I’ve been thinking a lot about the discussion last week about speaking, being compensated for speaking, transparency, the profession and it’s (perhaps?) inferiority complex, and so much more. Everyone contributed such unique and interesting perspectives, some I agree with, some I don’t, some that made me change my perspective a bit. We’ve all had different experiences that have colored our view of things. The real fact is that there are no absolutes. We all have to decide for ourselves what is right or wrong for us, and we shouldn’t judge people for making different choices than the ones we do.
Lots of people have strong opinions about what is appropriate and inappropriate for speakers to get. But I wonder how can we judge right or wrong when there are such differences in how speakers are treated at different conferences? It was clear from the comments on my post that speakers in Australia tend to pay registration while speakers in the UK not only don’t have to pay registration, but usually also have their travel expenses reimbursed. And here? Well, clearly it’s a mish-mosh or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
With that mish-mosh, we have to ask ourselves how some organizations can manage to comp speakers’ registration and some can’t. We heard from Michael who runs the Massachusetts Library Association Conference:
We would never require a speaker, from anywhere, cover the cost of their own registration on the day they are speaking. As g says above, it doesn’t cost the association any money to let someone come for free. I am a firm believer that you have to spend money to make money at these types of events, and MLA has been making a profit for the last several years under this philosophy. I give away a lot of free registrations, and hopefully many of those attendees will become members of the association, or come back to the conference the next year, or support MLA in some other way.
But then we also heard from a woman who helps to organize the California Library Association Conference who stated that the speakers constitute around 1/4 of their attendee costs. So, clearly, if they’ve been depending on registration revenues from this population, it’s not something they are going to change. I have no idea what percentage of the Massachusetts Library Assoc. Conference’s attendee population is speakers, but it’s interesting to me that they can manage to comp the registration of speakers. As can the Vermont Library Association (though we’re small fries up here). I have no idea how these large-scale conferences are planned and budgeted, but it’s pretty clear to me that the people organizing conferences in different states could probably benefit from talking to each other and sharing tricks of the trade. After hearing about how the Vermont Library Association Conference is planned and run, it has become very clear to me that some state conferences are run much better and more efficiently than others. I certainly have sympathy and respect for those who run conferences and have to make difficult decisions.
I’ve heard from others that invited speakers are different from non-invited ones and should be compensated. I think it’s fine to make that distinction if that’s what the organization chooses to do. People can decide for themselves what is or isn’t acceptable to them. I think the big problem is that invited speakers are not always compensated. I was asked to speak at the New England Library Association conference back in 2006. They told me they’d pay my travel expenses but couldn’t pay me an honorarium. I figured since it’s a big conference in New England and it sounded interesting, I’d do it. A few days later, I get an email saying that because I live in New England (even though I’m not explicitly a member of NELA), they couldn’t reimburse my travel expenses and I’d have to pay registration. Needless to say, I’ve never been to the New England Library Association Conference.
We also saw the argument that people who would have gone anyways should have to pay their own expenses including registration. I often wonder how people know that someone would have gone anyways. It’s not like every member of an organization attends the conference. I would not have gone to ALA Annual in 2007 had I not been invited to speak by three different groups. Yet, I still had to pay registration while another speaker on one of the panels I was on got paid because they’re not a librarian. I can live with organizations having the rule that everyone who is a member or even everyone who is in their target population has to pay registration. People can make any policy they want. But there is no logic to the idea that all of those people would have gone to the conference anyways and that’s why they should pay. It’s like saying that all handgun owners would all be going to NRA events. No likely.
Another argument I’ve heard is that we have a duty to serve the organizations we’re a part of. I personally don’t feel like our feeling of duty should go beyond paying our dues — unless we want it to. We all serve the profession in different ways. I don’t serve at the state level, because I’m so involved nationally. I’m involved with ALA and I contribute to the profession through the many projects I’ve been a part of that have nothing to do with an organization. There are so many different ways to contribute that no one should be made to feel like it’s their responsibility to give to their state, national, or any other organization.
