Mark Bide

What shoved other news aside this morning was the word from Seth Godin that he won’t be publishing books with publishers anymore. This is another early indication that it is going to get harder and harder for trade publishers to sign up books.

It is not the first one. Thriller writer J.A. Konrath discovered the virtues of publishing through Kindle about 16 months ago. With the help of audience-building through his own blog, plus completed manuscripts that the New York publishers didn’t buy, he was pushed into learning how to monetize his own work without a publisher.

Last December, the news was that S&S author Stephen Covey had taken his backlist to ebook publisher Rosetta which had, in turn, made a temporary exclusive deal with Amazon. The motivations, apparently, were a bigger share of the ebook pie and the unique marketing capability Amazon has to really push something direct to appropriate consumers. That deal seemed to be with the original publisher’s explicit consent. (Agent Andrew Wylie recently formed an imprint to do the same thing with a batch of his clients’ backlist apparently without prearranging consent, although no lawsuits have been filed to date.)

At the last BookExpo, one of the leading agents in New York told me he is working hard to learn about self-publishing options because his authors are asking him about it.

Last week, one of the leading publishing consultants to “brands” told me that the 25% standard ebook royalty was pushing her company’s clients to think harder about self-publishing.

And it happens that right now I’m reading a book about my favorite subject (baseball history) called “A Year in Mudville” (about the Mets inaugural season) that was self-published through Smashwords but which, in editorial quality, exceeds many titles I’ve read from established houses. I don’t know whether author David Bagdade didn’t want to bother with the bureaucracy of pitching trade publishers, was rejected by them, or just chose the control and better margins of Smashwords, but Smashwords rather than one of the established players is dividing with the author 70% of the nine bucks I gave iBooks for the purchase

This way lies destruction.

Many years ago, my friend and sometimes colleague Mark Bide and I were talking about threats to the scholarly journal paradigm. For those not familiar with how journals work, it might be an eyebrow-lifter. Universities pay professors’ salaries and encourage them to write peer-reviewed articles. The journals get the articles for free, operate the peer-review and publication process, and then sell the collection of articles back to the university’s library. So the university both pays for the content’s creation and purchases it in its published form. Since the beginning of the web awareness, it has been predicted that disintermediation of journal publishers would occur.

What Mark told me was “watch the level of submissions.” That is, he believes the first sign that journal publishing is in trouble will be if the professors stop sending in their articles. So far, that hasn’t happened (that I’m aware of.)

But it’s going to be happening in trade.

On an email list I read, you can detect the annoyance of publishers who point out that neither Konrath nor Godin would be where they are today if publishers hadn’t invested in them and built their fame. There’s some resentment that neither Konrath nor Godin emphasize this point and, by not doing so, seem to suggest “anybody can do this.” I’m not sure that they’re saying “anybody can”, but it isn’t necessary to push that idea to do real damage to publishers’ futures, because the authors who can do this are among the the ones publishers need the most.

Starting in the 1990s, publishers started to ask “what’s the author’s platform” when they signed up books. In those days, they were asking whether the author had a radio show, a newspaper column, a speaking circuit, or extensive media contacts that could give them a leg up to promote the author’s book. But with the turn of the century and the development of inexpensive websites and blogs, authors were able to build their own platforms. And, lo and behold, they were able to build them faster and better if they had legitimately published books in the marketplace.

Publishers should have remembered the axiom that you should be careful what you wish for. This was, perhaps, the beginning of the unbundling of the publisher’s suite of services to the author. It used to be that the publication of a book was the platform and the publishers’ publicity and marketing efforts worked to capitalize on it. This was all part and parcel of the package: paying an advance; editing and shaping the book; putting it into a distributable (printed and bound) form; getting it known; and, of course, getting it into a store where a customer could buy it.

Publishers still pay advances although they’re doing their best to scale them back. Many don’t provide the same level of editing services that they used to; they often expect more books to be delivered by each of their editors and they also lean to agents they can trust to do a lot of the work of putting a book in shape. Putting it into distributable form isn’t nearly as hard as it used to be and doesn’t require inventory investment if the form is digital. Getting it known is something that Godin very articulately and accurately suggests he can do better himself. He is not alone and authors who can do this are explicitly what publishers are seeking. And getting the content into the customer’s hands is a drastically different proposition in a digital context than it was in the pure print world of 20 years ago, and digital distribution can be done with far less investment and far less organizational muscle.

