AWP 2008 Conference Survey Report
2008 Annual Conference & Bookfair
January 30-February 2, 2008
New York, New York
Hilton New York & Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers
Each year following the annual Conference, AWP conducts an online survey of Conference attendees. AWP uses responses from that survey to improve the planning and execution of our Conference, and to address the concerns and needs of our attendees and members. AWP is committed to providing the best service and experience to our Conference attendees with the staff and resources available to us.
This year’s survey received 1,383 respondents—18% of our attendance. This is an excellent sample compared to many years past, but still represents 2% fewer respondents than we had last year, relative to the number of attendees. Next year AWP will post signage, as we did in 2007, encouraging attendees to complete the survey. The more individuals who respond to our survey, the more accurately we are able address the needs of our attendees.
In order to more accurately address the concerns of exhibitors and attendees, in 2009 an exhibitors’ survey will be posted for Bookfair exhibitors. This separate survey will allow exhibitors to provide AWP with feedback directly related to their experience in preparing for the Bookfair, as well as their experience on-site.
Overview & Survey Results
The charts included indicate improvements in nearly all areas, and demonstrate 97% satisfaction rate among respondents. 81% of respondents felt that the Conference was “very good” or “excellent”; 16% said they felt the Conference was satisfactory.
Tremendous improvements have been made to the Conference over the last two years, in service and execution of events. 43% of survey respondents felt that the Conference improved compared to just 30% in 2006. 78% of respondents felt that preparation among presenters was “very good” or “excellent,” compared to 71% in 2006. Improvement in this area demonstrates that AWP’s efforts to encourage more preparation among presenters have been successful. 6% more respondents indicated that their area of focus was in prose, which demonstrates that AWP’s efforts to appeal to more prose writers by increasing the quality and the number of prose events has been successful and should be continued to maintain the current level of prose attendees.
Below you will find graphs for AWP’s 2008 survey results and more details and explanation
regarding those results. For your reference, below each 2008 chart the analogous results from our 2007 and 2006 survey are included.
Overall, the results were excellent in comparison to previous years’, but there’s always room for improvement!
Click on the links below to review the results to a survey question:
Issues Addressed from AWP's 2007 Conference Survey
Last year the key complaints on the written responses to the survey were as follows:
- Presenters reading directly from papers.
- Bookfair layout and numeration of tables.
- Conference location in Atlanta.
- Panel discussions devoted too much time to readings from presenters.
- Not enough break time.
AWP Response to 2007 Concerns
- Presenters reading directly from papers: In previous years we’ve received many complaints about presenters being completely unprepared or not showing up at all. Our staff has made due modifications to correspondence in order to help alleviate this issue, with noticeable success. In response to the issue of presenters reading papers, AWP modified its presentation guidelines to encourage presenters to engage in conversation with one another, and write out notes and an outline for their presentation, rather than read their entire presentation from a paper. We will do our best to encourage more fluid and professional presentations. Events continue to improve each year, and this will hopefully be another aspect of such improvement.
- Bookfair layout and numeration of tables: Complaints regarding the layout and numeration of tables were primarily a result of the confusion in finding particular tables. This was certainly warranted, and somewhat expected due to the fact that so many tables and booths needed to be included in a smaller exhibit hall than we occupied in 2006. In order to respond to this issue, AWP created a more fluid and linear layout this year, which was more easily navigated. More floor plans were blown up and placed at the entrances of the halls as directional signage. Additionally, a Bookfair Map was given to all attendees that included an alphabetized list of exhibitors. In exhibitor indices, hall names were included so that attendees could better place themselves.
- Conference location in Atlanta: Many complaints in 2007 were regarding the Conference location. People felt Atlanta was undesirable. This was not such an issue in NYC because not only were we in a great city, but we were also in a great location within the city. We hope to take AWP’s Conferences to more top-tier, desirable cities each year, such as NYC, Chicago, Austin, Boston, etc. However, in more expensive regions that do not have off-season discount hotel rates, this becomes a greater challenge. Receiving discount rates in Chicago and Boston is possible during our off-season conference time, however in warmer areas on the southeast and the west coast, this becomes more difficult.
