New York Times

News of the 7-figure Tim Ferriss deal with Amazon that hit the news this (Wednesday) morning must have leaked out to the press yesterday (Tuesday) because I got a call from a reporter asking for comment on Amazon’s “big new hardcover” book deal. The question confused me yesterday, but seeing the announcement about Ferriss today featuring the hardcover makes it clear what the trigger was for that call.

I’d call this deal both an outlier and a harbinger.

It’s an outlier because Ferriss clearly did it for reasons that weren’t strictly financial. According to The New York Times and Publishers Lunch, Ferriss called Amazon seeking the deal. Ferriss decided he’d rather be with a technology company than a publishing company. Ferriss is excited by the unenumerated opportunities he sees having a publisher that has direct relationships with the ultimate consumers.

To analyze the competition between the big publishers and Amazon, I think we need to think about four components of the deal and the publication.

The first thing on many authors minds is the advance against royalties they can get for signing a contract. This deal is reported as 7-figures. We know that Amazon has deeper pockets than any publisher. So they can compete with advances. Since Crown (a division of Random House) had reportedly paid 7-figures for Ferriss’ last book in 2008, perhaps Amazon offered only a sensible competitive number here. But publishers, all too aware that Amazon competed in the ebook marketplace by selling big titles at a loss, have to be concerned that they might be willing to sign some big authors at a loss as well.

The other components to think about are the main channels of sale for the book. I will stipulate in advance that this is a bit over-simplified but I think simplification here promotes understanding (and unncecessarily complicating things would obscure it).

Ferriss is a non-fiction author. For big non-fiction books today, the largest sales channel is usually print sold in stores. Generalizations are dangerous (and generally wrong), but it would be reasonable to think that Ferriss sells 50% of his books that way. If so, that’s a problem for him with Amazon because store sales of print will be the hardest for Amazon to get. Barnes & Noble recently made clear that they would only consider stocking an Amazon-originated title if they could sell the ebook (Nook) edition as well as the print. Amazon hasn’t stated a policy on that, but, to my knowledge, all the publishing deals they’ve made have required ebook exclusivity for the Kindle.

At our on-stage conversation at the Publishers Launch BEA show, Barry Eisler — who had just done his own book deal with Amazon for a substantial advance — admitted that Kindle exclusivity was the one part of the deal he wasn’t crazy about. More on what that means to ebook sales further down in this post, but it would appear that ebook exclusivity is blocking print store sales at the largest possible outlet. Unless Amazon has some distribution cards up its sleeve that we haven’t seen yet, the loss of brick store print sales (and exposure) would appear to be the biggest negative for Ferriss in doing this deal.

It is likely that Amazon expects to sell a lot of those hardcover books through the next channel to consider, print books sold online. In this case, Amazon has a very high percentage of the total market, perhaps in the 80-to-90 percent range. Given their ability to give a book of theirs exposure and perhaps even using that direct customer knowledge that Ferriss seems so intrigued by, it isn’t unreasonable to think that they can sell more than their fair share of those books. It’s also seems likely (generalizing again) that 25% of Ferriss’s publisher-generated revenue could come from print sold online. Maybe Amazon is paying him a higher royalty than the standard on that as well.

Of course, the main commercial reason for both sides to do this deal is for sales of the ebook, the Kindle edition. On the one hand, Kindle sales are said by publishers I’ve spoken with to have fallen from 90% to 50-60% of the total ebook sale. (Barnes & Noble’s Nook is credited with the lion’s share of the rest.) But the publishers don’t know how much of Kindle’s sale (or Nook’s sale or Kobo’s sale) is consumed on the proprietary device. If I read on a Nook and Kindle has an exclusive on a book, I’m stuck. But if I read Nook books on my iPhone or iPad and Kindle has an exclusive on a book, I can just switch over for that one book without a problem.

That means that some big part of the 40-50% of the ebook market that isn’t Kindle is accessible through the Kindle reader on an iOS or Android device. It’s a guess, but I think a reasonable one (maybe even a very conservative one) to say that 35% of Kindle reading is done on non-Kindle devices. Adding those people in would suggest that the Kindle store has meaningful access to anywhere from 67% to 75% of the total ebook marketplace.