So there’s less for a publisher to do for an author than there once was. And the publishers sent that signal when they started to focus on the author’s own ability to promote and then, over time, turned that ability into a frequent requirement for publication. If the publisher is going to do less, the author wants to pay less for it. Joe Konrath is very clear about the advantages he sees in getting the lion’s share of the revenue his books generate, rather than a mere author’s royalty.

But, somewhat more ominously, making more money through disintermediation does not appear to be the primary driver for Seth Godin. What Seth seems to be saying is “I want flexibility. I want to use what I write in whatever is the best way to build my overall career, revenues, and audience. I don’t want to be locked into publishers’ schedules and bureaucracy.”

That’s a massive challenge for big trade houses but it will be of increasing importance to big authors, particularly big non-fiction authors. It is much easier for a publisher to provide real value if they’re vertical. On the same mailing list I mentioned above, we got a comment from a biggish independent publisher who claims that the house is finding more and better ways to work with authors and really investing in them. But, we are told, they are all in verticals.

Godin may be a unique case. There are unique aspects to Covey and Konrath too. But it is not comforting for trade publishers to see that authors have alternatives, that as ebook sales rise the viability of the alternatives grows, and that the authors most likely to strike out on their own or look for new partners are those with the strongest existing connections to audiences.

Bookmark It:

The publishing industry faces some mammoth challenges that it will be very hard for any one publisher, even the biggest, to address.

Costs have to be cut dramatically over the next few years. New technology is going to enable upstarts to compete in the marketplace with far less overhead and infrastructure than legacy publishers have built. The legacy cost structure will be competitively unsustainable and, at the same time, investments are needed to create whole new infrastructures for marketing and new processes for product creation. What the products themselves will turn out to be is something that will only become clear through experimentation, trial-and-error, and an iterative exchange between publishers and their markets.

There are some challenges that are simply awesome. The big publishers are sitting on rights they can’t exploit because they don’t know what they own. The typical “rights database” in a major house is an ocean of filing cabinets containing hard copy contracts that could be 20, 40, or 80 years old and still in effect. The biggest emerging market might be the use of publishers’ material on web sites that do, indeed, need to “buy licenses” to use the material, but the granularity of potentially millions of very low-value transactions would defeat any attempt in the current environment to make this business profitable.

In fact, transaction costs are going to be one of the closely-watched metrics distinguishing publishers in the 21st century from publishers in the 20th. Everybody is going to have to be paying attention to cutting them to enable those low-value transactions to be profitable.

We’re going to need concerted and focused efforts to enable today’s publishing companies, particularly in trade but really in all areas except a few professional niches that have already made the transition, to do what’s necessary to reconfigure and rebuild for new paradigms that are still being invented.

All of this leads me to introduce an organization I hadn’t heard of a month ago which could well be the White Knight riding to the rescue of publishing. I don’t know them well — I’m still in the process of getting introduced — but a publishing systems veteran who has been my client twice before has just taken an important position with them. We’ll be working with them to hone their approach to the publishing community, which I’m sure will have a profound impact over the next few years.

The company is the Tata Group, and more specifically, the unit within it called Tata Consulting Services, or TCS. The executive is John Wicker, with whom I worked in the 1990s when he was at Vista Computer Services (now Publishing Technology) and more recently when he was at Klopotek. (We did the Digital Asset Distribution project together three years ago.) Tata is extraordinary.

The company was founded in 1868 and today the Tata Group comprises 96 different companies with over $70 billion in annual revenues (not far off the annual revenues of the entire book publishing industry, worldwide.) The consulting group is about 10% of the company, with annual revenues of about $7 billion, growing at about 20% a year. TCS has 160,000 associates worldwide, with more than 14,000 in the United States. All of them, of course, have a technology background. Hundreds have experience with publishing and thousands have experience with other media.

Wicker’s new job is to head up the Publishing Segment for TCS’s Global Consulting Practice (GCP), but he is building on a substantial existing base. There’s a major media company of great importance to the publishing community that has been having TCS handle its back office functions for years. Another major publisher was halfway through an Oracle system implementation that was over budget and behind its schedule working with a big brand consulting firm. TCS took over the project and delivered the implementation within the original timetable and budget.

And a substantial portion of the apps on sale for the iPad were developed by TCS. They have dealt with publishing’s legacy challenges and they’ve got experience at the things publishers are just learning that are critical to our future.

