<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sci Foo Camp &#8211; Day 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/14/sci-foo-camp-day-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/14/sci-foo-camp-day-2/</link>
	<description>What&#039;s Hot &#38; What&#039;s Cooking in Scholarly Publishing - from the Society for Scholarly Publishing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:31:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Clarke</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/14/sci-foo-camp-day-2/#comment-3984</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Clarke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:57:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5000#comment-3984</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great points Andrew. 

As to the point about cannibalization, yes, you are correct--managing a staged decline while one transitions to new business models and delivery systems would be ideal. Unfortunately, as noted by Christensen in the Innovator&#039;s Dilemma (and as we are witnessing now in Detroit), that is actually quite hard to pull off.  

Your point about marketing and social media is well taken. I agree that social media can be a very effective marketing tool. The point our discussion raised (and that I was clumsily trying to make) was that publishers might think about developing social media products and platforms instead of *only* using those of other organization&#039;s (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) for marketing.

While I agree with you regarding much of the in-house software development that publishers have undertaken in the past, I think we have moved into a new business cycle where software development is critical. In the past, publishers have wasted resources developing complex systems that do not differentiate their products in the marketplace and are often available for cheaper from external sources. Building an in-house production system or an in-house journal hosting platform is clearly a waste of perfectly good 1s and 0s. My comment, however, was in the context of how successful publishers might consider focusing on the development of (content rich) applications instead of publications. And innovative applications, at least in the near future, will likely require in-house development (or at least staff that are knowledgeable enough about application development and design to lead teams of external programmers). 

Regarding your last comment... hear hear! May it be so.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great points Andrew. </p>
<p>As to the point about cannibalization, yes, you are correct&#8211;managing a staged decline while one transitions to new business models and delivery systems would be ideal. Unfortunately, as noted by Christensen in the Innovator&#8217;s Dilemma (and as we are witnessing now in Detroit), that is actually quite hard to pull off.  </p>
<p>Your point about marketing and social media is well taken. I agree that social media can be a very effective marketing tool. The point our discussion raised (and that I was clumsily trying to make) was that publishers might think about developing social media products and platforms instead of *only* using those of other organization&#8217;s (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) for marketing.</p>
<p>While I agree with you regarding much of the in-house software development that publishers have undertaken in the past, I think we have moved into a new business cycle where software development is critical. In the past, publishers have wasted resources developing complex systems that do not differentiate their products in the marketplace and are often available for cheaper from external sources. Building an in-house production system or an in-house journal hosting platform is clearly a waste of perfectly good 1s and 0s. My comment, however, was in the context of how successful publishers might consider focusing on the development of (content rich) applications instead of publications. And innovative applications, at least in the near future, will likely require in-house development (or at least staff that are knowledgeable enough about application development and design to lead teams of external programmers). </p>
<p>Regarding your last comment&#8230; hear hear! May it be so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sci Foo Camp &#8211; Day 3 &#171; The Scholarly Kitchen</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/14/sci-foo-camp-day-2/#comment-3910</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sci Foo Camp &#8211; Day 3 &#171; The Scholarly Kitchen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5000#comment-3910</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] at Sci Foo Camp that I was not able to make it to. This post, along with those from Day 1 and Day 2, only provide my narrow perspective on the event along with, I hope, a general sense of what it was [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] at Sci Foo Camp that I was not able to make it to. This post, along with those from Day 1 and Day 2, only provide my narrow perspective on the event along with, I hope, a general sense of what it was [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andrewspong</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/14/sci-foo-camp-day-2/#comment-3875</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[andrewspong]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5000#comment-3875</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for this report, Michael. Like Ann, I&#039;d love to have been there.

I&#039;d have pulled the self-same paragraph as Ann to focus upon.

Surely it&#039;s not a question of cannibalizing revenue streams, is it? Rather, acknowledging that many existing business models have peaked, then managing their staged decline, and redeploying sufficient resources to be able to transition content, brands and relationships into new media channels.

This is less about &#039;traditional versus contemporary&#039; than it is about &#039;do you want your properties to be in a position to be able to deliver growth in the future, or are you looking to carve out a role for yourself as the cautious custodian of existing business models that currently deliver flat or negative growth and are about to enter a flat spin?&#039;

If you meant &#039;moving past social media as *just* marketing&#039; I concur with you, but social media has the potential to deliver outstanding marketing results. If you&#039;re going to take it out of the marketing mix, what are you going to replace it with?