- Panel discussions devoted too much time to readings from presenters: In 2007 respondents stated that some events meant to be panel discussions included lengthy readings from presenters, which seemed self-promotional to our attendees. In order to alleviate this dilemma to the best of our ability, organizers of panel discussions were sent different instructions on time and format when they received their event schedule. Those instructions made note that if a presenter is to read at a panel discussion, it must be for the purpose of making an example pertinent to the topic of discussion and should not exceed two to three minutes for each person. Because significantly fewer people reported this problem, we may assume that the issue has begun correcting itself, and AWP will continue to send similar instructions to panel organizers in future years.
- Not enough break time: In 2007 some respondents commented that not enough break time was allowed between sessions for socializing, while others felt that a designated time needed to be made for lunch. As the schedule stands, attendees may take breaks whenever they would like, and it is unfortunate that a panel discussion may be taking place at the same time a person would like to have lunch. In 2005 the lunch break was removed from the schedule for scheduling reasons, to maximize meeting space, and to lessen the issue of crowding. Having the lunch break scheduled caused the hotel vendors to provide less than adequate service to our attendees, as all attendees visited restaurants and bars in one time frame, rather than visiting vendors incrementally throughout the day.
Increasing the break between sessions would require eliminating an entire time slot of events from our schedule, and that would force us to include fewer events on the schedule—and some of our most positive feedback concerns the variety of sessions. Similarly, bringing back the lunch break would require eliminating a time slot, but more so, the standard lunch break caused overwhelming crowding, bottlenecking, pushing, and general mayhem when all attendees exited meeting rooms at once, heading for the front door or nearest hotel vendor. Eliminating the lunch break was a practical move to open up a time slot and to eliminate the mass exodus from meeting rooms that overwhelmed vendors even more than we do now. It improved service in the hotel bars and eateries, as they were less overwhelmed all at once.
2008 Personalized Comments & Issues
940 individuals wrote personalized comments for AWP, which was approximately 120 pages typed of commentary, and the majority of the responses reflected positive spirits. These responses are where we glean most our plans of improvement, as other survey questions are generalized. For the most part, even those individuals who had suggestions or complaints also congratulated or thanked AWP for a job well done. Not to say that some people weren’t happy—we do have crucial improvements to make.
Themes were apparent in the suggestions we received, certainly, but issues mentioned have been more disparate over the last two years. In previous years’ surveys there were typically two or three resounding issues that nearly all respondents were upset by. Not receiving such overwhelming criticism for one particular item is a good sign that we’ve tackled major issues surrounding the Conference, and now we can hone in on providing more high quality events and services.
Because so many suggestions were made, we must be sure to focus on the issues that are most important to attendees, and those that AWP should and is capable of tackling.
Please keep in mind as we discuss these items that there are some issues that we cannot tackle immediately, but rather we should work on those issues incrementally. Other issues reflect discontent with policies that would be unwise to change.
Below are the most frequently mentioned issues in the personalized responses, and following this list is AWP’s response specific to each item. Following each point, in parenthesis, is the number of times each issue was mentioned in the comments of 940 respondents.
Four most frequently mentioned issues:
1. The Bookfair taking place on three floors. (57)
2. Respondents preferred a smaller conference with fewer concurrent events. (49)
3. Event preparation and management. Time management of events (i.e. Some participants reading and/or speaking beyond their allotted time). Presenters not prepared for their event or reading directly from papers rather than engaging the audience. Not enough time left for Q&A. (39)
4. The expense of the conference for food, beverages, and hotel rooms. (34)
Commonly mentioned issues:
5. Not enough prose, screenwriting, and playwriting events included in the schedule. Overall, some respondents felt that the Conference schedule was poetry-heavy. (29)
6. Diversity in event participants and event discussions. (27)
7. Registration. This element of the conference included concerns regarding the closing of on-site registration before the Conference, hours to pick up pre-registration badges, and lines at registration on Thursday morning. (24)
Less commonly mentioned issues that warrant AWP’s response:
8. No seating, communal, or hospitality area available for attendees to sit and socialize outside of outlets, bars, and pre-function space. (21)
9. Early dates of the Conference. (20)
10. Events not following more precisely the event description provided in the Conference Program. (16)
11. Size of the program due to too many advertisements. (5)
AWP Responses to 2008 Concerns
-
Bookfair: Many comments were concerning the Bookfair being split between three levels, and concerning low foot-traffic in the third hall (Americas Hall II). As the Bookfair has grown, the necessity for an exhibitor survey has increased. Exhibitor concerns should be broken out of the survey results in the future, so that we can better address exhibitor concerns, and better determine the quality of the Conference overall from an attendee perspective.