And we’d assume that Ferriss is getting a 70% royalty from Amazon on those sales, four times what he’d get if a publisher gave him 25% of the ebook royalty (because they’d be dividing the same 70%.)

My bottom line on this is that Ferriss would get a sliver of what would be half the business (print in stores). He could well get as little as 10 percent of that potential (or 5% instead of 50% of what would have been his total publisher revenue.) Depending on the royalty structure, he’ll get at least as much and perhaps a bit more on the online revenue piece, so let’s call it 30% instead of what would have been 25% of his total publisher revenue. So on those two pieces, he’d be getting 35% of the former total whole, rather than 75%, or a bit less than half.

But on the ebook side, he’ll get about 4 times the royalty on about 70% of the sales, or 2.8 times as much revenue as he would have gotten from a publisher. If that had been 25% of revenue of the former “whole”, it would be 70% of the former whole now. Added to the 35% he’s getting from what would have been the other 75%, that back-of-the-envelope set of guesses delivers him 105% of what he would have gotten from a publisher, even giving up almost all the print store sales.

And, of course, he has high expectations for what he and Amazon can do together with all that customer knowledge. If he’s right about that, he could do considerably better.

This is sobering math for the big publishers. The numbers would look better for Amazon if we were generalizing about fiction, where the percentage sold as ebooks is somewhat higher. But, more important, the segment of the business where Amazon is disadvantaged — print in stores — is shrinking inexorably as a total of the whole. When we run this same exercise a year from now, the percentage assumptions we’ll be making will be lower for that component and higher for the other two.

So it’s clear why the deal is both an outlier and a harbinger. Giving up the store sale is a difficult thing for any author to do, particularly when the math works out to be so close to breakeven (and we haven’t factored in the marketing impact of books in stores, which is real.) It took an author with a particular personal bent to pursue that choice. But it is a harbinger because the math would appear to be moving in Amazon’s direction. The one way I can see for publishers to improve their chances of looking good in this calculation is to raise their ebook royalty percentage. Of course, there’s no reason that Amazon couldn’t do the same thing.

If you’re going to Frankfurt, you must consider attending one of our Publishers Launch Conferences events there. On Monday, October 10, we’ll present “eBooks Around the World”, which will include lots of original data, talks from every major global ebook retailer, the scoop on the growing importance of collective licensing, documentation of the benefits that a medium-sized publisher got from a digital workflow, an instructive presentation connecting metadata quality and sales results, and (as they say) much, much more.

On Tuesday, October 11, we’ll deliver a half-day event called “Children’s Publishing Goes Digital”, chaired by Lorraine Shanley of Market Partners, which will explore creation, marketing, rights, brand new product types and brand new players in what might be the fastest-changing part of our business.

Share this post

Sometimes, and it would seem quite often these days, the future comes faster than you expected it.

Followers of this blog, and of my speeches before there was a blog (this one’s from 2001!), know I’ve long been expecting ebook reading to supplant print book reading for many people. I’ve been wrong about the timing. (Ten years ago I’d have expected to be where we are now three or four years ago.) I’ve been wrong about whether a dedicated device for reading would make much of difference. (I read so comfortably on a phone, and before that on a PDA, that I figured few would want yet another device for reading only.) And I’m rethinking my expectations around enhanced ebooks and the utility of social reading.

But it has seemed clear to me for a long time that ebooks offered compelling advantages over print — portability, ease of purchase, and a lower cost basis that must inexorably lead to lower prices — that would increasingly sway many of the inevitably growing number of people who had a readable handheld screen in reach most of the time. And my long experience dealing with bookstore economics made it clear to me that the consequent sales subtraction from brick-and-mortar stores would lead to closures, which would lead to longer travel times for customers to get to the stores, which in turn would drive more people to purchase print or digital books online. And that would lead to more closures. This is a virtuous circle if you’re in the ebook business or sell print online. Or if you want to see Americans consume less gasoline.

It is a vicious cycle — a death spiral — if you’re a bookstore.

