussing the changes in education and the potential for change in educational publishing. 

Slide 13: As noted, I expect the platform construct to impact educational publishing.  In fact, Pearson began their adoption of the theory as long as five years ago.  You’d have to be living in a hole in the ground – or certainly somewhere without Internet – not to know there are vast changes underway in the higher education market.  These changes will alter everything we currently know and assume about how higher education functions such as “what, where, how, and when”.  Indeed, ‘who’ a student is may be one of the most fundamental changes we’ll see, relative to how we define a student today.

Slide 14: In education more broadly, all education-content companies (other than Pearson) are only at the beginning of their transition from content providers to embedded content and services providers.  Professional information publishers such as Bloomberg, Thomson and Elsevier have long been able to provide aggregated content and services at the point of need and education publishers will be doing the same thing in the not-too-distant future.  At the Consumer Electronics Show in January, McGraw-Hill made some interesting announcements about product development investments they have been making which presage how this “services approach” may take shape.  But it is still early days.  We will see an aggregation model emerge in education, where content ‘platforms’ deliver content and services based on a different financial model than the current retail or ‘student buys the book’ model.  Publishers are being pushed by some important customers: Initiatives underway in California, Minnesota and Indiana for example show that experimentation is starting to happen with more frequency and publishers are being challenged to think differently about their market.  As I prepared this presentation, I used my predictions post as the framework but I also did some additional research.  Not least because if I had relied entirely on my blog post we would be done by now.  One of the research nuggets I came across concerned the effectiveness of education. 

Slide 15: A study found that 45 percent of students surveyed said they had had no significant gain in knowledge after their first two years of college.  That is the students saying they haven’t learned anything!

Slide 16: Higher education is straining to prove its relevance and effectiveness in the 21st century while simultaneously saddling the average student with more than $100,000 in tuition debt, which the student will then strain to pay because she hasn’t acquired the right skills for employment and has to take a low paying job.  We are starting to see how the Internet and technology are helping to drive change in education to break this cycle.  Of course, change can be worrying especially for the incumbents with the most to lose and no one takes on change willingly if it hurts.  In education, we have an industry that is especially structured and entrenched where ‘tradition’ is almost its defining characteristic.  For a lot of players, this is a cushy existence but it will not last much longer. 

Slide 17: Using the example of other industries, transformation has often shown that change can be liberating and has the capacity to unleash new economic value.  As more and more experimentation in education takes place, steadfast resistance to change will wilt as new models, wider access and better outcomes help create new economic value.  I couldn’t find hard data on how much new economic ‘value’ Craigslist unleashed as it redefined the newspaper classified advertising business.  Maybe the data doesn’t exist, but I think the value considerable.  Craigslist is easy, cheap and measurably effective and newspapers failed by comparison.  Anyone know AirBnB? Using AirBnB you can turn your spare room – or your pool house - into a hotel room.  AirBnB has been around for about four years and is booking more room nights than Hilton.  Think about that.  My friend’s pool house in Beverly Hills was unmonetized but now it helps pay the mortgage. 

Slide 18: ZipCar is another example and there are many others.  In the media world, Facebook, Amazon and iTunes are the obvious examples but WalMart could also be considered a “platform”. 

Slide 19: What platforms do is ‘normalize’ a set of behaviors that occur when people/customers communicate and transact information, goods and services.  As the platform attracts more users – presumably because they create value for the user – the cost of providing the platform becomes cheaper.  The delivery of education is also a network of transactions between suppliers, faculty (university) and students.  Most of these transactions are ‘physical’ but are rapidly going electronic and in the process they take advantage of ‘network’ effects that make communication, transactions and services easier, more affordable and widely available.
The examples of recent radical change in disparate businesses such as music, newspapers, airlines and advertising confirms the inevitability that education will become yet another industry to evolve in the same fashion.  Investment money is flowing to new companies seeking to take advantage of a business in transition which is why private-equity investment in education is rapidly increasing year on year from $100 million in 2007 to nearly $400 million last year.  What is happening in education is very exciting.  The manner in which teaching is delivered, how content is created and how success is measured are all under stress.  A primary enabler of this change is technology, and specifically, the Web – which will be obvious to most of us here. 