In the 1990s, Wicker helped us pioneer a new fusion between envisioning publishing’s future and educating the industry by organizing Vista’s “Publishing in the 21st Century” program, which I co-chaired with Mark Bide of Rightscom in the UK. The White Papers and conferences we did then were really groundbreaking. We can read what we said was publishing’s future more than a decade ago with pride. (Most of the speeches on this web site that are from before the year 2001 were delivered at Vista conferences.) We tapped the thinking of a lot of smart people to develop our understanding of the challenges publishing faced and to feed our imaginations about where things were going.

But the degree to which we could address the challenges directly was limited. Vista was the biggest provider of ERP (that’s “enterprise resource planning”) systems to publishers, but they were a tiny company, far less than half a percent of the size of TCS. What we learned influenced Vista’s systems development but we really couldn’t help much with a lot of the challenges we saw.

We didn’t have the resources to boil the ocean. TCS does. TCS can’t stop change (nor would they want to try) but they really have the capabilities to help publishers do what’s necessary to adapt to it. From the perspective of guys like Wicker and me, who for years have been contemplating issues so large they were more frustrating than enlightening to consider, being able to help steer such a massive rescue flotilla into publishing waters looks like the opportunity of a lifetime.

Bookmark It:

In the Internet world, brands will be more important than they’ve ever been before.

Why?

Because as the number of choices available to anybody seeking anything proliferate, brand is the shortcut that allows choices to be made quickly and reliably. And the Internet does nothing better than presenting us with more choices for any quest than anybody can possibly consider carefully.

In the next 20 years or so, the brands that will dominate for a very long time will be created.

Why?

Because the organization and delivery of stuff — including information — is being realigned into verticals; that is: subjects. The requirements of physical delivery required aggregation across interests that the Internet does not. So enduring horizontal brands of content like newspapers or book publishers but also outside content, among retailers, for example, that thrived across interest groups will find themselves challenged by new brands that are narrower and deeper. Being narrower and deeper permits a much more involved engagement with the audience. It strengthens the brand.

That’s how entities like Politico and Fivethirtyeight.com for political news suddenly challenged The New York Times and the Washington Post. That’s how Ravelry and Etsy arose out of nothing to become brands with real power in the crafts space, or how The Food Network or Epicurious became dominant in the web conversation about food.

The owners of the brands that matter will control access to the audiences that matter in the future. Content creators’ fates will be in the brands’ hands.

Publishers can compete in this environment, but only if they recognize the realities and try!

I am not an expert on brands (and I don’t even play one on TV.) But I have been paying attention this concept for about 15 years, since Mark Bide introduced me to it during our work together on the Publishing in the 21st Century program in the 1990s. There are a few simple truths that I believe are clear to anybody who spends any real time thinking about this.

1. For a brand to succeed, its message (often called its “promise” among the Brandanista) must be crystal clear and unconfused. You wouldn’t put the same brand name on toothpaste and tomato sauce. And if Ravelry wants to expand into gardening, they almost certainly should invent another brand.

2. Publishers particularly need to distinguish between B2B (business-to-business) and B2C (business-to-consumer) brands. So a company’s name might be an acceptable B2B brand, communicating things about commerciality, quality, and its marketing effort to bookstore buyers, librarians, and reviewers who will be interested in its offerings across subject matters. But consumers require brands that are consistent as to subject matter, or as to the problems the content offerings solve (which is what makes “Dummies” work.)

3. Healthy brands reduce marketing costs. If you want to sell a romance book, you have to find the audience. In Harlequin’s case, the audience finds them! Yes, Harlequin is one of the exceptions to the rule that a publisher’s name is not a B2C brand. Why? Because they have a consistent product offering. If they decided to expand into mysteries or thrillers, they’d need another brand. Even within romances, Harlequin has sub-brands to give their readers shortcuts to the particular lengths and types of books they want to buy.

4. Precisely the same product with precisely the same marketing expenditure will sell better under some brands than it will under others, which is a corrolary to point 3 above.

5. We all well know that not all brand promises are about content. “Community” (interaction among the interested) and “service” (solving problems or providing help, which is what the content in Dummies books do) are important components of brand as well. My paradigm is to use content as bait to attract eyeballs, but then to use community and service to strengthen the hold of the brand on its adherents.

The overall vision presented in the Shift speech is that vertical communities are forming and that the stakes being planted in the virtual ground are analogous to the land claims made by settlers when Oklahoma was opened up. Each of those claims will ultimately be branded and many of those brands will endure for a very long time. Will important gardening brands be owned by publishers or seed and fertilizer companies? Will important cooking brands be owned by publishers or a food manufacturer or a restaurant chain? Will important travel brands be owned by publishers or a hotel or an airline? It depends on who delivers the combination of content, community, and service that pulls together the interested and then leverages that interest into an enduring brand.