Michael Cader of Publishers Lunch reported (you have to subscribe to use the links) that BookScan numbers show a drop in unit sales of printed books of 4.4 % from 2009 to 2010. But don’t take that number to any bank. It is already out of date. Cader did a further analysis of more recent BookScan data shortly thereafter showing that print book sales have dropped by over 15% compared to the prior year over the first six weeks of 2011! And the share of print sold online keeps rising, so that almost certainly means that print sales in stores has fallen even faster. Could print sales in stores have dropped 20% or 25% from a year ago? They certainly could!

Sales of iPads, Kindles, and Nooks exceeded most expectations for Christmas 2010. Dominique Raccah, the head of independent publisher Sourcebook, a company with a diverse trade list, reported on her blog that dollar sales at her company in January were 35% digital!

No wonder she says, “We may well be at the tipping point. I suspect that we’re going to see some dramatic reassessment when publishers look at their numbers at the end of the first quarter, 2011.”

I have heard the argument from very smart people that ebook adoption will plateau at some point. Since it has been doubling or more for the past three years and was often placed in the mid-teens for new fiction and narrative non-fiction by the last quarter of 2010, we know that it can’t continue to double for the next three years without exceeding 100%. Nonetheless, predictions that ebook sales would achieve 50% in the next five years and that bookstore shelf space would drop by 50% in the next five years — which is what I thought would be the case — seemed pretty aggressive six months ago.

They don’t seem aggressive anymore.

The Borders share of the publishers’ revenue is estimated to be about 8%. They could be 10% or 12% of brick-and-mortar. So if Borders were to completely disappear tomorrow (and they aren’t about to do that) and even if every book they sold in their stores were somehow purchased at somebody else’s store (which won’t happen), the reduction of book sales in stores is so large that all the other stores would still, collectively, be looking at a substantial year-on-year sales decline.

All this means that 2011 that is going to be a real “fasten your seat belts” year for publishers. And Raccah is right that publishers are going to be a bit stunned at what they see when they look at their numbers for the first quarter of this year.

One impact that sophisticated publishers are well aware of but that is not obvious to the untrained eye is that as sales go down, returns percentages, inevitably and inexorably, go up. When a publisher calculates a returns percentage for any period — a week, a month, a quarter, or a year — they are measuring the returns received and credited in that period against the sales made in that period. But the returns actually come from the sales made in prior periods; even in the worst of situations, very few books are returned less than three months following their purchase.

So what’s happening right now is that shipments out are being depressed — no or very little Borders and diminished expectations everywhere else — while returns are rising because they’re coming back from orders placed against the higher expectations of the past six to 12 months. That means that the net sales numbers being created right now — shipments out minus returns — might, for many, be a disappointment verging on devastation.

And returns percentages aren’t the only percentages that are going to be troubling. Two others that publishers look at are also going to get more challenging.

The percentage of a book’s print price that is constituted by the “unit cost of manufacture” is one. The unit cost is extremely run-sensitive. If you’re printing fewer books and if you have to hold the line on retail prices (both of which will almost certainly be true), the percentage of revenue spent on creating the print books is going to rise.

The second trouble spot is that publishers like to think about the cost of “fixed overheads” as a percentage. Many publishers still follow the unwise practice of putting a percentage calculation of overhead into their unit cost calculations for every book. But if sales volume falls faster than overheads can be reduced, that percentage rises too. And you can’t fire your way to rapid overhead reductions very effectively. Shedding staff is often an illusion anyway; we keep hearing about freelancers getting work because publishers have fired the staff that used to do it. But, besides that, warehouse and office space costs and systems investments don’t rise or drop with volume (which is exactly why it is a logical error to calculate them as a percentage of revenue!) Publishers who are using a percent figure for overhead to calculate their margins on each title they acquire to sell are going to find those numbers need to be reconsidered as well.

While Barnes & Noble will be feeling the margin pain of all brick-and-mortar booksellers, they are, no doubt, also very well aware of their growing importance to all publishers in an upcoming Borders-less (or less-Borders) world. B&N will almost certainly be looking for better trading terms and publishers will almost certainly feel the weakness in their negotiating position dealing with those requests. And that’s aside from the fact that publishers really and truly want a healthy Barnes & Noble maintaining its ability to show their wares to the public.