Slide 20: Over the past 18 months, the higher education establishment has been rocked by the development of these Massive Open Online Courses or MOOCs.  This direct-to-student model isn’t encumbered by the physical limitations of a traditional campus – nor, it should be said, by things like accreditation, student outcomes or a business model.  At least not yet. 
So compelling are the opportunities to launch MOOC-based ‘institutions’ that high-profile faculty have quit their boring professorships and started new companies delivering MOOCs.  Even big-name traditional schools have banded together (like a Big East or PAC10 for MOOCs).  You will have heard of these companies with names like Coursera, EdX and Udacity.  Has anyone signed up for a course? I think we all should.  On the content side, the textbook still reigns; however, faculty are seeking more choice and power over the course materials they assign their students and, increasingly are looking for custom solutions from their primary textbook publisher.  Permissions revenues – for individual chapters and journal articles – are growing faster than overall textbook revenues, signaling that faculty are making more specific content choices for assignments.  Custom textbook publishing is also growing faster than the overall education market as the largest publishers have upped their game by being able to provide tailored products to their customers.  Additionally, new technology-based companies are emerging, such as Ginkgotree, Symtext and CourseLoad, which offer faculty-driven solutions for the creation and delivery of customized learning materials that support text, video and audio formats delivered to the student in print or digital versions.

Slide 21: Assessment and adaptive learning tools also garner significant attention but mostly in K-12.  That’s not an area where I spend a lot of my time.  But while K-12 hogs the limelight at the moment, it is my belief that assessment in higher ed. will eventually be bigger than anything we will see in K-12 because only through assessment and adaptive learning will we be able to bridge the gap between higher education and industry.  Assessment in higher ed. will be used to evaluate and test a student’s mastery of what they learned in college as a basic criteria for the career they want to start.  As students navigate through college they and their faculty will be able to monitor performance and remediate where needed.  The basis of their ‘assessments’ will be more closely tied to their career objectives.  Adaptive learning tools will also enable students to see how their approach and behavior impacts their ability to learn.  In the old world, students have to wait to be graded but it is conceivable that these new tools will lead students to take more responsibility for their own education, empowering them to ensure success.  There should be little surprise that assessment will be used for career advancement in more fundamental ways and to support education programs for people already advanced in their careers.  This is what I referred to when I speculated about the change in ‘who’ we will think of as a “student”.  To this end, we are beginning to see deeper collaboration between education and business to correct a very particular problem - that students are not being taught the right stuff.  There are already many examples of community colleges collaborating with local businesses to produce workers for them, and new companies, like UniversityNow, are developing cost-effective degree programs correlated to industry and business requirements.  There will be many more.

Slide 22: The rapid rise of the MOOC suggests big opportunities when education can be ‘freed-up’ outside the constraints of the traditional model.  In simple terms, what MOOCs address is the disparity between supply and demand.  Stanford can only accept so many students; but on the Web, all bets are off.  To give you perspective, some of the early classes registered over 150,000 students.  In one Stanford MOOC, of the top ten students who completed the class, none were full-time “Stanford” students.  Not only could Stanford not address this audience but when they did some of the students performed better than the ‘real’ Stanford students.  The reason many elite schools jumped so quickly on the MOOC band wagon and formed the companies I mentioned earlier is that they know they must be positioned to leverage their ‘brands’ on a global scale.  They don’t want to be locked out of markets serving China, the Middle East and India, which represent vast new student populations they can suddenly reach effectively.  It is very early days yet for the MOOC movement and there are some particular issues that need to be addressed including the revenue model, accreditation, certification/degree granting, cheating and security.  But since this movement, as we know it now, is less than 24 months old, some latitude is due in addressing what don’t appear to be insurmountable problems.