Publishers have great tools to compete but they can only succeed if they know what the game is. Establishing enduring brands is the great opportunity of our time and book publishers are very well-positioned to win. If they play. Understanding content and how to deliver it to markets is a great start, but that’s all it is.

Bookmark It:

In the 1990s, Mark Bide and I used to chair a program for VISTA Computer Services called “Publishing in the 21st Century.” We’d do a “white paper” every year and run conferences twice a year each in New York and London. The subject was digital change in publishing and the purpose was, simply, to think it through.

The conferences developed a pattern. Mark would open the show with a summary of our research. He’d be followed by a couple of outside speakers and then I’d wrap up with what we took to calling a “walk on water” speech. I got a lot of practice doing big vision stuff.

Part of the pattern was that Mark would start each conference by reiterating that book publishing is not one business, but many. The procedures and business metrics for a publisher of directories bore no resemblance to that of a college textbook publisher; a sci-tech publisher had a different business and, in many ways, a different business model from a trade publisher; and so forth.

General trade publishers are, in my opinion, the most challenged of all by digital change. They have the superficial advantage of having their marketplace “go digital” later than all the others, so there would seem to be an opportunity to learn from the mistakes and the successes of others. But that advantage is illusory because of unique aspects to trade.

Recently, for a new project I’m working on that will become public in the next couple of weeks, I was challenged to enumerate what distinguishes trade publishers’ 21st century problems from everybody else’s. I think all of these things are challenges unique to trade publishing or they have substantially more impact on trade publishers than on any others:

* their channels to get printed books to the customer are consolidating and shrinking which means a loss in margin to intermediaries with more clout, a compressed sales window that leads to more risk-taking with initial placements of inventory and higher returns, and, as volumes shrink and returns increase, actual distribution costs per unit sold will rise as well;

* their principal marketing channels are atrophying, and the new emerging ones are more granular and transient, increasing per-title marketing costs;

* the biggest authors have increased clout for many reasons, increasing title acquisition costs;

* the new technologies both lower barriers to entry for additional competing titles and keep old and even used books alive forever in the marketplace, increasing competition;

* they have unique legacy issues: the backlist rights tangles and undigitized backlists that still sell robustly in print require additional investments now to forestall ultimate sales erosion.  As the overall sales shift to digital some titles on those backlists, depending on rights, might not be able to go (and perversely, could have the copyright licensed for print but effectively orphaned for a digital version);

* they have agents, who have their own challenges (unless they represent one or more of the biggest authors and even that model might be threatened as more digital change evolves) while they add complications for publishers trying to find their way to new models with uncertain costs and revenues.

Trade publishers, much more than their counterparts in school, college, academic, and professional, are bound to the format of “the book”. That is partly because the “value adds” that other publishers can use to justify different (higher) pricing are not natural adjuncts to trade books. Trade publishers can’t boost prices and margins by adding homework helpers as is done for school books, self-testing as is done for college texts, and value-added aggregation, searching, and productivity tools as is done for academic and professional publishing. So the lessons being learned by other publishers just don’t port to trade, any more than the new paradigm for music (give away the content to sell concert tickets) can transfer to books.

Even within trade publishing, there are distinctions that matter. The business of the Big Six general trade houses is quite different than the niche (sometimes called “enthusiast”) businesses run by publishers like F+W Media, Chelsea Green, or Hay House. Niche publishers who have depth of content in verticals can do things that the general trade houses just can’t.

For example, F+W Media has refocused its company around verticals. They used to see magazines and books as the businesses they were in with titles related to crafts and writing; now they see crafts and “writing” as the businesses they’re in with books and magazines in each. That enables them to share marketing costs across many books and magazines and it enables them to market much more effectively to the markets they serve. F+W’s book business is challenged by all the same factors as everybody else’s, but reinforcing their vertical organization creates alternatives, sometimes allowing them to convert essentially consumer audiences to professional audiences so that tricks from other publishing businesses can apply.

Here’s a recent anecdote that, for me, sums up the uniqueness of our challenge.  In a recent conversation with a very sharp and Senior Marketing Person at a major house, I raised a pet question of  mine these days. “What’s the new ’standard treatment’ for a trade book?” Used to be galleys to selected pre-pub review media, a press release with and without review copies to lists of varying sizes and care of curation, size of the catalog page, and then things we can do for all mysteries, all cookbooks, etc. What should it be now?

