I think we should try to do *all* new editions instead of new editions *by 1 publisher*, or at least discuss the idea.
If Facebook is the main tool we have, I can already see the question "Why _________ publisher and not _________ publisher?" coming up 12 million times, on the wall, in discussion threads, in messages to admins, ... overshadowing the overall goal and likely hurting numbers by discouraging people from joining and ESPECIALLY inviting friends. Also, if we pick only 1 publisher, that means anyone who doesn't have pointless new editions from other publishers isn't a participant.
At first I thought we could get more leverage if we made an example out of a single company, but now I think we can do better if we attack all the companies at once. That way the bookstores feel more heat. If bookstores start telling professors they don't want to run a financial risk on pointless new editions, professors can't assign the books in future semesters, which might ... MIGHT ... be the best route to a broader solution. Worth a discussion, imho.
Grant, how about posting a sample text soon? I think the one from the very first post you made would make a good start. If we have a sample text, we can (more practically) scrutinize the idea until it's ready to hold up to a larger audience.
^^^^^^^^^^
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly."
1.) Part of the industry-rampant problem is continual issuing of new editions. Book editions are planned months in advance. Everybody does it. Picking one publisher isn't going to change the fact that all publishers were planning to release new editions in January.
2.) Boycotts are historically more effective when leveraged against one company. If we go industry-wide, we're not going to have enough leverage and our target will be too wide. By picking one publisher, we set a clear and common target.
---
The world will not be saved by old minds and new programs. If the world is to be saved, it will be saved by new minds -- and no programs.
you didn't address the points about the bookstores. imho, that's where the leverage is. hitting 1 publisher means cutting into their profits with 1 publisher. hitting all publishers means cutting into their profits with all the publishers. bottom lines get hit harder in the 2nd scenario, especially if we have limited numbers (probably thousands).
they won't excessively produce new editions if bookstores won't (can't) buy them. so imho that's the best use of our resources.
plus it has the added bonus of being easier to understand for people seeing the group for the first time, i.e., not having to explain why 1 company has to pay for everybody's f'ed up practice.
^^^^^^^^^^
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly."
I think we should try to do
I think we should try to do *all* new editions instead of new editions *by 1 publisher*, or at least discuss the idea.
If Facebook is the main tool we have, I can already see the question "Why _________ publisher and not _________ publisher?" coming up 12 million times, on the wall, in discussion threads, in messages to admins, ... overshadowing the overall goal and likely hurting numbers by discouraging people from joining and ESPECIALLY inviting friends. Also, if we pick only 1 publisher, that means anyone who doesn't have pointless new editions from other publishers isn't a participant.
At first I thought we could get more leverage if we made an example out of a single company, but now I think we can do better if we attack all the companies at once. That way the bookstores feel more heat. If bookstores start telling professors they don't want to run a financial risk on pointless new editions, professors can't assign the books in future semesters, which might ... MIGHT ... be the best route to a broader solution. Worth a discussion, imho.
Grant, how about posting a sample text soon? I think the one from the very first post you made would make a good start. If we have a sample text, we can (more practically) scrutinize the idea until it's ready to hold up to a larger audience.
^^^^^^^^^^
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly."
-Robert F. Kennedy
I disagree. 1.) Part of the
I disagree.
1.) Part of the industry-rampant problem is continual issuing of new editions. Book editions are planned months in advance. Everybody does it. Picking one publisher isn't going to change the fact that all publishers were planning to release new editions in January.
2.) Boycotts are historically more effective when leveraged against one company. If we go industry-wide, we're not going to have enough leverage and our target will be too wide. By picking one publisher, we set a clear and common target.
---
The world will not be saved by old minds and new programs. If the world is to be saved, it will be saved by new minds -- and no programs.
you didn't address the
you didn't address the points about the bookstores. imho, that's where the leverage is. hitting 1 publisher means cutting into their profits with 1 publisher. hitting all publishers means cutting into their profits with all the publishers. bottom lines get hit harder in the 2nd scenario, especially if we have limited numbers (probably thousands).
they won't excessively produce new editions if bookstores won't (can't) buy them. so imho that's the best use of our resources.
plus it has the added bonus of being easier to understand for people seeing the group for the first time, i.e., not having to explain why 1 company has to pay for everybody's f'ed up practice.
^^^^^^^^^^
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly."
-Robert F. Kennedy
Post new comment