So sales are going down, returns are going up, the cost of goods is going up, margins from sales are going down, and right-sizing overheads is going to be an accelerating problem. The good news is that ebook sales are rising and the margins from them — at least for now — have been pretty well preserved.

But the first significant sign that ebook prices are going to tumble has arrived with the news that 99 cent ebooks are now beginning to appear on the mainstream media’s ebook and combined bestsellers lists which come from The New York Times and USA Today. This creates some nasty problems. It puts previously unknown authors selling 99 cent books before the public as bestseller creators. And it encourages the established publishers to cut prices to register unit sales to get on those lists themselves.

At the very least, I’d expect publishers to start asking The Times and USA Today to consider the total revenue a book generates at retail (price times units) when creating the lists, not base them on unit sales alone. Since the established publishers buy a lot more ads than the 99-cent-book authors do, we should expect them to, at least, get a hearing.

Publishers are going to be scrambling to keep their business profitable and having second thoughts about many of their most time-honored practices in the weeks to come.

Share this post

I had breakfast last summer with one of the titans of 20th century publishing who is now in his senior years running his own smaller operation. He’s a notorious non-techie.

When we talked, he was trying to come to grips with what the problem for publishers was with this digital transition. From his perspective, publishing just gets cheaper (no books to print) and there should be room to lower prices, pay good author royalties, and still make a profit under something pretty close to the traditional model.

Well, I said, that would be true, but the problem is you’re going to face a lot more competition. Demand may go up and costs may go down but if supply in competition with publishers’ outputs rises too fast, there could still be a very difficult period in front of the industry’s legacy players.

That is: it could get increasingly difficult to get consumers to give you money.

Of course, increased competition from anonymous authors — many of whom would have been filtered out by the curation activities of agents and editors in the past — didn’t scare him. But, I pointed out, it won’t be limited to that. Do you think ESPN, for example, with all its content and all its market reach, will need a publisher to do a book or book-like thing? Or CBS News? Or The Museum of Modern Art?

When I shifted the conversation from stray authors he would have rejected as a big publisher to brands he sought deals with, the point had more impact.

Then, earlier this week at Digital Book World, David Nussbaum’s panel of publishing CEOs and presidents took up a related subject: ebooks being given away for free as a promotion. Brian Napack of Macmillan expressed a concern I’ve felt previously (and wrote about a year ago): that if there are enough free books around out there being distributed to promote an author or series, many readers will just choose from what’s free and stop buying books. Jane Friedman of Open Road declared on the same panel that “free is not a business model; it may be a marketing model, but it isn’t a business model.”

What the CEOs were focused on was what their company policies were and what they hoped others would be. Everybody’s learned that giving away a free book can serve as a promotion for other books by the same author, particularly if the book given away is the first in a series. But if enough people are promoting, that can generate a lot of free ebooks for any consumer to choose from any day of the year.

In a presentation of consumer data the following day, both the joint effort from BISG and Bowker (who were surveying the ebook consumer) and the research from iModerate (who were surveying readers who use multi-function devices) revealed findings that suggested that half or more of the ebooks being read these days are being obtained for free! How much of that is public domain material, how much of it is unknown authors promoting themselves, and how much is branded content from major houses is not yet known.

These two things — non-publisher brands and entities competing with publishers to deliver content and free content competing with content for sale — connect in a painful way at the publisher’s balance sheet. And there isn’t a lot publishers can do about them.

This morning comes the report that the New York Times is tackling the question: “How do you monetize the content when it is not news anymore?” Would you be surprised to learn that the answer is “publish an ebook”?

Their new ebook, “Open Secrets”, further amortizes the large volume of work they did to comb the wikileaks material. The ebook is available for $5.99 in most places ebooks are sold. Will there be more of this? You bet there will! Jim Schachter, the paper’s associate managing editor, is tasked with making sure there will.

