CCBC-Net Archives
Fwd: "Marginal" Awards - Trade-offs
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Christine Taylor-Butler <kansascitymom_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:20:30 -0600
Two thoughts,
1. - the CCBC numbers reflect authors writing more than one book so the number of "bodies" in the pool is actually smaller than the number of books published.
2. When attending the ALA awards announcements a few years ago i sat next to two publishers who I adore. And it did seem like there were a lot more topic specific awards. Only one of my friends walked away with an award - an honor book. The other seemed crestfallen because his company, like many other smaller companies, publishes books that given them joy rather than those to meet a market niche.
Said the second publisher. "I get it. I have to publish a book about an ethnic disabled vampire orphan who is raised by two gay parents to get any attention at the awards ceremony."
:-)…..C
>
>
>
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Charles Bayless wrote:
>
>>
>> New awards have been implemented over the past forty years to bring attention to particular categories of books whether by race or topic or genre or geographical location or some other attribute. All are well intended and all serve some purpose. As long as there are only one award or two awards, those get a lot of attention. What we have had in the past forty years is a wave of award proliferation and award specialization. It is not that any individual award is in some ways marginal or undeserving, it is that they are now competing with many others for attention. The oldest awards tend to have the best established brand (and also are the most open/general) and therefore stand more securely above the newer awards. What I am getting at is there is a difference between being marginal (which implies being irrelevant) and being crowded out. The more other awards that emerge, the more crowding out occurs.
> (quote truncated for space)…….
>>
>> This is essentially a marketing issue. Awards were meant to bring attention of particular books to the scattered reading public. They worked. Therefore more rewards were created and they worked as well but to a lesser degree of effectiveness. And the cycle continues. ….
>>
>> CB
>>
>>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:20:30 -0600
Two thoughts,
1. - the CCBC numbers reflect authors writing more than one book so the number of "bodies" in the pool is actually smaller than the number of books published.
2. When attending the ALA awards announcements a few years ago i sat next to two publishers who I adore. And it did seem like there were a lot more topic specific awards. Only one of my friends walked away with an award - an honor book. The other seemed crestfallen because his company, like many other smaller companies, publishes books that given them joy rather than those to meet a market niche.
Said the second publisher. "I get it. I have to publish a book about an ethnic disabled vampire orphan who is raised by two gay parents to get any attention at the awards ceremony."
:-)…..C
>
>
>
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Charles Bayless wrote:
>
>>
>> New awards have been implemented over the past forty years to bring attention to particular categories of books whether by race or topic or genre or geographical location or some other attribute. All are well intended and all serve some purpose. As long as there are only one award or two awards, those get a lot of attention. What we have had in the past forty years is a wave of award proliferation and award specialization. It is not that any individual award is in some ways marginal or undeserving, it is that they are now competing with many others for attention. The oldest awards tend to have the best established brand (and also are the most open/general) and therefore stand more securely above the newer awards. What I am getting at is there is a difference between being marginal (which implies being irrelevant) and being crowded out. The more other awards that emerge, the more crowding out occurs.
> (quote truncated for space)…….
>>
>> This is essentially a marketing issue. Awards were meant to bring attention of particular books to the scattered reading public. They worked. Therefore more rewards were created and they worked as well but to a lesser degree of effectiveness. And the cycle continues. ….
>>
>> CB
>>
>>
---
You are currently subscribed to ccbc-net as: ccbc-archive_at_post.education.wisc.edu.
To post to the list, send message to: ccbc-net_at_lists.wisc.edu
To receive messages in digest format, send a message to...
ccbc-net-request_at_lists.wisc.edu
...and include only this command in the body of the message:
set ccbc-net digest
CCBC-Net Archives
The CCBC-Net archives are available to all CCBC-Net listserv members. The archives are organized by month and year. A list of discussion topics (including month/year) is available at http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/ccbcnet/archives.asp
To access the archives, go to:
http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/ccbc-net
and enter the following:
username: ccbc-net
password: Look4Posts
Received on Thu 06 Feb 2014 03:21:03 PM CST
