A Glimpse into What You Think of Us
Over the first few months of 2021, we ran a survey into the Republic of Consciousness Prize. In this post, I’d like to look over some of the key findings that arose from the responses.
In the interest of transparency we need to share a couple of things before we dive into the data. Due to budget constraints we had to find our sample through channels that were likely to skew the results towards the prize (founder’s Twitter account, Prize Twitter account, Prize newsletter), although it didn’t stop a respondent saying this: “Remove the very-pleased-with-itself, smug, holier-than-thou attitude; think it puts people off.” We shall do our very best. And the objective of the research was not to discover the brand saliency of the prize from a nationally representative sample, but to understand the degree to which the prize has cut through within a sample that are interested in small presses in the UK and Ireland, and to solicit feedback and recommendations from those where it has cut through.
The research was also carried out because we need to be able to prove to potential funders that the prize makes a difference, and it seemed sensible to provide a forum where small presses and authors could express themselves anonymously rather than to ask for directly for endorsements where criticism might be less forthcoming.
The important number is 57%. Even using channels predisposed to awareness of the prize, often clicking on a tweet that said “If you are interested in small press in the UK and Ireland click here”, only 57% of respondents had heard of it. Work needs to be done. Because the survey was about the prize and how it can improve, those who hadn’t heard of it were screened out. Therefore, the following numbers only include those who have some knowledge of the prize.
On a more positive note, 67% selected the RofC Prize as one of their top 3 prizes (out of 15 prizes) and 80% said it influences their reading choices, with the International Booker Prize second in both cases, followed in various orders by the Women’s Prize, Booker Prize, The Goldsmiths Prize, all in the 90 percentile in terms of recognition and in the 60s in terms of reading influence, and a range of 30% to 50% in terms of respondents’ top 3. It should be noted only the Goldsmiths Prize doesn’t have a longlist, so it performs very well against those who offer up more books in their prize cycle.
At a more granular level, given that this is the only prize (that we know of) that awards money directly to publishers, it is instructive that 56% thought it went to authors. More clarity on that is needed.
Responses to the RofC splitting its prize fund across the shortlist (this year it was the longlist as well), 62% think more prizes should do this, with only 8% believing it is a bad idea generally. In terms of impact 42% chose (from a single choice list): “[The RofC] makes an important contribution to the health and life of publishing in UK and Ireland”, and 46% chose “[The RofC] has played an important role in the resurgence of small press in the UK and Ireland.” The other 12% believe “its impact is limited” or “it’s just another prize out there”.
So they are the numbers. Although we have noted that in terms of demographics things aren’t as diverse as we’d hoped. Our respondents skew white (87%), and while that exactly matches current Census data for the UK, all organisations working in the arts should be more accessible and inclusive than the national numbers. We aim to improve this. Age was a little more even. We slightly skew female, 49% to 45% male, with 6% coding ‘other’ or ‘prefer not to say’. In terms of diversity of the prize’s actual work: we would like to note that in our first five years (we only now in year six), every year at least one winner has been a member of a diverse community. This has never been a stipulation, part of an explicit agreement between judges, or a political or social act. It has just been the case.
In terms of ‘verbatims’ as they are called in research, when it comes to developing the prize, while a majority don’t think any major change is necessary, a number of areas came up more than others. Our response is below each suggestion.
1. More translated fiction.
o We do our best to reach all small presses publishing translated fiction and we have had at least one, often two, works of translated fiction on every short list.
2. Clarity on how the prize fund is distributed
o It changes every year based on how much prize money we raise, but the general principle is the presses receive around 70% of prize money and we want to award as many presses as possible.
3. Clarity on judging process
o At least one judge sees every submission, all three judges see the majority of submissions. The prize administrators vet each submission for eligibility.
4. Lack of access to long and short listed books outside the UK and Ireland
o This year we will have a number of long list and short list boxes which we’ll send to those who want the sets. However, we are yet to fully understand the VAT issue sending to Europe, so cost cannot be known in the short term.
5. Change The Name
o Yes, it’s a little grandiose and ridiculous, but we’re stuck with it.
When it comes to what would be lost without the prize, which perhaps is what we best need to understand and communicate to current and potential funders, happily we received lots of insightful and enthusiastic support. Here are a few responses.
I believe that the Republic if Consciousness Prize elevates brave, experimental, and boundary-pushing literature. These titles would receive less attention and reach a smaller readership without the support of this prize.
A significant and visible meeting point for the more adventurous and daring work being published now.
Something at the heart of indie publishing. It would be a great loss as only the Goldsmiths comes close to catering for adventurous fiction from small indie presses (although that's changing, partly thanks to the impact of the RofC).
A champion of some of the most interesting and innovative publishing around.
An essential component of literary culture
A chance for the smaller presses to be heard, for readers not to discover new books and authors, and it would mean more dominance of the big publishing houses.
A spotlight on not just the long/shortlisted titles, but the holistic appreciation of small/indie publishers, the strange magic of a book prize and its randomness. Other prizes admire only the flower's bloom, as it were, whereas this prize appreciates the whole plant. I hope this makes sense!
The prize creates a unique space for the writers and publishers of books without massive marketing spends to be brought to the attention of a wider readership. It also opens up questions in readers minds regarding the provenance of what they read, and the decisions that influence what appears on our bookshelves.
While this research was not perfect, it has been useful, which is really the measure of good research. If you took part, whatever you said: thank you. We believe the Republic of Consciousness, despite is silly name, is a good thing and worth preserving. We are encouraged that most of you think the same.
Neil Griffiths, Founder.