The same approach is being tried by a newer brand with similar content, the independent journalism farm, ProPublica, which heretofore has teamed with various newspapers, including the Times, to deliver their investigative journalism to the public. Their entrant is “Pakistan and the Mumbai Attacks: The Untold Story” by Sebastian Rotella and it is available only from Amazon through their new singles (short works) program for $0.99.

Ten or fifteen years ago, “Open Secrets” would have been an “Instant Book” from a major publisher (if it were anything at all.) The Times could have an opportunity like this 10 or 20 or 30 times a year. They provide themselves with brand extension, revenue, an opportunity to give more exposure to their reporters and their reporting, and total flexibility without the need for the complexities, including contracts and corporate interactions, that arise when getting a book published by somebody else.

According to Richard Tofel of ProPublica, their goal is primarily dissemination of the information. After all, they’re a mission-driven organization to begin with. So they seem quite happy selling high-quality, curated content for 99 cents. Not free, but if you’re a publisher trying to sell content at prices that make commercial sense, not much better than free either.

These two unrelated realities — consumers being diverted from purchases by free ebooks and sources of content being diverted from publishing contracts by alternate paths to the market — make it clear that traditional publishing faces challenges both upstream and downstream from where they sit.

Share this post

My professional background —  indeed, most of my life that isn’t family, friends, baseball, and politics — is trade publishing: the publishing that is intended for consumers and which got its name becaiuse it has been transacted primarily through “the trade”: bookstores.

But this past week I spent two full days with the Publisher Advisory Group for my client Copyright Clearance Center where trade is a small part of the total picture. In addition to the program, I had conversations there to prepare for a talk I’ve been asked to give at the IFRRO (International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations) meeting CCC is hosting at the end of October. So, while I always think about trade publishing, this week I’ve been doing it within the context of other publishing — indeed, in the context of the whole world of intellectual property, one that goes well beyond publishing and includes music and art and photography. These are businesses that don’t think about bookstores at all.

There was a point at the CCC meeting (at which people who work at The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and Associated Press were among the participants) where it was useful to offer my own articulation of why the problems caused by digital change for newspapers and magazines and record companies were so much more grave than they were for book publishers (so far.) It is simply stated.

For those businesses, the unit of appreciation does not match the unit of sale.

By that I mean that record companies sold us albums when what we wanted were songs. That’s what their economics were built on. The minute we could buy songs, it blew up their business model. Newspapers sell us the weather when what we want are the box scores, or the horoscopes when what we want are the comics. There are many books which will be read cover to cover. Newspapers and magazines are rarely read cover to cover. It was never thought of as wasteful or uneconomic that most people actually consumed a small percentage of every newspaper and magazine they bought. But it gets harder and harder to make that sale in a digital environment.

Of course, we have felt some impact of this effect in the book business. When you get beyond fiction and certain components of non-fiction (memoir, biography, some history and science), the books aren’t read cover to cover either. You usually use (what we now call) chunks of travel books, gardening books, cookbooks, computer books, crafts books. Even in the bookstore environment, sales of these books are suffering because a more granular offering is available online.

Grasping the significance of the “unit of appreciation, unit of sale” paradigm makes me believe that the “album” (do we still call it that?) of music, the newspaper, and the magazine are ultimately doomed as organizing principles. They were built to meet the requirements for content distribution in a world where physical practicalities had to be addressed. The Times couldn’t drop sports and economics on my doorstep and world affairs and theater reviews on yours. And The New Yorker couldn’t deliver Talk of the Town to me and the cartoons to you. The units of appreciation were far too granular to be delivered as units of sale.

It would be a reasonable guess that about half the units that bookstores sell are cover-to-cover reads, where the unit of sale equals the unit of appreciation.

Brainstorming with publishing colleagues about what I need to say at IFRRO gave me a new realization about what’s likely to happen with the half that’s not.

Exploring non-trade publishing — academic, professional, sci-tech, college texts, and schoolbook publishing — makes you realize everybody else is headed in the same direction. They’re anticipating that the “unit of appreciation” for their content will always be defined by the context of either (depending on the customer base) a “learning system” or a “workflow.” The content won’t be the point. Learning something or accomplishing something will be the point and content will be delivered within a framework designed to deliver on the objective.

