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.

AWP's 2007 survey received 983 respondents-close to 20% of our attendance. This is a fantastic response rate in comparison to last year's survey, which only received response from 12% of our attendance. The more individuals who respond to our survey, the more accurately we are able address the needs of our attendees.

• Overview & Survey Results
• Issues Addressed from AWP's 2006 Conference Survey
• 2007 Personalized Survey Comments
• AWP Responses to Personalized Comments

Overview & Survey Results

For your reference, below are links to charts that show the results for questions included on our survey. Our survey results indicate improvements in all areas, and demonstrate less than 1% complete dissatisfaction among respondents— better than ever before. 84% of the respondents felt that the Conference was “Excellent” or “Very good.”

Once again, the Bookfair ranked as the most helpful component of the Conference, with networking ranking a close second. This is wonderful response to a Bookfair that we knew would be very crowded, due to the small space we had to accommodate the enormous popularity of the Bookfair.

Overall, the results were excellent in comparison to previous years’, but there’s always room for improvement!

Click on the links below to view the results of a survey question:

• How would you rate this year's Conference overall?
• How would you rate the variety of presentations?
• How would you compare this year's Conference to previous years' Conferences?
• How would you rate the level of preparation among presenters?

Issues Addressed from AWP's 2006 Conference Survey

In 2006 the key complaints on the written responses to the survey were the “cavernous” exhibit hall, unprepared presenters, no-show presenters, and the Bookfair not being open to the public.

This year, the Bookfair, though crowded, was very well accepted. This is especially good news, given that we were very concerned about poor response to the limited space we had, to accommodate the 373 exhibits included in the Bookfair.

While we certainly don’t wish to have such a confined space or narrow aisles again, when considering our floor plan for future years, we will keep complaints from Austin in mind, by tightening the aisle space, and keeping exhibitors and attendees closer together.

Very few complaints of no-show presenters were received this year compared to the dozens we received last year. It was our primary complaint in 2006. Additionally, presenters were rated as being more prepared than last year.

In response to the complaints of no-show and under prepared presenters at the 2006 Conference in Austin, we sent more reminders to presenters regarding their participation and preparation. More registration reminders, and every email sent out regarding an event had attached text that outlined the guidelines and expectations for a Conference event. Additionally, templates for all correspondence and confirmation forms were rewritten and redesigned for clarity.

In order to continue making improvements on individual event planning among moderators and chairpersons, AWP will send out 2008 event correspondence with bulleted points of assistance and suggestions. This will assist our moderators in planning for their events, and make our expectations clearer.

In 2006 many respondents believed that the Bookfair was open to the public in previous years, and that it was closed to the public in Austin only. In part, some simply assumed this because in previous years the door was not regulated for individuals holding a badge. Unfortunately due to liability concerns, security issues, and convention center regulations, AWP had no choice but to monitor exhibit hall doors by having security guards present.  We do understand that exhibitors and attendees would like to grant the public free access to the Bookfair, though for liability reasons we are unable to do this for every day of the Conference. AWP has addressed the dilemma to the best of our ability by opening the Bookfair to the public on Saturdays and sending written communication to all exhibitors.

2007 Personalized Survey Comments

671 individuals wrote personalized comments for AWP, which was over 100 pages typed of commentary, and the majority of the responses reflected positive spirits. These responses are where we glean most of our information for improvement, as other survey questions are generalized. For the most part, those individuals who had suggestions or complaints also congratulated or thanked AWP for a job well done. But, we still have crucial improvements to make.

Some themes were apparent in the suggestions we received this year, but the issues mentioned were much more diverse than in previous years’ surveys, in which there were typically two or three dominant issues that many respondents were upset by. We believe this 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.

AWP makes every effort to respond to the issues that are voiced in our survey. Below are the most frequently mentioned issues in the personalized responses, and following this list is AWP’s response specific to each item.

Those respondents who included valid email addresses with their comments received personal responses from AWP’s Conference Staff. If you attended AWP’s 2007 Conference and a question or concern you have is not addressed in this report, please feel free to email us at conference@awpwriter.org.

Three most frequently mentioned issues:
1. Presenters reading directly from papers, rather than delivering a fluid presentation to attendees.
2. The Bookfair layout and numeration of tables.
3. Many individuals indicated that they did not like the conference location. Most complaints were centered on the Atlanta downtown area, and that other venues were too great a distance from the Conference headquarters.

