Print is not dead, and other lessons we’ve learned from the Stanford Briefs imprint.
In 2010 the Press received a book proposal that stirred some debate and ultimately catalyzed the launch of an unprecedented experimental imprint. The proposal—while insightful and engagingly written—bumped up against editorial resistance: the content was compelling, the book itself, however, was quite brief, much shorter than the traditional monograph typically published by academic presses. Editorial’s initial reaction was one of uncertainty: what to do with a too-short book with such promise?
The perceived shortcoming of the manuscript in question—brevity—was spun on its head to become the central conceit of a new imprint.
After some editorial reflection, the perceived shortcoming of the manuscript in question—brevity—was spun on its head to become the central conceit of a new imprint: the Stanford Briefs. The proposal’s arrival dovetailed with advances in printing and publishing technologies that made short-form book publishing a practically feasible, and intellectually intriguing new model. New strides in digital distribution and print-on-demand options brought down the overhead costs that previously made short-form publishing financially unviable. Meanwhile, because the books were short, production timetables could be accelerated to offer readers timely and concise commentary on a variety of issues.
Thus, the imprint was conceived: Stanford Briefs would publish succinct and original scholarly works, which could—on account of their size—be fast-tracked through the publishing process, passing through all of the same mile markers as a traditional monograph—development, peer review, editing, design and typesetting —but at a clipping pace.
“Though the first book was from the business list, we hoped the imprint could cross our entire publishing program,” says Editor-in-Chief, Kate Wahl. “Today, I think our list of published and forthcoming Briefs successfully showcases that breadth.”
Indeed, the thirteen Briefs that have been published under the Briefs’ imprint range widely in focus, from studies in Internet porn to firsthand accounts of sectarian politics in the Persian Gulf. Coupled with this sweeping array of topics, editors have noticed authors taking on a varied set of stylistic approaches, exploring rhetorical techniques and storytelling elements uncharacteristic of the traditional monograph.
“I’m happy that early on we realized that there was little point in trying to shoehorn all fields into a ‘one size fits all’ type of Brief,” says Wahl. “And you’ll see the range of approaches and styles reflected in our publications: the business books tend to be more practical and applied; the humanities books are essayistic; and our social science books have tended more toward the journalistic, often in conversation with current events.”
For this latter set of books in particular, fast track publication means research tied to at-present issues gets published in a timely fashion. Truncated timetables offer Briefs authors the opportunity to weigh in on time-sensitive dialogues. Case in point, one Brief, which set out to demystify the Affordable Care Act, debuted in tandem with the implementation of the new healthcare law, becoming a well-timed resource for those grappling with its intricacies (a “concise and accessible guide to the law and its consequences,” was how one New York Times columnist described the book).
Just as the Briefs were conceived as a rapid production imprint, they were likewise intended for quick consumption. Owing to their size, Briefs do not require a month of reading—most are digestible in just a few sittings. Speedy publishing for speedy reading, it was reasoned, required a quick delivery conduit—thus the Briefs were initially imagined as a primarily digital series, immediately accessible at the click of a button. The imprint was an answer to Amazon’s Kindle Singles—with the added option of print-on-demand paperbacks for the diehard luddites.
Super curious about Stanford's new digital series, Stanford Briefs. I've always thought Kindle Singles could be a cool model for scholars.
— Jason Weidemann (@fiveoclockbot) May 10, 2012
But as ebook mania plateaued, Director Alan Harvey was surprised to find that despite the initial concept and branding of Briefs as “e-originals,” most book buyers still gravitated toward the print versions.
I think our takeaway from the Briefs is that it is about content, not format.
“We were surprised to find that sales of the Briefs follow the same trend as the rest of our books program,” says Harvey. “Over 75 percent of our Brief sales are in print format, but I don’t believe we would have those customers if we’d only published in digital form. I think our takeaway from the Briefs is that it is about content, not format.”
Stanford Briefs offers just one cross-section of university press experimentation with short-form publishing. Around the time of the Briefs launch, Princeton University Press debuted their Shorts imprint, followed thereafter by MIT’s BITS, with the most recent addition to the short-form party being the University of Minnesota Press’s Forerunners. While each imprint has its own unique model, taken together, they illustrate a new and innovative option in scholarly publishing. What has become clear in the five years since the Briefs launched is that short-form academic book publishing is an idea whose time has come.
Comments