As for embedding a social media mindset into the DNA of STM publishers&#039; organizational structures... good luck to us all with that one. ;)

I&#039;d also be cautious about flying the flag for further in-house software development. Many publishers have built up a vast and costly empire of in-house web publishing teams which are process-driven and expensive and their leadership will be all too willing to jump on this proposition as a magic bullet in order to justify their existence.

Don&#039;t let them lock and load.

Shut them down. Outsource. Save money. Stay on schedule.

As for publishing as a loss-leader: why make a loss? You can give content away in the right setting and still give yourself the opportunity to monetize adjacent activities, as well as build communities, raise the profile of your brands, generate brand advocacy, and develop authentic engagement with your users and customers.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this report, Michael. Like Ann, I&#8217;d love to have been there.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d have pulled the self-same paragraph as Ann to focus upon.</p>
<p>Surely it&#8217;s not a question of cannibalizing revenue streams, is it? Rather, acknowledging that many existing business models have peaked, then managing their staged decline, and redeploying sufficient resources to be able to transition content, brands and relationships into new media channels.</p>
<p>This is less about &#8216;traditional versus contemporary&#8217; than it is about &#8216;do you want your properties to be in a position to be able to deliver growth in the future, or are you looking to carve out a role for yourself as the cautious custodian of existing business models that currently deliver flat or negative growth and are about to enter a flat spin?&#8217;</p>
<p>If you meant &#8216;moving past social media as *just* marketing&#8217; I concur with you, but social media has the potential to deliver outstanding marketing results. If you&#8217;re going to take it out of the marketing mix, what are you going to replace it with?</p>
<p>As for embedding a social media mindset into the DNA of STM publishers&#8217; organizational structures&#8230; good luck to us all with that one. <img src='http://s1.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I&#8217;d also be cautious about flying the flag for further in-house software development. Many publishers have built up a vast and costly empire of in-house web publishing teams which are process-driven and expensive and their leadership will be all too willing to jump on this proposition as a magic bullet in order to justify their existence.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t let them lock and load.</p>
<p>Shut them down. Outsource. Save money. Stay on schedule.</p>
<p>As for publishing as a loss-leader: why make a loss? You can give content away in the right setting and still give yourself the opportunity to monetize adjacent activities, as well as build communities, raise the profile of your brands, generate brand advocacy, and develop authentic engagement with your users and customers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ann michael</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/14/sci-foo-camp-day-2/#comment-3869</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ann michael]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5000#comment-3869</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael - all I can say is WOW!  I&#039;m so jealous!

&quot;Ideas included the willingness to cannibalize one’s own revenue streams, moving past social media as marketing to embed social media technology and thinking into the DNA of one’s organization, developing a deep expertise in software development, the need for experimentation (placing a lot of small bets), and even using publishing as a loss-leader to drive other service activities&quot;

Awesome ideas - can&#039;t wait for you to be back on the SSP IN Conference planning meetings.

We&#039;re heading in a similar direction!!!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael &#8211; all I can say is WOW!  I&#8217;m so jealous!</p>
<p>&#8220;Ideas included the willingness to cannibalize one’s own revenue streams, moving past social media as marketing to embed social media technology and thinking into the DNA of one’s organization, developing a deep expertise in software development, the need for experimentation (placing a lot of small bets), and even using publishing as a loss-leader to drive other service activities&#8221;</p>
<p>Awesome ideas &#8211; can&#8217;t wait for you to be back on the SSP IN Conference planning meetings.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re heading in a similar direction!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Clarke</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/14/sci-foo-camp-day-2/#comment-3867</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Clarke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5000#comment-3867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think it is Bill Nye. I almost added his name but wasn&#039;t 100 percent sure so left it off. But if you think so too, we&#039;ll say it&#039;s Bill Nye (Bill Nye can refute the identification if he thinks it isn&#039;t him).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it is Bill Nye. I almost added his name but wasn&#8217;t 100 percent sure so left it off. But if you think so too, we&#8217;ll say it&#8217;s Bill Nye (Bill Nye can refute the identification if he thinks it isn&#8217;t him).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christine</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/14/sci-foo-camp-day-2/#comment-3865</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christine]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:43:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=5000#comment-3865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey Michael

Enjoying your summaries! Is that Bill Nye on the map bike?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Michael</p>
<p>Enjoying your summaries! Is that Bill Nye on the map bike?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