Commonly mentioned issues:
4. The Bookfair hall was cramped and too warm.
5. Panels on craft devoted too much time to readings by and from presenters of the event, which was taken as self-promoting rather than educational. In general, people stated that if they wanted to go to a reading, they would go to a reading.
6. Not enough break time in general, in example, not enough time between events to talk, no lunch breaks, etc.

AWP Responses to Personalized Comments

1. Over the last two 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, we will modify our 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.

2. 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 limited space we had available for the Bookfair, and our desire to include as many organizations as possible, AWP and the decorating company were unable to design a layout with aisles and rows organized in a linear fashion if we were to fit all the necessary tables (as we did in Austin) and still abide by fire marshal codes. This layout packed with tables necessitated snaking table numbers through out the hall. This, in conjunction with the large crowds, made it difficult to find the specific table one might be looking for.
   In Austin, with all of our ample space, the layout was easy to create and to navigate. In order to make the floor plan clearer in the future, we will create zones and/or quadrants on the floor plan so that attendees and exhibitors can navigate the hall more easily.

3. Many complaints regarded the Conference location. People felt Atlanta was undesirable as a city, and/or felt that our location in Atlanta was undesirable AWP was not able to take the Conference to a more desirable area of greater Atlanta, such as Buckhead, because the downtown area offered the necessary amount of meeting space and number of hotel rooms to accommodate the Conference (smaller more niche areas outside the downtown area do not), and the hotel rates are much higher in places like Buckhead.
   Low hotel rates are among our top priorities. 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.

4. Some events meant to be panel discussions included lengthy readings from presenters, which seemed self-promotional to our attendees. As mentioned earlier in this report, AWP will send out correspondence next year with bulleted points, in order to continue to assist our moderators in planning for their events, and to be sure that our expectations are more clearly understood. Panel discussions will be sent different guidelines from readings, making 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 minutes for each person.

5. The Bookfair was crowded and because of this it was warm. AWP expected the Bookfair to be crowded, and while it could be overwhelming at times, the bustle was also appreciated. This is the last year we will be using less than 40,000 square feet of exhibit space, and we do not expect future Bookfairs to be as cramped.

6. 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 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, meeting space, and to lessen the issue of crowding.
   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.

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 2007 Conference and a question or concern you have was not addressed in this report, please feel free to email us at conference@awpwriter.org.

2007 Sponsors

Major Sponsors

Georgia College & State University

Arts & Letters

Flannery O’Connor Review

Poetry @ Tech

Vanderbilt University

The National Endowment for the Arts

Literary Partners

The Academy of American Poets

The Poetry Foundation

Poets & Writers

The Council of Literary Magazines and Presses

Benefactors

The Georgia Review

University of North Carolina Wilmington MFA Program

The Virginia G. Piper Center for Creative Writing at Arizona State University

Patrons

The Chattahoochee Review, the Literary Quarterly of Georgia Perimeter College

Emory University

University of North Carolina Greensboro

University of Alabama Tuscaloosa

Virginia Tech

Wilkes University Low Residency MA Program

Sponsors

Agnes Scott College

Antioch University Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing Program

Columbia College Chicago, English Department, Poetry Programs

Crazyhorse / College of Charleston

Five Points

Goddard College Low Residency MFA Program

Hollins University

Kennesaw State University

Mississippi State University

Northeast Ohio Master of Fine Arts

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Southern Poetry Review

Spalding University Low Residency Program

University of Florida MFA in Creative Writing

University of Illinois MFA in Writing Program / Ninth Letter

University of Tennessee Chattanooga

Virginia Commonwealth University, MFA in Creative Writing

Contributors

Alabama Writers' Forum

The Bennington Writing Seminars, The Low Residency MFA in Writing

Berry College Southern Women Writers Conference and Ninebark Press

Florida State University Creative Writing Program / The Southeast Review

Crazyhorse/College of Charleston

Longwood University

Queens University of Charlotte MFA in Creative Writing

Randolph Macon Women's College

Sewanee Writers’ Conference

The Prague Summer Program

The Southern Review

Tulane University

University of Alabama Birmingham

The University of Georgia Press

University of Minnesota Creative Writing Program

The MFA Program at the University of Central Florida

University of Minnesota Creative Writing Program

University of San Francisco

University of Tampa

Vermont College of Union Institute and University

Western Carolina University

Supporter

Association of Literary Scholars & Critics

Florida International University

Louisiana State University

Purdue University

Information on Sponsorship (PDF 8085KB)