As AWP travels from location to location each year, the meeting and exhibit space available to us changes. In any single location there will be more desirable elements to the space, and less desirable elements. In order to provide exhibit space in New York at a reasonable cost to the organizations we serve, AWP used the space available at the Hilton. The space was carpeted, allowed for an easily navigated map compared to 2007, and had the square footage to comfortably hold the number of exhibits necessary to serve our large number of exhibitors. However, in order to serve the vast number of journals, presses, and organizations who wished to exhibit at the Bookfair, AWP could not limit the space to one or even two floors.
As we move from location to location, we will continue to face different challenges with our exhibit and meeting space. AWP will do it’s best to face those challenges and adequately serve our exhibitors and attendees to the best of our ability.
One thing never changes from exhibit hall to exhibit hall: Not all placement is created equal. The best and worst placement of booths and tables is always relative to primary entrances, corner units, etc. Regardless of the exhibit hall, there is always an area that simply does not get as much foot-traffic as other areas do. In order to maximize the traffic in those areas, AWP has a coffee shop placed in the less desirable space to lure attendees to that area. The coffee shop in New York was subsidized by AWP, in order to cover minimum purchases required by the hotel at the coffee shop. AWP is happy to provide this service in order to maximize the foot-traffic in otherwise slow areas of exhibit halls.
Many exhibitors are dubious as to the methods AWP uses to place exhibitors in their assigned spaces. AWP has always used and will continue to use ethical means to place exhibitors in the hall, however we recognize the need to make this process more transparent and methodized to exhibitors. For that reason AWP has created the “Point Placement System,” which informs exhibitors of the method by which tables and booths will be placed, in an easy and straightforward way. So that exhibitors are that are more economically challenged are not forced to the back of the hall, the date of reservation remains to be the primary means of determining placement, and other “free” means of earning points have been included, such as returning contracts within 30 days.
AWP continues to do its very best to make the best use of the space available to us. We should be prepared each year to face the challenges that come with a location, and to take advantage of the benefits that come with each location’s exhibit space.
- Conference Size: Some respondents commented on the size of the Conference. They felt that the Conference has become too big, and that too many events are offered. Some attendees are bound to feel this way, while many others, based on our survey results, find the size of the Conference and variety of events impressive and exciting.
Some individuals prefer smaller Conferences. For those individuals, AWP offers the services of WC&C. WC&C offers a network of Writers Conferences & Workshops that provide a cozier experience, where an attendee can attend every event, reading, and workshop, and network with a smaller group.
Still, it must be noted that as the Conference grows the opportunity for networking diminishes to a certain extent (among our most popular components of the Conference), and newcomers can easily feel overwhelmed when first arriving. While it’s not in the best interest of AWP or its members to decrease the size of the Conference, and networking cannot be the “clubby” experience that it once was, still, we can try to develop new ways of facilitating networking among peers, as well as making our new-comer attendees feel welcome and well informed.
To begin with, many Conferences offer an event on the first day exclusively for newcomers. The event has board members, key staff members, and other individuals present to welcome newcomers, provide them with essential information, and primarily to answer questions. Such an event is completely within the means of AWP and should be considered. Additionally, a webpage exclusively for newcomers can be added to our website, with an introduction to the Conference and a list of FAQs.