Pretty much without exception, smart publishers in these non-trade areas see the day coming where controlling the platform is the key and the controller of the platform will be the gatekeeper for, if not the creator of, the content. Since that tracks pretty closely to my notions about “verticals”, it all seems very logical.

But if you think about it a little harder, peel back one more layer of the onion, you realize that much of the rest of our non cover-to-cover publishing — much of what we now call trade — will also be housed within platforms. There will be platforms providing workflow, and content in context, for chefs and knitters and gardeners. They too will be buying “solutions”, not “information”, and the material we now put in the books will be served up, as needed, inside the workflow. It won’t be so much about “units of appreciation” as “units of need” or “units of purpose” for the content because the entire system will be the unit of appreciation and the unit of sale.

That is: the instruction as to how to do a particular knitting stitch will pop up or be linked to the place in the “pattern” (or whatever digital delivery has made the pattern become). The explanation of how to broil or baste something will be linked to the direction to broil or baste something. It won’t be housed in a different physical volume; it won’t even be housed in a different program or file! The beginnings of this are already evident in some apps and enhanced ebooks.

The world in which we will be living this way and routinely getting content this way is not around the corner; it is a few years off. Not twenty, I don’t think; but maybe ten. We’ll be solidly in a cloud world by then with just about all the content we consume — music, movies, TV, and what we get from newspapers, magazines, and books — and all the software we use coming to our devices from remote servers rather than from a hard drive.

In that kind of a world, I think the idea of “owning” content will be nonsensical. Everything will be licensed. “Owning” is really a tangible object-based concept. We discover the reality of that whenever we try to apply the principles of first use — like lending and resale — to the digital things we “sell” today. And, when you think about it, purchasing access to whatever you want or need whenever you want or need it is the perfect matching of the unit of appreciation to the unit of sale.

If you’ll be at Frankfurt next week and you like talking about what I write about, please come by stand 8.0 L916 and if you can catch me when I’m not in a meeting (about half the time), please say hello. I am speaking twice at the Book Fair. On Wednesday, October 6 at 10:30 am, Mark Dressler will interview me about the 2011 Digital Book World Conference program.You’ll find us at the Sparks Stage, 8.0 P923. On Friday, October 8 at 12:30, I’ll be participating in a panel discussion on “The Ebook Business – Who’s in Control” which will take place in the “Entente” room in hall 4.C. I understand Victoria Barnsley of HarperCollins UK and Ronald Schild of the German ebook-selling consortium will be my partners for the conversation whose focus will apparently be on the big companies in the ebook space: Amazon, Apple, and Google. Maybe I’ll be a lonely voice saying “don’t forget that B&N and Kobo are very much here — which Google isn’t yet — that Blio and Copia are coming and that the collective power of yet-unaggregated sites and communities, which could be harnessed by yet another player, will be considerable.”

Share this post

This is the 2nd of a 4-part post spelling out what I would have said if I had appeared at the Annual General Meeting of the UK Publishers Association on Wednesday, April 28, and not been cancelled by a volcano. Part 1 set the stage, spelling out how much change can take place in 20 years. This post offers a vision of the world of information and entertainment (or what we today think of as the world of “content”) 20 years from now. Part 3 will suggest what a publisher’s role can be in the new paradigm and Part 4 will take a shorter view, looking at the change we should expect in the next 2 or 3 years.

If we accept that 20 years is time for things to change a lot and with the belief that the pace of change in the world of information and entertainment is accelerating because of digital technology, here’s a view of what happens to content, audiences, and what will pass for “publishing” 20 years from now.

I’d expect that 20 years from now, the “local” hard drive will be relatively unimportant: a relatively short-term “emergency” cache for the rare moments when you aren’t easily connected to the network (the internet.) Data — all data, including everything you think you “own” — will live in “the cloud.” Kids in 2030 will find it as quaint to think of not being able to get at your files except by getting to your own computer as kids today would think it was to not be able to call somebody unless you could find a phone booth and they were at home (which was the situation 20 years ago.) Local storage may be seen by some as a virtue, but it is a virtue manufactured of necessity. It’s actually a hindrance. We will very shortly expect to get at all our files at any time based on a password or an iris scan or a fingerprint or some combination thereof (depending on our need for security.)