So SMP says back to me, “there isn’t one.” But there has to be one, I said. Because only 10% of the books are going to get any unique marketing effort, so 90% have to get something standard. What should it be? If PW and The NY Times and the list of review editors at the various papers and the “usual suspects” aren’t the right thing to do anymore, what is? Or do the 90% get nothing?

What that captured for me is that the Achilles heel of trade publishing has always been that publishers have to reach audiences as numerous as the books they publish and they have mostly marketed books one-by-one, book-by-book. That’s what no other branch of publishing would even attempt. Marketing effort per title is the real point of scarcity in this business — more than quality product and more than shelf space. People outside the trade don’t think about that because, frankly, it’s a problem that doesn’t occur anywhere else. But it’s in our industry’s DNA. And we’re going to have to create some unique answers.

Bookmark It:

I had the good fortune to spend a couple of days last week in Toronto to speak at a conference on “Giving it Away”, how the culture of “free” is affecting the book business. My workshop sessions were called “Giving It Away with a Purpose”, by which I meant using content as “bait” to build community.

Since this was a workshop, most of the 90 minutes in each session was spent hearing from my audience about their publishing and marketing challenges and trying to help them see how the concepts of vertical and community applied to their particular examples. One of the many pieces of wisdom I’ve picked up from Mark Bide over the years is that we often “learn what we think by saying it”; questions from the audience force me to articulate things that might have been lurking in the back of my mind but had been left unsaid, even internally.

And what I learned that I already knew from these exchanges has to do with “critical mass” and its role in the shift from horizontal to vertical.

I read a piece about a month ago (who knows where, but I think I was originally steered to it by the ReadWriteWeb daily email) about the “X of Y found this review helpful” found on Amazon. What the article explained is why you don’t, and won’t see this employed effectively on any other bookseller’s site. Of all the people who buy books on Amazon, only a small percentage of them write reviews. (Many books don’t have reviews on Amazon; you are often invited to be the “first” to review a book.) Then of all the people who read the reviews, only a small percentage of those will comment as to whether the review was helpful. And a small percentage of a small percentage is an tiny, tiny percentage.

So only when you start out with the number of book customers Amazon has, which is a multiple of BN.com’s customer base (which is, presumably, in second place), can you get enough reviews and enough ratings of the value of the reviews to get a meaningful “Y” for “X of Y found this useful.”

And that was not what we talked about in Toronto.

In the course of my presentation, I talked about FiledBy.com, the new venture offering authors free web sites of which I am a co-founder. Carolyn Pittis of HarperCollins, a very acute thinker about digital strategy, pointed out from the audience that FiledBy is totally horizontal: it’s about book authors of all kinds. She wondered if my own new venture might contradict my own theory about verticals.

Temporarily, it might, although the initial “vertical” of FiledBy is book creators (there are sites there not just for authors, but also for illustrators, editors, and others who are credited with creative contributions to books that have ISBNs.) But the creators of FiledBy are very aware that as the number of authors registered with us grows, we will be able to put authors together by interest, creating sub-communities of mystery authors or history authors or knitting authors. And we intend to do that.

Earlier in the presentation, I had expressed the thought that Facebook and Twitter are like AOL for Internet 2.0. AOL (and Compuserve and Prodigy) made the online world, and then the internet, easy for everybody to use. As the internet itself got easier to use, the on-ramp wasn’t necessary anymore and, in fact, the parts of AOL that are healthy today are the verticals they created in the early part of the 21st century when they (belatedly) saw this coming. Soon we will see social networking and short messaging tools everywhere and we will be more likely to employ them in verticals, among people of similar interests, than in the world at large, which is what the horizontal communities are.

Communities require critical mass. It’s great be able throw out a question for the community to answer, but if nobody’s there, it is ineffective. If only 20 editors and 10 agents were on PublishersMarketplace, the deal database wouldn’t be worth much.  By the same token, growth in a community enables niching to get more and more narrow and deep.

Soon, publishers are going to see that they that they require critical mass by vertical in order to do cost-effective marketing. That is going to lead to a reshuffling of publishing portfolios, which will be the topic of a subsequent post.

Another big piece of ebook news landed this morning. ScrollMotion has announced that one million titles are on their way to them from LibreDigital! One always presumes that publishers want every title they have on every possible platform so that similar announcements will come from other ebook players soon, but this is another huge stride forward for the ebook business. And for ScrollMotion.

Bookmark It: