Comments on: New Think? Not So Much

By: Some Observations about Publishing Dinosaurs | The Teich Group

Some Observations about Publishing Dinosaurs | The Teich Group — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:05:34 +0000

[...] Krozser of Booksquare berates traditional publishers [...]

By: A-twitter « Martha Mihalick

A-twitter « Martha Mihalick — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:10:08 +0000

[...] http://yodiwan.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/the-art-of-the-conversation-a-la-sxsw/ http://booksquare.com/new-think-not-so-much/ [...]

By: Bookish Guide to SXSW

Bookish Guide to SXSW — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:04:32 +0000

[...] with snark via Twitter and accusations about unfair gatekeeping practices (read about it here, here and here). Afterwards, one of the panelists explained the audience-speaker clash by saying: that [...]

By: Content Strategy Is About Publishing : Incisive.nu

Content Strategy Is About Publishing : Incisive.nu — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:44:28 +0000

[...] on the disastrous “New Think for Old Publishers” panel from SXSW 2009 (Booksquare, Medialoper, [...]

By: Book Publishers Are Scarce at SXSW — Publishing Trends

Book Publishers Are Scarce at SXSW — Publishing Trends — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:35:05 +0000

[...] when they do show up, they’re not always treated with love and respect (see Booksquare’s “New Think? Not So Much”), but at worst it’s a love-hate relationship between the digital crowd and the page turners. At [...]

By: Books at SXSW? You Can Make It Happen | Booksquare

Books at SXSW? You Can Make It Happen | Booksquare — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:25:52 +0000

[...] Interactive festival. Last year, as we know, a panel put together by a group of publishers missed its target, angering the audience. This year…wow, it’s a [...]

By: What’s Next For Publishers? | The Casual Optimist

What’s Next For Publishers? | The Casual Optimist — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:04:40 +0000

[...] has been well documented elsewhere, things did not go according to [...]

By: SXSW - Far From The Madding Crowd « Eoin Purcell’s Blog

SXSW - Far From The Madding Crowd « Eoin Purcell’s Blog — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:47:05 +0000

[...] Twitter it up There has been extensive coverage of the New Think For Old Publishers panel at SXSW on 14 March. By most accounts it was a complete and utter disaster for publishers. Here’s a sample of opinion more here, here and here [...]

By: Kassia Krozser

Kassia Krozser — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:36:59 +0000

Last one for the next few hours! Yep, Robert, sounds like we’ve been in many of the same panels over the years (say hi next year!). I think the problem is that the publishing panels don’t always reflect the tenor of the conference (this one would have likely been rejected if Clay Shirky hadn’t been on the bill because it just didn’t have anything special). But I do see smart things happening in books and smart people who want to get up and talk about them (or at least hold a multi-way discussion). ToC is techy, BEA is sales-oriented, writer conferences focus on publishing. A few have discussed creating something that falls between ToC/BEA/etc, but I think we’re still waiting for the right idea (though the Bookcamps that are springing up around the world are a good start).

Oh, and I so agree on the long introductions. In my last panel, I rushed through everyone’s bio in mere minutes. Nobody was there to hear the blah, blah, blah, and it made for a better panel. SXSW is notorious for the loooong intros!

By: Robert Nagle

Robert Nagle — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:29:30 +0000

Sorry, one other thought (after reading your comment on Freebird books.

First, all this talk about twitter and how panels ignore Twitter: pfooey! Twitter is good for those trying to follow things remotely, but panelists couldn’t possibly be expected to keep up with all that back channel. Several people on other panels tried to with rotten results.

Second, I enjoyed the looseness of core conversations in 2008. Too bad SXSW tried to turn core conversations into simply another minipanel this year (with the result that most were failures). It is a truism that Q&A tends to be more interesting than the panels themselves. I’d at least like to see that the panelists are reaching towards the same kinds of issues that audience members are reaching towards. At this particular panel, I heard too much about industry solutions –interesting perhaps–but not really identifying a future of reading.