From: Morgan, Speer Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 2:19 PM To: Deaton, Brady (Chancellor); Foster, Brian

L. (Provost) Cc: Graham, Steven W. (Academic Affairs); Morton, Pat Subject: FW: misc project files

BradyandBrian: Herearethepressproposals. One,thehybrid,isbasedonwhatmightbecalledthesupercheapandsafemodeloftheTMReditorsjustmanaging alistof20newbooksayearandpublishingthemthroughRedacted orsomeotherpartneringpress.Adownsideofboth RsMO thisandthesecondoptionisthatwewouldhavetochangedistributors,whichwouldprobablytakeayeartocomplete. 610.021(12) Also,thecurrentdistributor(CDC)isoneofthebest. Asecondoption,hybrid2,istousethissamepartneringdistributionoptionRedacted oranother)andhireeditors RsMO andstaffaswellasusingtheTMRstafftohelp;thismethodismoreexpensivebutpossiblymorerealisticatleastin 610.021(12) termsofgettingtheworkdone.Theseconddisadvantageofboththisandthefirstoptionisthatwhilethissortof partneringishappeningthroughouttheUpressworld(smallerpressesoperatingthroughcombineddistribution arrangements),itisntreallyterriblyinventiveorforwardlooking.Yes,losseswouldbelimited,butwewouldnever havethosewonderfulperiodsinwhichoneortwobigbookspayforacoupleofyearsofbudget(sincethepartnering presstakes85%ofthenetincome). Thethirdoption,option1,isessentiallyarevisedversionofouroriginalproposal.Themostsignificantchangesfrom theearlierversionarethatwewouldstartbypublishing20booksayearandalsohireanadpersonthefirstyear,in additiontoaneditorandmanagingeditor.Ithinkthatwith20booksplustheoldlist,thepresscouldsafelyexpecta netincomeofapproximately$700Kfromthedistributor.Ifallgoeswell,wecouldmovetowardafewmorenewtitles yearly,possibly25,whichwouldhelpthebudget.Ilikethisproposalthebestbecauseitgivesusenoughstafftoget thingsdone,itofferstheopportunitytohireanexcellenteditor,andmostimportantlyitgivesusenoughelbowroomto experimentwithonlinedistributionandotherinnovations.Italsoallowsustobothinternandhirealargernumberof talentedgradstudentsfromsuchdepartmentsasEnglish,Journalism,andelsewhere. Iwanttoaddacommentonwhatmayseemlikeadetailbutwhichisimportant:Theressomeconfusionabouthow manybookstheUMPresscurrentlyoffersonline.TheCDCwebsiteforonlinebooks(Bibliovault)saysthatthereare 700booksfromtheUMpressavailableonline,butinfactwhenyougotothebooksthataredescribedasonlineit guidesyoutotheUMPresssitetobuythosebooksandtheyareinfactnotavailableexceptinhardbackandpaper. Relativelyfewbooksareeitheractuallyavailableoraccessibleandpricedforonlinesales.Isearched200titlesonthe UMPresswebsiteandfoundonebookthatwasinfactavailableonline(forfullprice,$40).Mypersonalquestwouldbe tomakeonlinesalesfornewandolderlistbooksworkbetter.Theremaybeimpediments,butweshouldbeableto overcomethem.Thetoolsandsystemsarealreadyavailable;theyjusthaventbeenproperlyimplemented. Nomatterwhatwedo,theremaybedifficultiesthatnoonecanpredictespeciallyatthestartduetothefactthat theclosingdownoftheoldpresshasnowreachedsuchalevelofnegativecommentarythatitmayhamperbusiness,at leastinitially.Infact,Iwouldwanttomakesurethatacoupleofbusinessdetailsareinplacebeforeevencommittingto this(e.g.ThatCDCwillstillcarryus,andacoupleofotherdetails). Iwouldadd,aswell,thatpartneringwithTheMissouriReviewisobviouslynottheonlypossiblemeansofsettingupa pressoncampus.Afourthoptionmightsimplybetosetupanofficeandrunitfromacampusbase.Thedownside couldbethecostandthenecessityofstartingdenovo,whichcouldprovideabarrier. Ithinkthatespeciallythethirdoptionisbothinventiveandpromisingand,ifrunwell,couldbeanoteworthyadditionto