The dilemma of networking is one that is not easily solved. For some this can simply be done at the Bookfair, sponsored receptions, or caucuses (such as the two-year college or low-res events). However, there are other groups that feel they are not being served at the Conference in the same capacity, such as adjuncts, K-12 teachers, and individuals working outside academe. The best answer to this dilemma is to encourage such groups to submit proposals for caucuses or event discussions at which they may network.
In 1989, 300 writers attended the Philly Conference, about 2.5% of AWP’s 12,000 teachers, students, and members. In 2008, 7,500 attended the Conference, about 27% of AWP’s 28,000 teachers, students, and members. It’s important for us to keep in mind that AWP’s larger Conference has increased membership’s participation ten-fold!
- Quality of Presentations: Many comments were related to event preparation and management. Some respondents took issue with the time management of events (i.e. some participants reading and/or speaking beyond their allotted time). Other respondents felt that presenters were not prepared for their event. Still other respondents were troubled that presenters read directly from papers rather than engaging the audience. And many others said that not enough time was left for Q&A, or that no interaction with audience members was included at all.
In response to this we must keep in mind that while respondents are rightly concerned with these items, presenter preparation has improved over the years. This year 78% of our survey respondents ranked preparation among presenters as “excellent” or “very good,” up from 76% in 2007 and 71% in 2006. In 2006 7% of survey respondents ranked preparation as unsatisfactory, and over the last two years that number has dropped to 3%.
To demonstrate such improvement, AWP has provided all organizers and participants with guidelines for their presentations. In response to concerns about presenters reading from papers, AWP modified its guidelines, and this concern was mentioned less frequently in this year’s survey. While improvements have been made, we still have our work cut out for us in order to continue improving the “product” we provide at the Conference.
In addition to creating a “new-comers” webpage, AWP should create a “presenters” webpage that includes everything a presenter needs to know for his/her event at AWP. Hopefully by providing such information in one central location on our website, presenters will more easily familiarize themselves with AWP’s guidelines. Organizers and presenters are often confused in the planning and confirmation process of events, and having this information more readily accessible will also assist AWP’s staff. On this page AWP may include survey results that and commentary related to event preparation and management, so that organizers and presenters may take these items into consideration.
Additionally, AWP will consider distributing blank survey templates for individual events on-site. A survey drop-box could be placed at registration, and individuals may complete surveys for single events by providing the event title on their form, answering standard questions and providing comments. Having such surveys on-site will not only assist our members in providing us with more feedback on individual events, but it will also give a greater sense of accountability among presenters and organizers of events.
While AWP cannot consider micro managing the execution of events on-site, or force presenters into discussion with attendees, time for Q&A can be more strongly suggested or required in the guidelines. Many Conferences, including MLA, require that organizers leave time for Q&A at the end of each session.
AWP embraces the creativity that is often impromptu among our Conference presenters, still we are obliged to provide our attendees with well thought out and well executed events. We must continue to improve the quality of our events and presentations to the best of our ability.
- Attendee Expenses: Many attendees felt that this year’s Conference was too expensive, particularly the food and beverage. Unfortunately when we visit cities like New York, where even street vendors are expensive, there is not much we can do to reduce the prices beyond hotel room rates and coffee stations. This year AWP had a rock bottom NYC rate at $189. Rack rates for the Hilton during AWP’s Conference were nearly $400 a night. At the Sheraton the rates were nearly $350 a night (AWP’s Sheraton rate was $239). Above and beyond negotiating the best possible rate on hotel rooms, AWP provided coffee stations with discounted grab-and-go lunches on the lobby level and in the exhibit hall (the expense of providing this service in the exhibit hall was subsidized by AWP). While the hotel bar and nearby bars were very expensive, many receptions offering free drinks were hosted each night for attendees, as well as a public reception with free beer and wine for attendees each night. AWP will continue to provide such services, as budgeting allows, and will continue to find new ways to serve our members and attendees by providing affordable conference services.
AWP understands that many of our members’ budgets were stretched very thin by visiting New York, and even the discounted grab-and-go lunches were beyond their budgets. Additionally, according to our survey results, fewer people received funding to attend this year’s Conference than last year’s. AWP should keep this in mind as we negotiate future hotel contracts so that we can be sure that we are getting the best rates possible for our members, in the best cities we can afford.
