My feeling about why this is becoming such a problem lately is that there aren't any standards or baseline minimums and people without a lot of experience are being continually surprised at what is considered the minimum terms of an offer. This is especially true if you're coming from another profession that has a more established way of approaching these things.

So, for example, the question of whether you have to pay to attend a day of a conference you are speaking at but would otherwise not be attending is always an open question at library conferences whereas in other professions (I've heard, at least as far as medical, dental and some IT conferences) this is not the case. So people make assumptions (yeah yeah) and then find out later that they are totally off. The added issue of certain library associations making decisions about who *should* be a member problematize this. I can get speaker fees at more types of library conferences because I'm not technically a librarian and thus shouldn't be speaking as part of my service to the organization. That said, I often speak for free or cheap, especially locally.

Part of this is also the way the process seems to work, or has in my experience. You are asked to speak and given an offer -- this date for this money and/or this reimbursement -- you may make certain counteroffers -- different money or certain arrangements -- a month or two goes by and then you are sent a contract by a different person that may or may not take into account some or all of what was originally discussed. So, for example, I've has honorariums be totally forgotten because the person who wrote my contract was not attending the conference and hadn't spoken to the person who was my on-site contact, or having to copy/paste emails where certain things were agreed upon just to make sure that, for example, I wouldn't be paying for my own hotel. There is an attitude I've encountered in some of these situations, certainly not all, that asking for any form of compensation or accomodation is in some way removing money from the mouth of the organization that has asked you to speak and I always find this strange.

However, I totally agree with you that this becomes easier if you're prepared to walk if people don't meet your requests. I've done that, rarely, but I've also felt the pressure of having people say they *really* want me to come speak and yet only want to do it on their own terms (and I'm not thinking money here, but things like time of day for presentations or having only one day free that is awkward for me, for example). Saying no in those cases has always been hard for me but I'm getting better at it. I can only imagine what it would be like if I felt that I needed to have public/professional speaking experience to advance in my career.

Jessamyn,
You're right that the problem is a lack of standards, but the standards that would fix this today are yours as a speaker. If your very first reply to a request to speak is a description of what it would take to get you there, then everyone is clear from the very beginning. If they want you badly enough they will meet your terms. If they don't, they're free to find someone else.

We speakers just need to be clear about what we are willing to do for those who ask. For some situations I speak for free, for others I charge four figures, and I can assure you I'm very clear on which is which. We don't need to make over library associations (as if that could happen) or rise up in revolution, or continue to whine and complain about how we've allowed ourselves to be mistreated. We simply have to set the rules by which we wish to be treated. Period.
Roy

I agree with Dan and Roy in part: speakers need to clarify their agreements up front, and you have only yourself to blame if you don't like the arrangement. I was very irritated last year when PLA forced me to register to give a presentation (after I was already flying to Boston to do this), but I chose not to back out, because I really wanted to give that talk. I had incorrectly assumed that I would be treated the way I was in 1998, when I was a flavor of the month; while I didn't expect them to foot the travel bill as they did that year, I didn't realize that the standard speaker treatment was to demand registration. Talk about feeling like a has-been... and what a good lesson for finding out what it's like for those who are not Roy or Dan! (Hmmm... which raises interesting gender questions, as well.)

But I disagree with Roy that library associations can't or shouldn't be challenged about how they treat their speakers, or for that matter their members, and I disagree that these associations can't be changed. They can and will change anyway--time has a way of winning that war--but the question is whether they will change in ways we want them to, and that's up to us.

I think what needs to be recognized as well is that at one time speaking at a conference was deemed service to the profession. You were teaching those who were coming up behind. It would appear that assumption is no longer valid. That's fine, but you have to give the organizations time to change the financial model they have used for decades.

We frequently invite librarians to speak at our annual conference; we're a non-profit organization. We will in fact cover travel costs if necessary to ease the way. As a general rule, speakers at our events attend the day of their presentation at no cost. If they wish to attend the full three days of the conference, we offer a 50% discount on the registration but require the remainder of that registration to cover costs of food, etc. We can't offer to carry all speakers' costs; some speakers think we should pay their travel, allow them to attend a three day conference for free and even extend an honorarium. We might be able to do that in some instances, but it will inevitably drive up costs to our attendees. For commercial organizations who put on events, it may be a different situation, but in any event, it's a question that has repercussions for the whole community (organizers, speakers and attendees).

I would echo that speakers need to specify clearly and upfront what they require in order to participate, but one hopes that they'll be open to the concept of negotiation as well. Work with us and we'll work with you.

But what about service to the profession? Has that in fact gone completely by the wayside? Isn't there some level of obligation to the wider community? That's not intended as a rhetorical question; do we no longer ask that of ourselves?