It was made clear in the comments that there are two negative things that can come from not spending more money on one’s conference speakers. The first is that you get a lower quality of speaker. Plenty of in-demand speakers will not speak for free unless they are a member of your organization (and some still won’t). The second (and most frustrating) is that you discourage from contributing those new librarians who barely make enough to support themselves. I know, I know, the benefits to your career, yadda yadda. But how much does that matter if they can’t make their rent that month because they spent hundreds of dollars (or more) to speak at a conference? The woman who works on the CLA conference stated that “our member/leaders have chosen to deeply discount conference registration for students, support staff, retirees and members who are unemployed.” I see nothing there about brand-new-just-out-of-school librarians. Librarians who probably aren’t making a lot. Librarians who are just now starting to have to pay off their student loans. Maybe a good solution is for CLA to offer free registration to speakers who are 0-3 years post-MLS and deeply discounted registration for those in that same group who are not speaking. This might bring some great new untapped talent to the conference.
There are some people whose response to those who complain is basically “suck it up.” From what I’ve noticed, these tend to be people who have spent quite a bit of their own money on conferences. It feels to me like the “I walked ten miles through driving snow uphill both ways to school” argument. Ok, so you spent $2000 of your own money on library conferences recently. That was your choice. To say that people who want to be compensated are “whining” is just as bad as those people saying you’re crazy for spending that much money.
I’ve also heard people say that folks are greedy for wanting to be paid to speak. While I don’t think our profession as a whole devalues itself, I do feel like people who make that argument devalue us and themselves. Absurd! Why should we not get compensated? We work hard to create a presentation, we travel to get to the conference, we speak, and they charge people to hear us speak. I feel like my time and intellectual property are worth something. That doesn’t mean that I’m not willing to speak for free. I donate my time for things I feel connected to, like local libraries, my state organization, library schools or any webcasts that are offered for free. I’ve actually refused honoraria in a number of situations where I didn’t want to cost the organization any money. But that was my choice. I also speak for free when I think the opportunity will be really good for my career or to travel somewhere I’ve never been before (like Denmark and Iceland). Money isn’t the only benefit.
I feel strongly that each of us needs recognize the value we provide when we speak, decide what that means to us, and then make decisions about speaking opportunities accordingly. You should define whether it’s an honor to speak; not someone else.
I also find it frustrating for people to advise others to give up an important career opportunity because their acceptance of that might be a tacit acceptance of librarians not getting compensated for speaking. It would be very easy for me to tell my friend to not go to the conference and tell the folks at CLA why. However, giving up that opportunity might be a mistake and one person doing that isn’t going to make a difference. Anything like that needs to be done on a larger scale and in a more organized way. Asking one person to sacrifice a career opportunity for all of us is unreasonable.
I think the economy for speakers is skewed by the whole tenure track process. Whether or not those of us who aren’t on the tenure track choose to speak for nothing, there will always be people who have no choice but to take the opportunities they can get because their job depends on it. And of course they’re in the same boat as those other new librarians not on the tenure track in terms of being the lowest on the totem pole salary-wise. I was offered a job at an institution where librarians are tenure-track faculty and have to write and present, and they were actually given less professional development funding than I get at my University where I’m not tenure-track. This makes no sense to me. If this is a requirement of your job, then it should be funded. End of story. And I know other faculty have to do this, but do tenure-track library faculty get paid the same amount as teaching faculty do? And do they always get the same amount of conference support?
Steven Bell said that my friend should have “[found] out in advance if the conference you want to present at gives speakers free registration or not. That should be easy to do and will save a lot of hassle for everyone involved.” I agree that it’s important to find things out in advance, but is it that easy? I’ve seen a real lack of transparency from people organizing conferences. Yes, my friend should have found out what the deal was for speakers at the California Library Association Conference, but why the heck does the organization make that information so difficult to find? I looked all over their website and found no information. I created an account and logged into the site where people were supposed to submit their proposals and couldn’t find it there either (see below).
So, why bury this information? Why not make it more obvious? I don’t think anyone does it to intentionally keep people in the dark (at least I hope not), but still, it still ends up making people feel like they’ve been deceived (and really, to send someone an email right after their proposal is accepted saying “all conference related expenses, including registration fees, travel and hotel, are at your own expense” instead of before feels like a bait-and-switch). I’ve been there too. I’ve been asked to speak and was told that all my travel expenses would be covered. Then it was, well, everything is covered except ___. And then the money they were willing to pay for a hotel wouldn’t cover a hotel in the area. Etc, etc. I know these people weren’t trying to lie to me, but the effect was the same in that I felt deceived and annoyed.