Slide 23: To summarize, here’s a quote from Nathan Harden in the American Interest Magazine from last month:
“In fifty years, if not much sooner, half of the roughly 4,500 colleges and universities now operating in the United States will have ceased to exist.  The technology driving this change is already at work, and nothing can stop it.  The future looks like this: Access to college-level education will be free for everyone; the residential college campus will become largely obsolete; tens of thousands of professors will lose their jobs; the bachelor’s degree will become increasingly irrelevant; and ten years from now Harvard will enroll ten million students.
That’s because recent history shows us that the Internet is a great destroyer of any traditional business that relies on the sale of information.  The Internet destroyed the livelihoods of traditional stock brokers and bonds salesmen by giving everyone access to the proprietary information they used to sell.  The same technology enabled bankers and financiers to develop new products and methods, but, as it turned out, the experience necessary to manage it all did not keep up.”
While his predication is truly dire for educators (except Harvard), I actually believe the change will take place faster than Harden’s 50 years.  There is just too much pressure from businesses that can’t get qualified candidates, the student debt issue, unaccountable administrators, public funding problems and the increasing amount of high-quality learning material that can be accessed for free.  There are also strong challenges to the idea that education has to be personal.  Real-life experience from Stanford shows that technology-enabled learning can be as effective as in-class delivery.  Additional research conducted at Carnegie Mellon – also noted in Harden’s article – found that when machine-guided learning is combined with traditional classroom instruction, students can learn material in half the time.  It was the technology, not the in-class component, that drove that efficiency. 

Slide 24:
As the younger generation become students – having grown up with social networking – the effectiveness of technology-driven tools and machine-based social interaction will only improve, pushing education even harder.  Let me give you an example:  In 2011, I heard about what Indiana University was doing with educational content.  The school realized that they could both influence the cost of content assigned to students and exert some control over what content is assigned on campuses. 

Slide 25: To do so, Indiana decided they would work with publishers directly and licensed a ‘platform’ from a startup company named Courseload.  The Courseload platform is built so that content can be added to it and then accessed by students as needed for classes.  Indiana negotiates directly with the education publishers to make all their content available on the platform and they pay the publishers based on headcount.  In this model, every student gets access to all the materials assigned by their professor which also means no returns, no used books and 100% sell through.  The publisher ‘pays’ if you will, with a bigger discount.  This is considered an experiment at Indiana and as they continue to tweak the model other schools are taking notice.  You may wonder who the ‘customer’ is on campus for these initiatives and it varies widely from campus to campus.  At Indiana, this initiative came out of the Chief Technologist’s Office. 

Slide 27: As this model evolves, academic librarians, college bookstores and universities will be offered an extensive database of educational material from which faculty can choose the material – possibly pre-selected, topic-driven packages – that is best suited to their classes.  Faculty will need some help here, and who will deliver this help is an open question, but it could be the TA, librarian, bookstore or publisher.  I believe these existing ‘experts’ on campus will position themselves to add new services and capability in support of their faculty using the platform solutions provided by their vendors.  Platform providers such as Amazon, Blackboard, Pearson and EBSCO may soon be the only efficient way for publishers to reach students.  The winners will be in a unique position to provide the audience for publishers unable to compete in the platform stakes.  Providers will negotiate distribution agreements with other content providers and providers will compete against each other to offer the best combination of content.  But a more likely and important point of differentiation will be the unique services and level of integration they can provide faculty, administrators and students.  Perhaps, instead of Pearson and EBSCO, we should think Reuters and Bloomberg as directionally indicative of what will happen. 

Slide 27: In the context of Indiana it becomes easy to see how the Courseload platform can become a product catalog, library, archive and publishing platform.  It may support tools for collaboration, assessment and remediation and via API a front door for ‘value-added’ partners supplying other products and services of value to users.  It’s not there yet but it’s entirely possible.  As the Courseload experiment suggests, we will see changes in revenue models.  For example, instead of profit models based on revenue per book, think “per head” or “per desk”.  In addition, an all in revenue model may also put paid to the argument for DRM protection in education.  A very positive byproduct of this change in content provision will be a complete integration of library resources, institutional resources and the adoption of the consortia buying/negotiation model that together, will create more effective options for students and administrators.  It seems odd (to me) that content sources, as they are currently supplied to students and faculty on campuses, often stand independently of each other and can only be ‘integrated’ through a manual, rudimentary process (by which I mean a copier and a stapler).  And it’s even odder when you consider that libraries have long been licensing tools and services from EBSCO and Serials Solutions which provide deep integration of and access to the databases and content the academic library licenses.  It will only be a matter of time before pan-university content assets – library licensed content, faculty and university produced materials and archived and professionally published content, etc.  - are brought together.  I expect the platform model will facilitate this change.