- Genre Balance: Many respondents commented that not enough prose, playwriting, and screenwriting events were available. As the survey results demonstrate this year, more prose writers attended this year’s Conference than ever before. A sizeable number of our new attendees were prose writers, closing the gap between poetry and prose attendance. Such an increased interest in prose at the Conference was no doubt a result of an effort to develop more quality featured prose events. Still the number of accepted prose proposals remains somewhat disproportional to the number of poetry events, even after improvement.
Simply, AWP receives far fewer prose event proposals, and a dismally low number of play and screen writing proposals. If we are to maintain the increasing number of prose writers joining us at the Conference, and increase the number of playwriters/screenwriters, we cannot rely on such submissions to made without AWP prompting. In 2005 the number of prose event proposal submission shot up, due to board efforts to solicit prose proposals from colleagues, universities, list serves. Such practice would prove beneficial once again.
- Diversity: Many respondents were concerned about ethnic diversity of events and participants at the Conference. Typically, event discussions and readings centered on diversity issues and minority participants receive special consideration in the review of proposals. The reason for so few events of this nature is due to the lack of such proposals. AWP’s events and participants should be representative of AWP’s far-flung membership. Similarly to fiction events, AWP needs to play a more active rule in soliciting and encouraging such proposals in order to have more diverse representation among presenters and event topics.
- Registration: Many comments regarding various elements for registration were received. In considering this, we must keep in mind that over the years, registration is more often ranked as one of the most helpful components of the Conference. In 2006 just 18% of respondents indicated that registration services were a helpful component of the Conference. This year 32% of the respondents indicated that registration services were helpful. Still, as the Conference grows and registration numbers increase, we must take care to see that we continue offering excellent service in this area and address the concerns of our attendees and members.
The primary concern was the closing of on-site registration prior to the Conference, specifically that there was no warning that it would close. AWP will address this matter for future years by indicating on all forms and registration copy that on-site registration will be available if space permits, and that AWP does not guarantee that on-site registrations will be sold.
Other respondents stated that registration should be open later on Thursday evening to accommodate those latecomers who would like to attend the keynote address. Because many attendees cannot arrive at the destination city by 5:00 PM to pick up their badges on Thursday, and many others experience flight delays, AWP will keep registration open until 7:00 PM on Thursday only. Keeping registration open later on Thursday will require additional staff to be present on-site at the Conference, as well as more volunteers, however we expect that those extended Thursday hours will also deplete the number of individuals registering on Friday morning.
Lines of some length must be expected at pre-registration, because the bulk of our registrants register in advance and arrive on Wednesday evening and Thursday morning. 2004 and 2005 had considerably longer lines than years following. In 2006 an additional pre-registration bay was added to help alleviate the dilemma of long lines at pre-registration. Adding the additional registration bay allowed for individual lines and wait times to shorten. Because the Conference has seen such a robust increase in attendance over the last two years, AWP should add another pre-registration bay in 2009. Only one bay should be added, in order to conserve space in the pre-function area, and to be sure that enough volunteers and staff are available to man all pre-registration booths. Lines at the Help Desk and on-site registration remain relatively short, comparatively, and because these desks must be manned by AWP employees rather than on-site volunteers another bay should not be added for this service. Rather, of the six bays in use at on-site registration, two should be dedicated to Help Desk functions, and only four should be dedicated to on-site registration, given that on-site registration will likely remain static comparatively, and given the need for more Help Desk assistance with the increase in attendance.
- Networking: Respondents commented on the lack of seating and the lack of a communal area, as well as the lack of a designated lunch hour and/or breaks. The issue of seating can be easily solved by using a smaller session room as a general communing area, with banquet tables, chairs, and water stations. The room could be labeled in the program’s floor plan as an attendee “lounge” so that individuals know that they may visit this room at any time to meet people or relax.
