Commenting is closed on this post.
Not so simply adjusting
Toward the end of a presentation I made last week at the Internet Archive’s “Books in Browsers” conference, I named at least four ways in which publishers needed to adapt to compete in an era of abundant, digital content. These included:
• Our content must become open, accessible and interoperable. Adherence to standards will not be an option;
• Because we compete on context, we’ll need to focus more clearly on using it to promote discovery;
• Because we’re competing with businesses that already use low- and no-cost tools, trying to beat them on the cost of content is a losing proposition. We need to develop opportunities that encourage broader use of our content; and
• We will distinguish ourselves if we can provide readers with tools that draw upon context to help them manage abundance.
Sara Lloyd, digital director of Pan Macmillan, recently characterized book publishing as “business as usual, but different”. She went on to say that “Books are not being killed off. We’re simply adjusting to an additional format.”
Unfortunately, this point of view perpetuates an undue allegiance to the presentation of content in containers. Seeing an e-book as another format, one that fundamentally looks and feels like a “book”, limits our ability to capitalize on the rich possibilities available in a new realm.
As I said in my remarks: “The challenge is not just being digital; it’s being demonstrably relevant to the audiences who now turn first to digital to find content.” Demonstrating relevance will require much more than agility in handling an additional format.
Posted by Nobilis Reed
For an excellent example of fiction content presented in a 21st century way, check out “Fallen London” aka “Echo Bazaar”.
http://echobazaar.failbettergames.com/
Anyone in publishing should be experiencing this site, and crying into their latte, that they aren’t already doing it.
And no, I don’t work there. I’m just a fan.
Posted by Brian O'Leary
When it comes to new and innovative ways to present content, I think that there are probably dozens or hundreds or .. you get the idea.
The focus to date has been on figuring out which uses will “win”. Both in this post and the longer one from which the bulleted points are taken, I’m more interested in what publishers need to do (now!) to prepare for a more robust future.
I like the example. Creepy, but it’s almost Hallowe’en.
Posted by Martin Edic
The concept of eBooks as just another container is extremely limiting. They can reside in many places and fulfill many roles beyond anything a print book can do. They are connected (or should be) to a network of relevant information in ways no static ‘container’ can ever be. This is where standards are problematic and will not work- if I develop a unique way of taking advantage of web tools in concert with my titles, why would I share that? Innovation becomes a competitive advantage that most conventional publishers are not equipped to utilize.
And by innovation, I also mean in marketing and inserting titles into the social graphs. If a publisher doesn’t know what that means, they are going to have problems.
I’d also like to see discussion of the versions issue. If we constantly update information included in our titles, do we constantly update all the versions out there, for example?
Posted by Brian O'Leary
@Martin - I’m with you on the risks associated with seeing eBooks as containers, as well as the relatively weak position of many publishers when it comes to innovation.
I’m less clear about your thoughts on standards, though. HTML5 makes it possible to innovate; working within the standard, you know your (proprietary) development will still work on a range of browsers.
Similarly, the EPUB standard promotes interoperability of content files across multiple devices. This grows the market for innovative use of content, although the standard today is not quite “there” yet.
Your point about versions is really important. I didn’t talk much about versions in the “unified field theory” presentations, but it is a function of workflow, which I see as the primary shortcoming for publishers looking to make the transition to a fully digital market.
I favor “write once, read many” (making the transforms from source to uses both seamless and easy to execute), but that’s as much theory as practice right now. Still, if we set that as our horizon, the components are more likely to fall into place (or get pushed there).
Posted by Martin Edic
Brian,
Don’t get the wrong idea about my view on standards- I’m in favor of them and firmly believe that both EPUB and HTML5 should be the default. I just don’t think the Amazons and Apples are going to completely conform because of their tight control over experience on their devices. I really think it is likely that some pubs are going to put proprietary stuff out there for marketing reasons.
We’re launching on Kindle-only initially, for example, primarily because they have good software readers for all the devices out there and we can get deep into that version as our titles have more and more networked content.
The other issue I’d like to see looked at is the excitement factor. This is exciting stuff yet the industry tends to look at it as a necessary evil!
Posted by Brian O'Leary
Thanks, Martin; that helps my understanding. You’re broadly reflecting reality (what has happened and will continue). I think the proprietary platforms are already somewhat weaker on price (if I can’t lend or port a book… ), and I think when people find there is no real path for “graceful degradation”, the push for open will be pretty strong.
Necessary evils tend to be those you spend the least on (fixing the muffler). We agree - that’s no way to approach the future.