Proposal Proposal Proposal Hybrid Publishing Prop option Budget_Hybrid-Option_ Budget_Hybrid2-July2. Budget_Option1_July1 Proposal_July2.docx 1-full descpt-July2.doc

thelearningopportunitiesforstudents,aswellasofferingamodelforthefutureofUpresses.Whileattimesitseems thatallyouhearfromtheworldofpublishingbothcommercialanduniversitypublishingisweepingandgnashingof teethaboutalltheimpossiblechallenges,infactitisafantasticmomentintermsoftheopportunitiesofferedbyreal innovation. Speer

ProposalBudgetHybrid2Option
INCOME SalesexistingList Sales20NewTitlesPerYear NetSalesexistinglist+20newtitleseachyear 85%FeeToContractor NetIncome OtherPublishingIncome(misc.subsidiaryrights)@75%ofamt contractorreceives AnnualDistributionfromEndowment($100Kvalue) TotalIncome OPERATINGEXPENSES Salary/Benefits Director;Red annualincr act Coord.Ad&Promotions(75%FTE)Red annualincr act EmployeeBenefits@33.87%,Re annualincr da TMRStaffSalaryEnhancements;estRed annualincrease act Add'lTMRstaffbenefits@33.87%;estRed annualincrease act GRAsalaries(3@25%FTEfor12mos@$9Kea)nobenefits, acad.homeprovidesfeewaivers.Est Red annualincrease act SubtotalSalary/Benefits OtherExpenses PeerReviewFees&Permissions OutsideEditorial(Contractfreelanceediting) Office/AdminExpense:travel,phone,dataports,supplies, postage SubtotalSalaries/Benefits&OtherExpenses SubtotalOperatingExpenses InstitutionalSupport@3.6882%

576,565 123,435

341,615 358,385

285,705 414,295

230,433 469,567

186,139 513,861

700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 595,000 595,000 595,000 595,000 595,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 52,500 49,875 50,625 52,500 52,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 162,500 159,875 160,625 162,500 162,500

Redacted RsMO 610.021(13)

315,641 323,264 333,130 342,291 307,324 13,800 13,800 13,800 13,800 13,800 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 6,000 39,800 347,124 12,803 6,000 39,800 395,241 14,577 6,000 39,800 402,864 14,858 6,000 39,800 412,730 15,222 6,000 39,800 421,891 15,560

TotalExpenses 359,926 409,818 417,723 427,953 437,451 TOTALINCOME 162,500 159,875 160,625 162,500 162,500

LESSEXPENSES BALANCE

359,926 409,818 417,723 427,953 437,451 (197,426) (249,943) (257,098) (265,453) (274,951) paymentforinventory

*woulditbepossiblefortheinitialbudgettoconsistofapercentageofthepayoutRedacted fromRedacted RsMO RsMO

PublishingProposalHybridOption
INCOME SalesexistingList Sales20NewTitlesPerYear NetSalesexistinglist+20newtitleseachyear 85%FeeToContractor NetIncome OtherPublishingIncome(misc.subsidiaryrights)@75%** thesenumbersmightbeslightlyhigher AnnualDistributionfromEndowment($100Kvalue) TotalIncome OPERATINGEXPENSES Salary/Benefits TMRStaffSalaryEnhancements;estRe annualincrease da Add'lTMRstaffbenefits@33.87%;estRe annualincrease da GRAsalaries(2@25%FTEfor9mos@$7Kea)nobenefits, acad.homeprovidesfeewaivers.Est.Re annualincrease da SubtotalSalary/Benefits OtherExpenses PeerReviewFees&Permissions OutsideEditorial(Contractfreelanceediting) Office/AdminExpense:travel,phone,dataports,supplies, postage SubtotalSalaries/Benefits&OtherExpenses SubtotalOperatingExpenses InstitutionalSupport@3.6882%

576,565 123,435

341,615 358,385

285,705 414,295

230,433 469,567

186,139 513,861

700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 595,000 595,000 595,000 595,000 595,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 52,500 49,875 50,625 52,500 52,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 162,500 159,875 160,625 162,500 162,500

Redacted RsMO 610.021(13)

118,844 122,051 125,365 128,778 115,741 13,800 13,800 13,800 13,800 13,800 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 6,000 39,800 155,541 5,737 6,000 39,800 198,444 7,319 6,000 39,800 201,651 7,437 6,000 39,800 204,965 7,560 6,000 39,800 208,378 7,685

TotalExpenses 161,278 205,763 209,089 212,524 216,064 TOTALINCOME LESSEXPENSES BALANCE 162,500 159,875 160,625 162,500 162,500 161,278 205,763 209,089 212,524 216,064 1,222 (45,888) (48,464) (50,024) (53,564)

*woulditbepossiblefortheinitialbudgettoconsistofapercentageofthepayoutRedacted fromRedacted RsMO RsMO

paymentforinventory

PublishingProposalOption1Budget
INCOME SalesexistingList Sales20NewTitlesPerYear YEAR1 576,565 123,435 YEAR2 341,615 358,385 YEAR3 285,705 414,295 YEAR4 230,433 469,567 YEAR5 186,139 513,861

NetSalesexistinglist+20newtitleseachyear 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 EbookSales10SelectedBacklistTitlesNotCurrentlyAvailable peryear@$500ea 5,000 9,000 12,200 14,760 16,808 SubtotalExistingList/NewTitleList&EbookSales 705,000 709,000 712,200 714,760 716,808

5,000 AnnualDistributionfromEndowment($100Kvalue) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 TOTALSALES&OTHERINCOME 710,000 714,000 717,200 719,760 721,808

OPERATINGEXPENSES Salaries&Benefits Redacted RsMO 610.021(13) Director;R annualincr e ManagingEditor;R annualincr ed d Coord.Ad&Promotions(75%FTE)R annualincr ed ac EmployeeBenefits@33.87%,R annualincr a ed annualincr TMRStaffSalaryEnhancements;R ac te ct Add'lTMRstaffbenefits@33acedte annualincr 87%;R d e GRAsalaries(5@25%FTEfor$9K/yrea)nobenefits,acad. ed te acd R d homeprovidesfeewaivers d teac R s R SubtotalSalary/Benefits 405,646 415,651 425,997 436,699 448,128 R d te s

costofgoodssold,capital,transfersandA21expenses(Per A&SDean'sOfcTBD) SubtotalOtherExpenses

M s s Rd M O M OtherExpenses Ms R O 61 O CDCFulfillmentExpensesForExistingTitles(13%ofnetsales O Ms 61 0. 6 forstorage,shipping,utilities,etc.) 61O M 0. 02 1 Marketingfront&backlist O 0. 6102 1( 0. Production(newtitles@$8Kea)incl.printing,design, 020.61 1( 13 0 copyediting&otherfreelanceeditorial 0. 1( 0213 ) 2 MinorRenovation(3rms)+Furniture(onetimeexpense) 131(02 ) 1( Office/AdminExpense 1( ) 13 1 SubtotalCDC,Production&GenAdminExpenses ) 13 3) InstitutionalSupport@3.6882%ofactualexpensesexcluding )

91,000 91,000 91,000 91,000 91,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 371,000 341,000 341,000 341,000 341,000

28,644 27,907 28,288 28,683 29,105 399,644 368,907 369,288 369,683 370,105

COSTOFSALES COSTOFGOODSSOLD(bookmfgforCDCtitlesonly) COSTOFFREES(50cps@$5/eanewtitlesonly) ROYALTIES(10%netsales) SubtotalOtherPublishingCosts TotalExpenses TOTALINCOME TOTALEXPENSES BALANCE

10,000 70,500 80,500 885,790

10,000 5,000 70,900 75,900 860,458

10,000 5,000 71,220 76,220 871,506

10,000 5,000 71,476 76,476 882,858

10,000 5,000 71,681 76,681 894,913

710,000 714,000 717,200 719,760 721,808 885,790 860,458 871,506 882,858 894,913 (175,790) (146,458) (154,306) (163,098) (173,105)

Publishing in the 21st Century: University of Missouri Press Proposal

Summary of Proposal for an Innovative 21st-Century Press:

This proposal sets out the criteria, plan and rationale for a reimagined and innovative University of Missouri Press that could become a prototype for other institutions. The reimagined press would take advantage of current campus resources, specifically the expertise in new media and strategic communications of the School of Journalism, the editing/publishing experience and contacts of the Missouri Review, the University of Missouri Librariesexpertise in Information Science and experience in digitizing manuscripts, and the English Departments already strong connection with the Missouri Review. These entities are already collaborating effectively to varying degrees, and we would expect additional collaboration with other campus departments to identify and recruit peer reviewers and specialist editors for acquired books. One of the purposes of this 21st-century press will be to give the University of Missouri an opportunity to be an innovator and nationwide leader in university publishing at a time when traditional academic publishing is being challenged to maintain its position as the main venue for scholarly book publishing yet also to innovate in the areas of press structure and delivery platforms. By launching a new kind of press that is creative, cost-effective and in line with the University mission of educating students and advancing knowledge, the University of Missouri can become a model for a new kind of university press. Additionally, it could become a model for how to effectively integrate a significant publishing enterprise with high-quality, hands-on education and training of students in new publishing technology and practices. We propose using current and evolving publishing technology, wider campus involvement between closely linked departments, graduate internships and/or assistantships and current employees and faculty in order to maintain a relevant and inexpensive university publishing wing that would publish noteworthy titles including but not limited to scholarly work. This proposal focuses on a moderate-growth model that would utilize revenue from the current press list to be able to operate with economic efficiency within the first year. The plan entails 1) digitizing and further promoting the valuable current catalog, which the MU library has pledged to help accomplish; 2) publishing scholarship that is relevant and accessible to the public specifically, developing new imprints that are relevant in a variety of fields, adding two to four new titles for the first four years, and 3) radically streamlining operations, in part by expanding the already established Internship in Publishing course. Future books will continue to be produced in both print and digital formats, embracing the newest publishing technology and possibly multimedia. Staff costs will be kept at a minimum, combining current TMR staff with new hires. While the new press would publish scholarship, it would (as has the current press) publish other types of writing as well. The press would aim to feature the best scholarship of