Some felt that not enough break time was allowed between sessions for socializing, while others felt that a designated time needed to be made for lunch. As you now, attendees may take breaks whenever they would like, and while it is unfortunate that a panel discussion may be taking place at the same time a person would like to have lunch, it would be unwise to bring back the lunch break, or increase the break time between events.
Increasing the break between sessions would require eliminating an entire time slot of events from our schedule, and that would force us to include fewer events on the schedule—and one of our biggest compliments is the variety of sessions. Similarly, bringing back the lunch break would require eliminating a time slot, but more so, the standard lunch break caused overwhelming crowding, bottlenecking, pushing, and general mayhem when all attendees exit meeting rooms at once, jetting for the front door or nearest hotel vendor. Eliminating the lunch break was a practical move to open up a time slot and to eliminate the mass exodus from meeting rooms that overwhelmed vendors even more than we do now.
- Dates: Many respondents felt the Conference was held to early in the year, and too early in the semester, especially for such a cold climate. Some respondents seemed dubious as to the reason these dates were chosen for New York.
We were very fortunate that the weather wasn’t worse in New York while we were there, and that there were no storms in the region preventing attendees’ arrival. It was a risk in terms of weather, but more so in terms of scheduling in conjunction with university schedules. In order to take the Conference to New York, AWP had virtually no choice but to hold the Conference earlier in the year. However, based on MLA’s attendance at Conferences very early in the year, AWP had good reason to see this venture as relatively safe, and worthwhile to visit New York. Receiving such incredibly discounted rates in Chicago, New York, and Boston is possible during our off-season conference time. This is particularly true of New York, and the Conference should never take place so early in the future. To hold our Conference in New York in early spring would have meant that attendees were paying twice as much for their hotel rooms, and attending the Conference would have been cost prohibitive for exhibitors, students, and in many cases even tenured faculty.
It should be noted that even in mid-March, in warmer areas on the southeast and the west coast, the task of negotiating discount rates for attendees becomes more difficult because either there is not an off-season rate, or the off-season rate is six months later than our Conference can take place. In order to take AWP to the west coast, we may, once again have to contract with a second or third tier city, such as Anaheim or Sacramento. The west coast is a very difficult area to receive good hotel and convention center rates. Even a smaller city like Seattle demands top dollar during our Conference season.
- Punctuality: Many respondents were upset by the fact that event discussions did not adhere to the event description printed in the program. The event descriptions printed in the program are the copy that organizers provide when making their proposals (after copy editing). If events are not following their printed event description, this means that organizers are not delivering the event topics that were accepted in the proposal review process. AWP has a responsibility to provide accurate information to its attendees, as well as responsibility to see that accepted proposals are delivering the event promised. While events cannot be micro-managed, and while we understand that in such a creatively driven Conference conversation may take surprising and delightful turns, we must see to it that all organizers are adhering as closely as possible to their event description so that attendees are not misled when deciding to go to an event. After all, we have so many choices that attendees are often torn over what to attend, which makes it all the more disappointing for them when they arrive at an event that doesn’t proceed as expected.
In order to alleviate this problem AWP will remind organizers in their schedule emails that events should follow the conversation indicated in their event description, and that email will also include the proposed event description. Additionally, on individual event survey forms, a question should be included that asks attendees if the particular event they are reviewing adhered to the event description in the printed program.
- Conference Program: Some respondents felt that the program was too cumbersome due to the number of advertisements included. This year AWP was not able to include all organizations who wished to advertise, simply because the program had already exceeded its expected page-count, and because printing could not be delayed. As the Conference grows, so does the interest in advertising in the program. AWP has raised program-advertising rates with the assumption that the number of ads will decrease in conjunction with the increased rates. Advertisements will not be cost prohibitive to exhibitors or universities, but we are hoping that fewer duplicate ads will be purchased, ad sizes reserved will be reduced, and that overall the schedule and other program items will be less overwhelmed by the number of ads. li>
AWP continues to improve our Conference each year, and feedback from our attendees is a tremendous help to us in doing so. If you attended AWP’s 2008 Conference and a question or concern you have was not addressed in this report, please feel free to email us at conference@awpwriter.org.
|
Information on Sponsorship (PDF 8085KB)