And we’ll access those files through a multiplicity of devices, which by then will really just be screens of varying descriptions with online access. There will be big ones that hang on our walls for us to watch movies on and to put a Picasso in when we’re not watching a movie. There will be small ones, foldable ones, and ones that come in rolls where you can use whatever roll width suits your immediate purpose. With your password, you’ll be able to use my screen for your data, just as you can use my computer to get at your gmail account today. There will be screens you can write and underline on which will store your markings (to share or not, as you choose.)

(I don’t want to get into the fact that we’re working toward converting a phone conversation into having the hologram of the person on the other end in the room for your chat, and I don’t know enough to know the timetable for that, but maybe we’ll get there in 20 years too!)

When screen technology progresses sufficiently, the idea of using paper will become a total anachronism. Paper won’t record and store your notes or annotations; screens will. For any volume of content, paper gets heavy. Screens don’t. If you could call anything up on a screen in your pocket that you could get today on paper, why would you want the paper? Nobody will, except for the artistic value that is associated with antiques. Paper won’t even be as good as a screen for your grocery shopping list. (I am imagining that my wife would be able to add an item or two to the screen list I have folded in my back pocket while I’m walking to the store.)

Even illustrated and coffee table books will be just about defunct, except as pure works of art. Screens will be able to deliver better image quality with more flexibility: to blow up the image, or rotate it (which you can see in the “Elements” ebook on the iPad today.) Screens can deliver you the accompanying text on top of the image for you to read it and then “take it away” for you to see the image alone. Books can’t do that.

Now, if this becomes true, it obviously changes the face of publishing. If distribution of all content is digital, and it is hard to see why it would not be, then the list of businesses that exist today that won’t exist in 20 years is a long one. Bookstores will exist, but they’ll be curiosity shops carrying used books and perhaps a handful of printed-on-demand newer items for the few print-pervy holdouts that remain (and 20 years from now, there will still be some.) It is hard to see survival for newsstands. Printing may still exist for packaging, but it won’t for newpapers, magazines, or books (except for the handful printed-on-demand.)

The change for publishers, though, is far more profound than a simple change in delivery mechanism would suggest. Publishers, indeed all commercial media in our lifetime, have been defined primarily by format. Some do books; some do magazines; some do newspapers. Others called producers do movies or television or radio. The capital and skill set requirements for a format effectively channeled the media company. For the most part, big media was not topic- or subject-specific; it was format-specific.

But when the exchange between publisher and content consumer becomes a file, rather than a book or magazine or movie or TV show, then format becomes irrelevant. A file can hold any of the formats we have historically thought of: text, photographs, diagrams, maps, video, audio. A file can also hold games and productivity software. So the publisher that is limited by the formats of the 20th century will not be competitive in the cloud-and-screen based media exchange of the future.

Wrapping our heads around the transition from physical media to digital gives some clues to how publishing and publishers will have to change to survive, but there’s another aspect of the web development we can expect over the next 20 years that is just as important. We call that the shift from “horizontal media” to “vertical.”

We’ve seen that media have been defined by format. The companion thought is that media have rarely been defined by topic or subject. Whether you’re talking about CBS or the BBC, The New York Times or the Times of London, or Random House in either country, the subject of the content is not limited. These companies will cover news, sports, public affairs, science, every academic discipline at some level, and pure entertainment. Except in the spheres where publishing exists in service to or as an extension of another establishment (educational, academic, professional), the primary identify of most publishers of scale is by their format, not their audience.

But we already see that the Web has changed that. Even superficially-”horizontal” brands on the web — Huffington Post and Gawker being two examples that are popular in the US — serve pretty specific interests (politics and celebrity, respectively, in these two cases.) And there are far more examples of new successful web brands which are subject specific: on sports, politics, women’s interest, health, crafts, cars. These businesses are built, first of all, on repeat visitors to a particular web site. But when they’re smart, they add user-generated content which turns into databases. They have lengthy comment strings to their blogposts which attract an audience of their own.

And they are building the publishing brands of 2030.

