McGraw-Hill

Monday, July 4, was supposed to be a quiet day in the publishing business. It turns out it wasn’t. Three developments reported as special holiday bulletins by Publishers Lunch have strategic implications worth pondering that will have trade publishing people all over the world conferring with their friends and colleagues as soon as they shake the sand off their shoes and settle in to read the weekend email.

First of all: Amazon.com bought The Book Depository. What? You’ve never heard of The Book Depository? Well, then you’re almost certainly one of my US-based readers (about 60-70 percent of you.) The Book Depository is really the other global bookstore. They don’t do ebooks, but they’ve bult their global book business to more than $150 million. No, that’s not as big as BN.com, but they have built a sophisticated many-to-many supply chain (they don’t do it holding stock in distributed warehouses like Amazon), have been growing by something like 30-40% per year for several years, and might even make money.

They’ve even invested heavily in untangling the metadata challenges of global book sales, with a large team in the Middle East tackling the problem.

If anybody were going to mount a global challenge to Amazon as a single consolidated book (and content) distribution business worldwide, The Book Depository was the platform to do it from.

This move by Amazon reminds me of when they acquired Mobi-pocket early in the last decade. In the dawn of the ebook-on-devices era, there were two formats competing as pawns of a hardware competition. Microsoft pushed MS Reader, Palm pushed their own format. Mobi had the clever idea of being able to play on either.

So Amazon acquired Mobi. That meant that they owned the only single-file solution; any other retailer trying to serve the market would have to offer both Microsoft and Palm as a choice to reach all the devices. Palm quickly took that option off the table by insisting it would serve all its files itself. That’s when B&N went out of the ebook business, not to return in a serious way until after Kindle launched in late 2007.

It sure looks to me like The Book Depository would have been a great launch platform for Barnes & Noble to go global.

Second: Pearson, owner of Penguin, became a book and ebook retailer by the purchase of the relevant assets from the bankrupt REDGroup. It appears they will run the business, web sites under the Borders and Angus & Robertson brands, with a minimal staff.

Pearson is a big company whose interests go far beyond Penguin, but it is the trade implications of this that catch my trade-centric eye. Big trade publishers are caught between a rock and a hard place on direct selling and customer ownership. Whatever the future may hold or require, trade publishers today are highly dependent on their intermediaries’ good will. It would likely cause untold grief with Amazon and Barnes & Noble if a major US trade house set up a direct selling operation, despite the fact that niche publishers often have them as adjuncts to community or professional publishing efforts (Wiley, O’Reilly, McGraw-Hill, F+W Media, Interweave. In fact, Pearson owns half of Safari, a direct-to-reader subscription service pioneered and co-owned by O’Reilly. They also own part of CourseSmart, but they’re now selling books and ebooks direct to consumers, not just content-by-subscription to geeks and textbooks to students.)

It might be well down the list of reasons why Pearson Australia is now running online trade selling operations, but it will be interesting to see how Penguin Australia benefits from the association.

Third: J.K. Rowling and the agent that actually handled her business, Neil Blair, have left the Christopher Little Agency which formerly employed Blair and was the agent of record for Rowling. Lawsuits may ensue, but this is another lesson in what disintermediation can mean and it recalls to me something I learned long ago from a lawyer in the music business.

My mother, Eleanor Shatzkin, had a chunk of her consulting career when she designed billing systems for law firms. (This was in the days before personal computers; “data processing” back then was done on punch cards sent to job shops for print-outs to be created.) So she made friends with a lot of lawyers. One of them, a very nice man named Don Engel, left the large New York firm where he’d been a litigator and moved out to California and set up a practice in the music business.

What Don told me (this was in the early 1980s) was that he found a phenomenon out there that didn’t exist in New York because people could start a law firm with just one client, and they often did. (As he said, you can’t take a piece of the AT&T business and set up shop, but you can take one big recording artist.) That meant these firms had no broad capabilities, and if any real legal challenges arose, the little firm with the big client would need savvier outside counsel. Don built a substantial business suing record companies over royalties on behalf of artists, getting cases referred by these tiny “firms” with one star client because he developed a reputation for being an honest guy who wouldn’t poach the client in turn!

I don’t want to suggest that what Rowling and Blair are doing is likely to become a trend. In fact, the prevailing industry conditions at the moment would, I think, mitigate against it. Agencies are more likely to consolidate than to splinter because the capabilities they need to serve their clients effectively are growing with digital change. Whatever threat there is to publishers from disintermediation would require that agents do more and have greater organizational capabilities, not less.

On the other hand, new services being offered by agents that other agents could employ might allow unbundling of the direct client contact from the rest of the agency functions.

I hope you had a really restful 4th of July weekend. The second half of the year begins with plenty to think about.

Share this post

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.

Share this post