prominent public intellectuals, including those at MU who fit that descriptor.The emphasis would be on significance and excellence of content (peer reviewers and/or a committee composed of faculty from the MU campus would advise the editors in these areas); the model would be closer to the boutique or small press (such as Graywolf or Milkweed) rather than the old university press. One major difference between the proposed new press and the boutique press model, however, is the learning opportunities an innovative publishing wing would offer students in a variety of disciplines.

Vision and Mission

The first guiding principle of a not-for-profit press or publishing enterprise is the quality of the work it publishes. The editorial staff would need to determine which of the current press backlist titles are the best contenders for digitization and fresh promotion (some are already being distributed digitally). The editors would carefully vet and evaluate new titles for quality and significance in their areas. A second priority would be enhancing the University of Missouri press trademark and demonstrating the new vision and management of the press. This vision, which includes the educating students in new technologies (a learning laboratory) and cost efficiency would make the reinvented press a model for future university presses. We can accomplish this by launching an initial new, small list of titles by scholars of high reputation and established trade authors with name recognition. High-profile books and authors would bring immediate attention and sales. In an internship curriculum modeled on the current TMR internship, students in a variety of disciplines would work under close editorial supervision to assist in all areas of editing and publication. The new press will set absolute priorities of effectively training students in the technology of 21st century publishing while still operating with economic efficiency for a teaching enterprise. See the remainder of this document and the appended budget for more detailed financials. Successful publishing requires an innovative mindset. The press would embrace the opportunity created by a broad cross-campus collaboration (especially collaboration with the School of Journalism) to publish texts with new media components where appropriate. TMR has already been experimenting with new media and new platforms in our digital version of the magazine, with embedded audio, and our recent development of an educational iPad app. Collaboration could also include such options as summer digital publishing workshops run by TMR, the School of Journalism and other departments. Along with leadership, excellence and innovation in publishing, we will emphasize quality education, training and mentoring of students in publishing and related fields. TMR has
Page|2

created a thriving internship program that will serve as a model. An Internship in Publishing course that could encompass the press already exists. The learning-lab environment has proved mutually beneficial to students and the Missouri Review and is flexible enough to be successful in other department settings such as a press. The model and success of the TMR internship is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this document.

Central Organizations and Departments

A new press model has the potential to be collaborative across campus departments and disciplines. This would be an example of a highly effective cross-departmental hybrid because it will not be staffed by a significant number of professors whose tenure is represented in a separate home department. By focusing on what certain areas (specifically, The Missouri Review, School of Journalism, English Department, and the Library) do best, we will be able to offer the best synchronicity in labor, purpose, and goals that would highlight programs of excellence already under the tent of MU. This plan employs the same reporting structures that are already in place. The newly defined unit will continue to report to the Dean of A&S, who will in turn report to the Provost and the Chancellor. The old paradigm is for university presses to report university-wide, but that practice makes it too remote from campus resources. A publishing endeavor that reported directly to the deans office would easily be able to employ the expertise of multiple departments and schools. The following schools and departments would be central to the new press plan: College of Arts & Science has been a longstanding supporter of publishing, particularly with its financial support of The Missouri Review. As the largest, oldest and one of the most prestigious colleges at the Columbia campus, its involvement is natural. The Department of English has for decades collaborated with The Missouri Review in educating outstanding graduate student interns and assistants whom we train in acquisition, editing, and promotion of contemporary literature. The relationship is mutually extremely beneficial, and TMR has successfully grown an internship from a handful of students per semester to about 50 students a year. Carefully selected and trained students could also offer strong additions to future staff positions as graduate student hires. The Missouri Review is an independent unit that interacts with the English Department, the Journalism School, and other departments on campus. We are a nationwide leader in literary internships. Our program of training qualified professionals in the field of literary magazine publishing makes us unique: interns are an integral part of the general operations of magazine and have even been partly responsible for some of the innovations weve made over the years, most recently the addition of a digital audio version of the entire print magazine.

Page|3

Since TMR is not an academic unit, it has the necessary flexibility for a publishing project such as the press. Nevertheless, the staff has academic training and strong teaching credentials. The TMR staff has considerable knowledge and experience regarding rights, dealing with authors and estates, publishing contracts, paying authors, dealing with research libraries, copyright, advertising, selling books, and other relevant areas. Past experience working with academic experts to prepare some of our most widely publicized features would equip the editorial staff to collaborate with other campus departments to assess peer reviews and recommendations regarding book manuscripts under consideration. The School of Journalism would have significant and natural involvement because it has marketing and editing programs and many other resources relevant to the task of operating a press. J-School faculty and graduate students are on the cutting-edge of promotional and newmedia projects, including strategic communications. The school has recently been dynamic in making changes oriented toward keeping up with current trends in journalistic publishing. Potential benefits to the School of Journalism include expanding the reach of journalism into other genres, as well as into other online and multimedia zones. Collaboration with a reinvented press would open up internships and career opportunities for students. It would highlight the schools current recognition for inventiveness and flexibility in a world of changing media. University of Missouri Libraries under the guidance of Jim Cogswell, director of libraries at the University of Missouri-Columbia, has thrown his full support behind the future of the press. Cogswell and his team will help to oversee digitization of the current MU Press catalog and all future titles. This is a crucial component of any good small press model.

Rationale for the Missouri Reviews Leadership in a Collaborative Press Model

1. TMRs long-standing and strong internship program. The internship is a model for how student interns and assistants can perform essential tasks of regular operations, enhance the creativity of the permanent staff and gain marketable skills and experience that help launch them in their own publishing careers. Many of our former interns have entered into commercial publishing, working at other magazines and presses (these include Graywolf Press, The New Yorker, Ploughshares, American Literary Review, Crazyhorse, Jabberwock Review, Ninth Letter, HarperCollins, Houghton Mifflin and John Wiley & Sons, among others) or working at presses. Others are employed as teachers and professors. Previous and current interns have published more than a hundred and fifty books and contributed to many top American literary magazines. 2. Our magazine is already in the business of print publishing, electronic publishing, and digital publishing in partnership with outside organizations such as Texterity and Johns Hopkins Universitys Project MUSE. We have full and active contact with the
Page|4

book market and long experience with publishing rights and contracts. With over thirtyfive years of continuous publishing, The Missouri Review has strong relationships with a wide-range of agents, authors, and publishers. These contacts and resources will prove invaluable for acquiring new material and for the promotion and distribution of our titles. The Missouri Review is an independent unit that interacts with the English Department, the School of Journalism, and other departments on campus. It has a national reputation for excellence (most recently recognized last week in a NYT blog as one of the top two literary magazines in the country, along with Paris Review) 3. Experience with publishing rights and contracts. The growing challenges of the publishing industry include the kind of legal jargon that might hinder a new and inexperienced department. The Missouri Review has experience with the kind of publishing rights and contract issues that will be a crucial component of managing current contracts the press holds and all future contracts the press will write, with an eye on the demands of both the print and digital market. We are expert in acquiring rights, dealing with authors and estates, drafting publishing contracts, paying authors, working cooperatively with research libraries, copyright, and advertising. Through the Found Text and art features we have been publishing for years, we have dealt with as many different kinds of content providers and rights holders as any literary or academic press. 4. TMRs experience and demonstrated ability with technology. For decades, TMR has been on the cutting edge of technology when it comes to magazine and book publication by embracing online publication and online marketing. It was the first publishing entity in the world to publish literature on the pre-internet (in the mid-1980s). The Missouri Review embraces new technology and all its benefits in order to promote and distribute our magazine. This includes working with companies outside of the university system, such as Texterity (our digital delivery service) and Bright Box Ideas (our website designer) to make decisions that are market aware and cost-effective. This type of flexibility and experience will be valuable in keeping the press dynamic as publishing platforms continue to change. 5. Cooperation with the School of Journalism and the English Dept for internships. To involve the School of Journalism is a natural decision because the J-School has marketing and editing programs and many other resources relevant to the task of operating a press. There are people in the School who are on the cutting-edge of promotional and new-media projects. It has a worldwide reputation. Collaboration with the new press would highlight the schools current recognition for inventiveness and flexibility in a world of changing media.

Page|5

6. The press would not be an academic department. The politics of academic departments would create natural restrictions and obligations that would be detrimental to the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of a strong press facing the current challenges of the publishing world. The Missouri Review is not an academic unit with the obligations, bureaucratic and personnel issues of an academic department. This freedom will allow it to continue to work with the kind of flexibility necessary for such a long-term project like a new university press. 7. National recognition and leadership in publishing for the University of Missouri. One of the primary advantages of this model is that it is a relatively inexpensive way to address an issue that is currently nagging the academic world. The status and future of university presses is a major issue, and the response that many universities are resorting to is simply to lessen the losses. If we come up with a solution that is both creative and inexpensive, it will become a model for other such presses. 8. Ease of book production in new formats. While ease is a relative term, print-ondemand technology allows for smaller print runs, little-to-no inventory, and nimbleness with production and distribution. Additional print runs can be done at maximum costefficiency, with minimized overhead and storage of press titles. With digital delivery in all of its various forms (Kindle, e-readers, library subscriptions services, etc.) there is solid potential for revenue growth both immediately and in the long-term. A single moderately big book could pay for a significant portion of a yearly budget. 9. Opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students. This new publishing venue, run jointly between divisions and departments, provides a new area of editing, publishing, and writing for current students to consider. The diversity of projects and ideas will be beneficial to them, both in academia and in business. The University of Missouri has a duty to prepare its students for the challenges of a constantly changing world, and by providing publishing opportunities early and often, we will be embracing that role. 10. Efficiency of operations in labor and cost. One of the concerns with university presses is that they are not particularly efficient, often relying heavily on university subsidies to exist at all. Ours will be much more efficient, using a model of digital publishing, printon-demand, a smaller staff, and an incentive-based payment system. By devising an incentive-based pay system, we can encourage productive editors and contributing editors, as well as authors, to continue to publish with us.

Brief Summary of Three- to Five-year Plan

Page|6

The new university press will report to the Dean of A & S and a committee of advising partners, which will include the Dean of Journalism, the Director of the Library, and Chair of the English Department. As in other areas, the Dean will in turn report to the Provost and Chancellor. Publishing in the 21st Century (or whatever the initiative is finally named) will be comprised of both the press and The Missouri Review. The press would base its initial list on the UM Press books that are still under contract. This allows for a beginning list of 50+ titles to put online. Additional books, including older but still relevant and quality backlist titles from UM Press list and also new books will be added as contracts are renegotiated.

In order for TMR to take leadership in this publishing enterprise we would request the following: Three additional rooms in McReynolds Hall for office space; the University System to arrange and pay for required storage of all obsolete University Press records; the UM System to handle payment for production and promotion of University Press books currently under contract and not yet published. Also, we ask that write-downs on existing current University Press inventory be absorbed by the University System. Digitization of all existing and future titles to increase revenue and reduce deficits. According to Nielsen, digital sales in the first quarter of 2012 were up 250% on the same period in 2011. E-book sales accounted for 20% of sales of relevant titles and over 30% in the case of certain fiction titles, an average of 25% of adult trade sales. The budget includes one-time costs in the first year, decreased income from the backlist in the second year, increased digital sales in the second and third years, figured at 25% increase, and the addition of 50 backlist titles. CURRENT Staff Titles & Salaries: 1) Lecturer (100% FTE)--$57,960 ($53,560-TMR & $4,400-English) 2) Editor (100% FTE)--$34,437 3) Marketing Coordinator (50% FTE)$15,610 4) Coordinator (100% FTE)$44,116 5) Director (50% FTE TMR & 50% FTE in English)--$50,196**TMR share PROPOSED:
Redacted RsMO 610.021(13)

Page|7

Redacted RsMO 610.021(13)