Every group has different rules. Some make it so easy to make arrangements and get reimbursed. With others, you practically have to sign over your first-born. That should all be made clear before people make a decision to speak. When I ask for all the information, I find that I only get the whole story perhaps 50% of the time. And it shouldn’t be that way, because it only leads to ill feelings from the speaker. That person is traveling (perhaps a very long way) to speak at your conference. They are preparing a great presentation for the people paying to attend your conference. It seems only right to give them all of the information up-front so they can make an informed decision.
I think transparency is the critical thing missing in all of this. And maybe it will help to have a wiki for conference speakers like the one Cliff Landis created, where people can disclose how they were treated when they spoke. But it’s even more important for conference organizers themselves to make everything crystal clear to potential speakers. While pay is nice, communication is the key to a happy speaker. Lots of people probably will choose to speak for free and even to pay registration to speak, but they should be given all that information ahead of time so that they can make that choice.
Wow, so much here. Pardon the logorrhea.
I can understand being loathe to tell someone to pass up a so-called “important career opportunity,” even putting aside my doubts that conference speaking constitutes such an opportunity. And of course, he has to do what’s right for him and weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks.
But I think that accepting those particular terms instills in this new librarian the notion that our culture is one of accepting inadequate compensation for work. Do you really not think we devalue ourselves as a profession? Remember how surprised you were when I first talked to you about being compensated for speaking? Because not being compensated is the prevailing culture. And pardon me for saying so, but that stinks. If that’s greedy, then so be it.
As you say, one person refusing to speak won’t change the paradigm. You or I refusing to speak under those terms is meaningless, if there’s a gaggle of people ready and willing to provide their content for free. If we’re really going to effect change, then we have to educate the new speakers, before they drink the kool-aid of altruistic labor.
Cliff’s wiki is a good start for us to establish and propogate greater expectations as speakers, but I think it’s even more effective for influential people such as yourself to be talking about this stuff openly. So kudos to you for doing so.
And all that said, there are circumstances in which I, like you, will speak without compensation, but I don’t think I’ll ever be paying to get in the door just for the privilege.
I agree with so much of what you said. I do remember one argument for not paying speakers that a friend in the IT field mentioned. He is a dba for a major university-related software that has a huge conference every year, and they found when they paid the speakers that some of the speakers gave very bad speeches in order to get a free registration, and weren’t willing to put the effort into a good presentation.
I HOPE that kind of thing doesn’t happen in LibraryLand, but I’m sure it does rarely.
The biggest issue to me, though is the need to get young librarians who can’t afford much of anything (and this is true for some of us oldtimers, too!) the chance to speak.
Interesting. I am technically not a librarian (in reality anyone who works in a library is a librarian) and ALA is not comping my registration this year (I was invited by a ALA to speak on a panel). In fact I had to join ALA to get the discounted registration to attend the rest of the conference.
It’s so different in other fields. I agree with you that librarians need to stand up for themselves. Stephen Abraham gave a good point today in his Casual Conversation on OPAL. Would you want to have your taxes done by someone whose name you don’t know? Would you take medical advice from a doctor whose name you did not know? Why is the information we provide different?
As a profession we need to think about the image we present not only to our peers but to other professions. I’m afraid to say that the general population does not view librarians as techno-savvy info-mavens. Nope we’re just people who check in and out books and read a lot.
We need a huge PR campaign about what libraries and library staff are all about.
I would think the lousy-presentation problem would be self-limiting, especially given the feedback/survey culture among conference organizers. Is a lousy speaker trying to freeload going to get any repeat business?
I think there are two problems when most people talk about this issue
1 Everyone thinks it’s all or nothing. What about just offering presenters a discount for presenting, like 10% or 20%? If free registration is a problem, slightly less registration money should be less of a problem.
2 We seem to have entirely too many presenters for the number of attendees. Perhaps having upwards of a quarter or a third of the people at a conference presenting at it is too much. Certainly it’s great to have everyone contribute who wants to but perhaps we could “weed the collection” a bit? And very often this is not a problem of having too many sessions but too many presenters per session. Perhaps we reduce the registration fee for only the main presenter or per presentation.
Keeping everything else equal, the non-presenter’s reg fee will only increase by a fraction of the presenter’s fee decrease, that fraction being the number of presenters out of non-presenters. There shouldn’t be any conference that can’t do a least some combination and level of these options.
P.S. Re: Lori’s comment above. This is off-topic but “anyone who works in a library is a librarian”? Even the janitor? *shudder*
Well, turning that around, Matthew, we have the BarCamp model, where every attendee is also a presenter — and nobody woofs about registration fees that I’ve ever seen.