Slide 28: Opportunities for innovators will continue to emerge, as one would expect in a rapidly changing market.  I’ve mentioned only a few of the new companies that come up every day.  I do believe however, that many of the niche or narrow solutions currently on offer--whether they be assessment, content-delivery or search tools-- will ‘run out of market-space’ as these solutions become embedded in, subsumed by and/or offered as an attribute of the platform solution.  I see opportunity in the delivery of solutions that help specific users – say, university faculty – take full advantage of the integration of content and services that will occur on campus, since many user groups will need to change the way they conduct their usual activities.  The outcome of these work changes will be to generate more productivity and better solutions, but getting there will require ‘intelligent agents’ to facilitate—to help assemble content, training programs, workflow and productivity tools and similar applications to rewire their work environments.  These intelligent agents may be human (as noted earlier) but they could also be virtual.  In education, platforms like Blackboard and Desire2Learn may have an advantage, given their current installed base on campus, even though they don’t have deep content integration but they have ‘automated’ many workflows on campus.  Let me conclude with the following: At the beginning, I mentioned how companies like Craigslist had unlocked value.  So, an obvious question may be where do I see this occurring in education? There are probably many opportunities for this in an environment where our education ‘business’ is so broken.
I mentioned earlier that MOOCs don’t currently have a business model, but in the fast moving world of innovation, this isn’t necessarily true.  Some MOOCs are working with businesses and offering a paid service to match students with job openings.  The student ‘opts in’ to the program to make their class performance available to recruiters which then pay the MOOC for this access.  The win here is to improve the efficiency of finding qualified staff members for the business and reduce the on-the-job training they currently face from under-educated recruits.  As employees recruited in this manner are successful, the legitimacy of the MOOC as a filter to find qualified workers increases.  There is a huge opportunity in bridging this ‘gap’ between education and business and we’ll see new companies enter this market.  It’s not a sustainable model if you assume education will eventually get its act together to provide better education, but it could be a market opportunity for many years to come.

Slide 29: In conclusion, when I titled my predictions for this year I suggested that it was the “end of the middleman”; this is perhaps a little simplistic but, with some latitude, we are seeing a compacting of the value chain and many more options do exist for content owners to reach end users without the ‘benefits’ or ‘encumbrances’ of intermediaries.  Additionally, producers are also able to add more around the content to add value or understanding to the base product.  Here examples would be photo collections, data sets and managed communities, all of which would have been impossible in the “old world” and even in the digital world are difficult to manage if there are middlemen to accommodate.  My self-flagellation over my simplification has to do with a tendency in all of us to underestimate the ability of things to adapt and change fast.  Examples in professional publishing indicates that what we begin to see in platforms is not so much a repository of ‘ready-made’ solutions like books, journal articles, collections and the like but more a biosphere akin to an operating system supporting the end-user in everything from content creation and hosting to user and community engagement and in the case of education – life-long learning.  There is an exciting future to come in educational publishing and we are only just on the cusp of it.

Slide 30: Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions.
 

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

In RE Books: Conference on law and the future of Books

I'll be going to this on Friday and Saturday.  It may already be full but looks interesting from New York Law School.  More details HERE:

In re Books main graphic

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Frankfurt: Selections from the Show Dailies

Highlights from the show Dailies:

PW Show Daily October 10th:

Interview with James Daunt of Waterstones (Page 12)
So is Daunt’s new boss happy with the way things are going? The Managing Director in whose steady hands so much rests points out that Alexander Mamut, a long-time customer of Daunt Books, lives in Moscow and isn’t here that much, but yes, he’s pleased. Was it a big decision to step back from the chain he founded and had so lovingly created to take on the nightmare that was Waterstones? He turns slightly mischievous. “Waterstones was about to disappear and I don’t think that was going to be great for the British book trade. I’m not sure how Daunt Books was going to survive in that environment. Random House doesn’t run a warehouse to supply the likes of Daunts; it’s to supply Waterstones. Where would we have been a year on from there being no Waterstones? I don’t know.” A thought bubble seems to hang over Daunt’s head. “Waterstones not being there was going to be extremely damaging to our ecosystem. A world of supermarkets and online would have been a pretty bleak one. Independents would have found it very hard to carry on. The writing was on the wall for a very long time. Somebody had to do something.”
Doug Wright on the Future of Content Delivery (Page 34):
Professional networks are increasingly being used to provide services that give real value to the community and improve engagement, alongside content delivery. Examples of this credentialed, peer-to-peer approach include the Researcher Exchange from GSE Research. It has the facility for members to comment on journal content via the open peer-review model or to ask questions of their peers ;and it enables corporations to find expert consultants, and authors to find collaborators, via a sophisticated author search whereby a user can pinpoint experts within a particular field within a particular organisation
Cory Doctorow urges publishers to support ideas such as the Humble eBook Bundle (Page 38)
Yet, one of the biggest surprises to me in curating the HumbleEbook Bundle has been some publishers’ unwillingness to experiment with just one or two DRM-free titles in a new kind of promotion that carries a proven track record of success in a related field.I understand the industry is concerned that the perceived value of an ebook is a matter of credit and psychology, and that no one among the Big Six American houses wants the “fair price” for an ebook to drop. But I also don’t think they can do much about this: there are, by orders of magnitude, more amateur and independent ebooks entering the marketplace than the Big Six produce, and many of them are at low price points. At the same time, the Humble Indie Bundles have a record of enticing people to pay more, on average, than they would pay for the unbundled items. Sure, some people pay nothing. But why not experiment? Isn’t the idea of a successful business to make as much profit as possible; not as much profit as possible from each separate customer
PW Show Daily October 11th:

Michael Bhaskar: Working Together - Digitally (Page 8)
Here’s the rub. Digital is difficult and expensive. Simply to compete with all the other digital media producers out there means constantly raising the bar. We are in a kind of functionality and design arms race, where coming out with what wowed people last week bores them the next. You have to constantly push the envelope and you have to do this in a blizzard of competition in an environment of colossal risk, where abject failure is worryingly common. You are dealing with high upfront costs, at best uncertain demand, unstable, usually low pricing necessitating a high volume of sales and much control ceded to giant technology corporations. Yes, it’s like books–only more so.
Nikko Pfund - A Billion Dollar Process (Page 10):
PW:
Speaking of OSO, you’ve now expanded it into University PressScholarship Online (UPSO), and inked deals with publishers, including major presses such as California and Chicago. What is it like to be sharing your platform with publishers who are technically competitors?
NP:
It has been far more natural and uncomplicated than we’d dared hope. It helps that t he university press world is one of mutual support and commonality of purpose. Ultimately, I think the benefits to the scholarly and the university press community–in terms of access, learning, collaborating with other mission-driven not-for-profits, and tackling some challenges together as a community–far outweigh any competitive advantages that may be derived from our platform. So I don’t fret about the competitive aspect of UPSO at all. Technology is important, but university presses have strong personalities
Making Copyright Work in a Digital Age (Page 22)
The aim of the LCC is that through interoperability, the use of existing open standards (such as the International Standard Text Identifier and the International Standard Name Identifier , and commonality in the area of rights management, to produce a cross-media framework for a standards-based communications infra-structure that will enable businesses and individuals to man-age and communicate their rights more effectively online. The idea is for an automated rights clearance system in which content from all sectors is tagged and can be identified with a single click. The system would then allow users to request permission for specific uses and access the appropriate licences.
Open Access or Open Season (Page 46)
The burning question for publishers is how this greater open access might be achieved without causing the collapse of the publishing industry. One of the options considered by the Finch committee was the mandatory across-the-board introduction of the Green Delayed Access model after a six-month embargo, regardless of the discipline served by the journal or its estimated half-life. The Publishers Association and the Association of Learned, Professional and Society Publishers together commissioned a piece of work to try to ascertain what the likely effect of this would be on academic journals subscriptions (available at www.publishingresearch.net); its headline findings are displayed in the graphs.
PW Show Daily October 12:

Prepare for the Subscription Economy (Page 28)
We talk about data a lot in publishing: “Data is the New Oil” was the mantra of the BICNew Trends Summer Seminar in London. But when print publishers talk about data, theyare talking about product data: metadata. And metadata is crucial to the supply chain. But what we have missed is that when t he rest of the world talks about data, they are talking about “big data”: personal data, customer data, usage data, transactional data etc. They are talking about using data to reach and be relevant to individuals. We need to wake up to this; and when we do we are going to wake up to an unholy mess in our back offices. We already find it difficult enough to use data well at re-seller level (not customer or use level) let alone monetizing on a use basis (unless it is via an aggregator saving us the pain of ever getting to grips with new transactional business models). And it is this that makes Zuora (used by Pearson, by the way) so fascinating to me. They have understood that the internet has changed the whole context and therefore the fundamental basis of commercial transactions.
Publishing Perspectives:

E-Books Offer Silver Lining for Australians:
And all this despite the Fifty Shades of Grey dividend: the three books in the trilogy have sold 2 million copies this year, or over 5% of all sales. Without E. L. James’ enlivening of Australian marital life, volume sales would have been down by over 15%.
Two tough years back-to-back has created casualties. Last month, one of Australia’s hitherto most dynamic trade publishers, Murdoch Books, finally gave up the fight and has been bought by the largest local publisher, Allen & Unwin, with a large number of jobs lost. Specialist R&R Publications has gone into liquidation, and Melbourne University Publishing posted a $2.1 million loss. Sales forces and lists are being trimmed, while one of Australia’s two remaining book printers, OPUS Group (which missed out on printing Fifty Shades), is also downsizing after posting large losses. Adding to the gloom, major educational bookseller Education Works has gone into liquidation following an unsuccessful brush with venture capitalism.
IPA’s Global Ranking of Publishing Markets—US, China on Top

B&N in Frankfurt: We Come in Peace
Why no B&N branding? Because their team was there representing an entirely new company, Nook Media, armed with $300 million from Microsoft and another $305 million committed over the next several years.
“Microsoft?” you say, “I thought they were dead, doomed to second-tier status by Apple.” Yes, well, as we noted last week, users of Microsoft devices are the most active buyers of book content on mobile devices, so it would make sense that they would invest in the book business (after, it must be noted, killing off their own book digitization project several years ago).
Not for Nothing - PW and Publishing Perspectives make it purposefully difficult to collect, cite and link to this content. Well done!

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Business Out of the Ordinary

By nature, business development is often more disappointing than validating.  That brilliant deal you thought was so obvious and beneficial can fail for all kinds of reasons.  Rallying internal support for a business initiative can be harder than finding the perfect external partner and there’s no accounting for how short-sighted or uninspired a company might be in assessing its position and prospects.  Most of my experience is in publishing and I am routinely surprised by the wide gulf between the small number of companies interested in exploring new ideas and the majority who can’t or choose not to.  Business development is all about mutual benefit--defining an outcome that balances the inputs to the product or project and the output of success.   Publishers, in particular, often seem to go out of their way to discourage advances from potential partners.

Thinking about this topic recently, I was reminded of a series of meetings I organized while at Berlitz, the language company.   When I assumed income statement responsibility for one of their business units, I found I’d inherited an unexpectedly lucrative licensing deal when the first-quarter royalty check came in at more than $98,000 when we had budgeted $100,000 for the full year. In addition to being pleasantly surprised, I realized we could do even more with the relationship, now about to enter its second year.

As business partnerships went, this was one of the best.  One day a couple of years before, two IT professors talked their way into Berlitz and happened to reach the right executive – purely by chance – with the idea that they could marry their CD-ROM technology with Berlitz’s self-teaching language material.  The product got off to a slow start and revenues were small for the first year, but the Berlitz executive who did the deal had pressed his advantage and we were taking 20% off each sale.  By the time that check came in, the guy who did the deal was gone and I (happily) was running my first real business.  The second-quarter check that year was $150,000 and we finished the year over $400,000.

That first foray seemed to indicate that technology had a role to play in the delivery of educational material despite the fact that, in those early years of ‘multi-media’ publishing, the CD-ROM product was simply a direct translation of the print/audio product.  But more sophisticated opportunities were obvious to anyone willing to think differently and, even before our one-product CD-ROM partner was acquired by a much larger company, I’d started to explore how we could expand this relationship.  Once The Learning Company (publisher of the Reader Rabbit series) acquired our partner, I began discussions to form a deeper association.  I got very little support from senior management at Berlitz, many of whom believed self-teaching materials would cannibalize in-class instruction and somehow damage the Berlitz brand (- an insane proposition).  Over the course of the next six months, I wrote business plans and extrapolated models with the sole goal of forming an equal partnership between Berlitz and The Learning Company (it took that long to get the two groups together). The idea was simple: Apply the Berlitz brand to TLS’s entire language learning product line rather than to just the one product they had acquired with their purchase.  

By that time, I had decided to leave Berlitz--arranging the CEO meeting was the last meaningful thing I accomplished and I did it proudly.  On my way out, I commented to our CEO was that there wasn’t anything else to do: We had agreed terms which were being reviewed, but it still took another year to complete the deal.  That unproductive year probably cost Berlitz over $1mm in profit.  Even more dispiriting was that fact that, once the deal was done, neither Berlitz nor TLC was able to expand beyond the language titles each already produced.  Had they done so, they would have created an education brand of far greater strength and depth.  Successful business development requires vision and commitment and, if these aren’t in play, all initiatives fail.

Good business development requires that you do your homework and have a clear idea how the project will be mutually beneficial.  In my development dealings, I’m less concerned about wasting my potential partner’s time than I am about wasting my own.  This isn’t arrogance on my part: I’m always comfortable in the knowledge that I’m proposing something of significant value to the target and, given the chance, I can present my case convincingly.  Sadly, many other industry overtures don’t fall into this category because no real thought has gone into the proposal and it’s often glaringly obvious.  In the run- up to the London Book Fair last month, I received many proposals for business services bearing no relationship to what our company does.  Bogus proposals like these cause all of us to be circumspect about any business development initiative because, all too frequently, they are irrelevant.  It can be hard to overcome this barrier.

Nevertheless, despite these spurious approaches, I am frequently baffled by the sheer lack of curiosity exhibited by some of the companies I’ve contacted.  Publishing and media are currently undergoing wrenching change—the way we now do just about everything will be very different five years from now (and maybe even next year).  Some, with withered hands firmly pressing against the figurative front doors of their publishing houses, deny entry to any new force as if they could overcome change with feigned ignorance and exasperation.  I don’t forget the few slammed phone receivers or nasty outbursts but I do relish when they come back for a second look--it proves that good business development eventually wins out.

Curiously, digital conferences are big business because, supposedly, there is a collective striving for  greater knowledge or understanding about the direction of our business.   If attending a digital conference is a substitute for real, proactive business development –actively looking for new ideas and partners – have we changed how we conduct daily business operations in order to be more receptive to development opportunities from potential partners from outside our traditional universe?   Not in my experience.  (Presumably, your conventional partners are all tapped out!)

Who on your staff is responsible for fielding the occasional new business opportunity?   Are they identified on your web site?  Let me take a step back; is anyone identified on your web site?  And, if they are, do you list their phone numbers and e-mail addresses?  I’ve visited many web sites where the only communication option is via an anonymous “info@” e-mail address!   I understand there’s resistance to hearing from all kinds of wackos but this is the way business is conducted.  And I’ve got news for you: For anyone with a modicum of patience, tracking down almost any phone number and email address is ridiculously easy so not putting these on your website is only an irritant.  A far better approach would be to identify the executive responsible for fielding business development proposals, describe the kind of business ideas you are interested in and define a format for proposing them.  Present press releases from completed deals to give visitors to your site essential background and context for prospective partnerships.  Proactively manage this process and you will not only save yourself (and your potential partner) valuable time while still opening up your company to new and interesting business opportunities.

One thing I learned when I attained a certain level of management responsibility was to be immediately and also politely forthright about my interest level in proposals.  Don’t just slam the phone down—take the time to clarify your understanding of the overture and then be clear about why it’s not something you’re interesting in pursing.   There’s nothing worse than wasting everyone’s time on repeated attempts to make something work if one party is really not interested: End it as soon as possible but do so professionally and with an explanation.  You say you don’t need to provide an explanation?  I would disagree; not only is it professional courtesy but the intellectual exercise of thinking things through is essential for seeing how, in the future, out of the ordinary ideas could support your business objectives in ways you hadn’t thought of.

As our industry continues to corkscrew through changes, we increasingly feel like its 'business out of the ordinary', but this is manageable and, while some of us might want to ignore our circumstances, most of us would like to survive in this new and different world.  That requires a receptiveness to new ways of working and openness to new partners offering ideas and solutions we’ve never thought of.  Therein lies the true opportunity for good business development.  Once, Berlitz was a company virtually devoid of technology: The customer experience was completely dependent on humans delivering live language instruction; their salaries and rent for school locations around the world comprised the vast majority of the company’s expense.  We knew nothing of technology but saw the potential in a simple CD-ROM product and it is sometimes upon the most tenuous of platforms that key relationships can be established.  I believe that those companies open to extrapolating beyond their current circumstances are those that will embrace business development as a function for growth beyond the confines of their existing environments and will prosper as a result.  Companies who don’t, won’t.

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Wanting Contact

Most conferences now encourage attendees to reach out in advance to set up meetings with exhibitors. I tend to use this option as a last resort but and I've occasionally been able to set up business meetings with a target this way. London Bookfair and BookExpo are two conferences where I used their conference networking function.  Unfortunately, it is my experience this avenue is frequently ignored by the publisher, despite the fact that there is frequently a specific person identified as the recipient for your message.  I'm not sure if this is due to laziness or just incompetence but either way this makes this route to contacting a target often hit or miss.

Sometimes - and this has occurred to me in other contexts - you wonder at the decision making and competence of some of the people on the front lines.  Given some responses I've received from marketing and sales staff, I wonder how aware senior management are in the breadth and depth of the barriers sometimes placed in front of people who want to do business with them.  Training any staff to use their common sense or go beyond the strict limits of their job description for the betterment of the company sounds like something that wouldn't be needed but that's often not my experience.  This might be especially true of staff who are placed as points of contact - at a trade show or conference, etc. - where they are likely to receive a wide array of overtures.  Most of these will be spurious but occasionally that's not the case.  Many of these contacts will be beyond the staff's experience or specific day-to-day job responsibilities (that's the nature of a trade show), and they should be trained to validate these contacts and forward them to the right internal person.  Or they could simply provide the right person to approach.  Too often they are not forthcoming in either way.

At a recent conference, I noticed that a division of a publisher who I've been trying to reach for a long time was exhibiting.  Since all my prior contacts had run cold I reached out to the contact person on the conference website.  I validated my approach by noting we were working with a sister division of the company (and with several competitors) but to no avail.  I was told that the division was not in fact exhibiting this year and the marketing assistant suggested I register on their supplier website and the right person would get back to me.  I went to the supplier website and it was clear to me this site was more for plumbers and paper suppliers.  Not exactly where I thought I'd get the right response.

When I went back to the marketing person to question whether registering on that site was likely to put me in touch with someone at the same level as the person we were working with in their sister division, I got the pert response from the marketing assistance 'why don't you ask her yourself?'  That's a quote.

That wasn't very helpful but the story has a happy ending.  My colleague, was also chasing a contract at the same company, ended up getting a meeting at the show.  Interestingly, when I went by the stand the marketing person I had the above exchange with was standing right next to the person my colleague arranged to meet.  Now, how do I remind that marketing person about her complete incompetence - in a nice way, and shouldn't the boss know what the front line is doing?