Hire three new positions: an editor-in-chief and a production editor and coordinator of advertising and promotions. Hiring an editor-in-chief with a long-term outlook and strategic plan for the press is crucial. Editorial authority, strategic leadership, fiscal prudence, and an entrepreneurial attitude toward the possibilities opened up by new publishing technologies are necessary elements for the entire press; they must come from the top. We are suggesting three more hires at the start: a managing and production editor with a strong background in publishing in a variety of areas and a marketing and ad coordinator. Add imprint titles after an editor is hired and a staff is in place, using titles that suggest the character of the imprints, such as Lost Classics, New Science, Field of Play Books (cf. Bison Books, Nebraska Press). Such specialized titles may be shaped by the specific interests of the university and/or the editor. What might seem like pure fun (the University of Nebraska Press has embraced baseball as an area of interest) can become lucrative and compelling. It is important that such new imprints not be dusty and archaic but areas of genuine interest to a strong readership. Each imprint has a broad area of interest. New book imprints will help generate and enhance the presss character, as will its out-of-print classics. Since publication will be mainly online, extended lists will not create significant cost issues. Publish most new physical books only as print-on-demand. We suggest using current printon-demand technology for future production of all print titles, including those currently available from the UM Press and new books from the imprints. There would be a limited budget for physical printing except for occasional titles, and we would continue to distribute physical print books through the University of Chicago Press. Note About Personnel and Budget: We propose hiring one editor (110K), upgrading other TMR salaries (76K), and adding one additional managing editor at 60K and a 75% FTE Coordinator of Advertising & Promotions ($23,400). Benefits are listed on the attached budget and total about 83K the first year. Additional costs would be the marketing of front- and backlist titles (60K), Production of new titles (160K), renovation of 3 rooms with furniture (30K) and office and administrative expenses (30K). We would employ and pay for jobs and services from the School of Journalism, Library, and English Department, etc. as is mutually beneficial.

Page|8

Develop and use online booksellers. The press will need to devise an accounting method for paying authors more frequently, with the goal of more frequent payments, either on a quarterly or semiannual base. Payment methods based on sales. Another long-term goal will be to devise a payment system based on sales, which encourages the most productive editors and contributing editors (whether they be students, faculty or outsiders) to continue to add to their lists. Develop a logical and efficient method and basis for payment, dividing revenue between royalty, editor, and press. Pay authors and contributing editors at the same time, using the same accounting system. This would be a better and more reinforcing payment system than those of commercial presses, which are hampered by book returns.The advantages of such a payment system are that it encourages successful editors to stay at work and that it encourages authors to contribute additional books. The clunky accounting systems of standard publishing houses have been one of their ongoing problems (since the Depression, when the book-return policy began). Such a new method would be far superior to standard university press methods, which result in little encouragement of either authors or editors. Publish 20 books a year. The press list could include such categories as art, literature, media, health, technology, and energy. These new book titles would be available in a wide variety of formats including online presentation, new media books, fine physical books (art, etc.), online only (important books with limited audiences), JSTOR, or other library subscription services. All books will be available in digital and print-on-demand format. Specialized books, depending on its content and perceived market, will also receive larger print runs. Innovative publishing technologies will be employed as they evolve, for complete books and possibly singles or apps that excerpt manuscripts. Apply for NEA grants after three years of production. Under the National Endowment for the Arts guidelines for Arts Works programs, the applicant must have a three-year history of programming prior to the application deadline. Once this initial time period has passed, our new press will begin applying for grant support from the NEA and elsewhere. Grants for these types of projects tend to be relatively small; nonetheless, the range of support makes it an intriguing source of revenue for a university press. Recent NEA grants awarded to small independent and university publishers include $70,000 to Graywolf Press of Minneapolis, MN; $65,000 to Copper Canyon Press; $24,000 to Alice James Books in Farmington, NE; $22,000 to Archipelago Books in Brooklyn, NY; $21,000 to Sarabande Books in Louisville, KY; and $10,000 to the University of Nebraska Press. Assess the success and viability of the program at the end of the fifth year. After five years of operation the A & S Deans office would direct an assessment of the entire press program,

Page|9

evaluating fiscal responsibility, the success of new publications and management of the backlist, along with the effectiveness of the program in teaching students.

Page|10

Publishing in the 21st Century: MU Press Hybrid Option*

Summary
This proposal sets out an alternative, hybrid approach for the University of Missouri Press, combining current campus resources and cost-effective planning. It retains almost all the advantages of Option 1: broad collaboration across departments and disciplines, internships in book-publishing (a learning-lab environment), the opportunity to acquire and publish significant titles, some of them scholarly books that would be relevant and interesting to the public, and some literary titles. This hybrid option would cost less and would involve no new full-time hires. A hybrid option would also take advantage of current campus resources, specifically the expertise in new media of the School of Journalism, the editing/publishing experience and contacts of the Missouri Review and the English Departments already strong connection with the Missouri Review. These entities are already collaborating effectively to varying degrees, and we would expect additional collaboration with other campus departments to identify and recruit peer reviewers for acquired books. By launching a hybrid press option that is creative, cost-effective and in line with the University mission of educating students and advancing knowledge, the University of Missouri can become a model for how to effectively integrate an excellent small publishing enterprise with highquality, hands-on education and training of students in book editing and new publishing technology. This option allows for but does not depend on the possibility of expanding both the list and the presss involvement with production of titles. The plan entails: 1) publishing scholarship that is relevant and accessible to the public alongside high-quality literary titles; and 2) radically streamlining operations, in part by expanding the already established Internship in Publishing course. Staff costs will be kept at a minimum. The press would aim to feature the best scholarship of prominent public intellectuals, including those at MU who fit that descriptor. The emphasis would be on significance and excellence of content (peer reviewers and/or a committee composed of faculty from the MU campus would advise the editors in these areas); the model would be closer to the boutique or small press (such as Graywolf or Milkweed). One major difference between the proposed new press and the boutique press model, however, is the learning opportunities we would be able to offer students in a number of disciplines.

Under this plan, MU Press could publish its current list and new books through Redacted RsMO 610.021(12) TheRedacted RsMO would pay the UniversityRedac of 610.021(12) ted all gross sales; this revenue would be used to help fund editing of the list of new titles. This would be a simple solution to keeping the MU Press catalog in print while also allowing TMR editing group to publish an ongoing group of new titles every year. It would also allow the press to be experimental with online books and new media.

Vision and Mission for the Hybrid Press

The first guiding principle of a not-for-profit press or publishing enterprise is the quality of the work it publishes. In collaboration with vetting committees, the editors would carefully vet and evaluate new titles for quality and significance in their areas. A second priority would be enhancing the University of Missouri press trademark and demonstrating the new vision which includes educating students in new technologies (a learning laboratory) and cost efficiency. We can accomplish this by launching an initial new, small list of high-quality scholarly and literary titles. In an internship curriculum modeled on the current TMR internship, students in a variety of disciplines would work under close editorial supervision to assist in all areas of acquisition and editing, including the preparation of texts for digital and new media delivery. The press would embrace the opportunity created by a broad cross-campus collaboration and the advisement of a cross-campus Press Board to publish texts with new media components where appropriate. TMR has already been experimenting with new media and new platforms in our digital version of the magazine, with embedded audio, and our recent development of an educational iPad app. Collaboration could also include such options as summer digital publishing workshops run by TMR, the School of Journalism and other departments. Along with leadership, excellence and innovation in publishing, we will emphasize quality education, training and mentoring of students in publishing and related fields. TMR has created a thriving internship program that will serve as a model. An Internship in Publishing course that could encompass book acquisition and editing already exists. The learning-lab environment has proved mutually beneficial to students and the Missouri Review and is flexible enough to be successful in other department settings such as a press. The model and success of the TMR internship is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this document.

Advantages of the Hybrid Option

1. This is a lower-risk plan that would involve all campuses through the establishment of a Press Board which would include representatives from other campuses. The backlist would remain available; no new hires would take place, aside from two quarter-time graduate students and jobbing editors; Redacted RsMO rather than the University of 610.021(12) Missouri would handle production, printing and marketing and promotions work. Experienced TMR editors would do the selection and editing, with the aid of vetting committees. Interns can also be trained in book acquisitions and editing, as they currently are in our highly successful internship course, which teaches journal acquisitions and editing. 2. We would be able to focus our primary energy and creativity on the acquisition of noteworthy new titles. With no obligations to production and backlist management, the editors would be able to acquire and edit for production a list of six new titles the first year. We would also make sure that any spring list books that are already accepted are part of the first years list. The current staff of TMR would accomplish this without any additional full-time hires. The cost of this alternative optionapproximatelyRedact per ed year, plus a small permissions budget and two quarter-time hireswould be largely covered by income fromRedacted RsMO for the backlist and new titles. 610.021(12) Redacted RsMO 3. 610.021(12) does not charge for printing new books. Without any additional costs for printing and promotion, the editors would have the freedom to continue to select and acquire new titles every year, increasing the list size to a list of 20 new titles per year within five years. New hires would be made only as they become financially feasible. 4. There are no additional costs: Redacted RsMO handles everything, including advertising, 610.021(12) production, marketing, sales, and bookkeeping (although we might well negotiate our right to select new book covers). 5. The contract can beRedacted RsMO 610.021(12)
Redacted RsMO 610.021(12)

Potential Disadvantages to this option

1. A potential disadvantage to this option is that in the urge to save money and be safe, we will not do anything really interesting and forward looking regarding the university press model; instead we could end up just churning out 20 books a year with a small staff and hired editors. 2. There would be fewer educational and exploratory opportunities for students, since the press-related work we would be doing would be on the front end. It could be argued that the greater educational opportunities exist in the full workings of publishing.