When we lived in a world of physically-produced and hand-delivered content, barriers of cost and scale effectively kept content scarce. It is no longer. Anybody who creates any content today can make it available to the world for no incremental cost if they have a web connection. Lots of professional content creators — individual and institutional — feel it is in their best interest to make content available without charge on the Web (sometimes with advertising support; sometimes not.)  A consumer 20 years ago couldn’t read good writing and watch videos all day about whatever is their favorite subject for free unless they went to a library, where access would be bureacratic and cumbersome. A consumer with a web connection today surely can. All of this inevitably reduces the price anybody can charge for a competing piece of content in any form.

Here’s the important point for publishers to take on board. Content is being devalued by technology. This is inexorable. It is not anybody’s fault. It is not in anybody’s power to change it. The price consumers will be willing to pay for content is going to go down because of the laws of supply and demand. It is true that professional content creators can benefit from efficiencies and cost savings offered by the same technologies, so the loss of revenue doesn’t necessarily translate into an equivalent loss of income or profit. But the general direction is one way: down. Businesses that depend on monetizing the content they create will continue to be increasingly challenged over the next 20 years as they have been over the last 10. This won’t end well for the formula of creating content and selling it.

But if the price of content must inexorably go down because of the laws of supply and demand, publishers should look at what might go up for the same reason. And what will become more valuable over time is the audience looking at the content. Content won’t be scarce and command revenue, but human attention will. As the world verticalizes, the owner or controller of the web community that has (for example) the gardeners will be the one to decide what new gardening content is needed. However it is montetized — by standalone sale, or as part of a subscription, or supported by advertising, or underwritten by a sponsor — the control will belong to the entity that commands the eyeballs.

What all of this means, taken together, is that the successful publisher of the year 2030 will own a web community which is both a principal source of content and provides the audience for it. The community will not be content-centric alone; but we aren’t getting into that in more detail right now because sketching out the whole concept for “vortals” is “out of scope” for this exercise.

The publisher who owns “knitting”, or perhaps “knitting sweaters”, will develop and curate the content and control access to the audience just as surely as a major publisher has controlled access to bookstores shelves or a newspaper publisher to newsstand sales in our lifetimes.

Without bookstores and without any general marketplace dedicated to the sale of “books” as a format, the idea of a General Trade Publisher will have no meaning.

That’s 20 years away so publishers have some time to get from “here” to “there”. But they won’t get “there” by staying “here.”

Share this post

The New York Times published two apparently unrelated articles over the weekend which address questions raised by the rise of digital content creation and distribution. One was an op-ed piece in the Saturday paper by author Mark Aronson about the challenge of collecting the permissions necessary to include copyrighted material in enhanced ebooks. On Sunday, the Magazine published a piece by Randy Cohen, “The Ethicist”, about the rights and wrongs of downloading a pirated book file in a situation where the file’s acquirer had already bought and paid for a copy of the book presented in the file.

These are both thoughtful pieces to which I hope to add some useful observations.

Aronson’s piece elaborates on the challenge facing authors and publishers who want to include useful material in enhanced ebooks, particularly for non-fiction. He is an experienced non-fiction writer who knows about the challenge of collecting permissions for material in his books. He’s right when he says that the problem really escalates for enhanced ebooks. Aronson’s focus is on material from the “archives of the world’s art (now managed by gimlet-eyed venture capitalists” and other material controlled by museums and academic libraries.

We have lived for a long time with a very cumbersome permissions world. To use a picture of a great painting or a museum’s invention or artifact requires painstaking individual requests for permission and negotiations (usually) by the author, who is charged by contract with delivering this material with permissions already secured to the publisher. The usage matrix has been pretty well defined for print: what kind of book; what size printing; what langagues or territories affected; what number of copies to be printed, but each licensor converts that data into its own pricing policy.

The amounts of money charged are collectively of great value to the licensors. Viewed on an individual project basis, though, they are sometimes painfully high for the author or publisher but small enough for the licensor that lengthy negotiation that could lead to concessions based on mutual self-interest occurs relatively seldom.

Along come ebooks and enhanced ebooks (and, for that matter, web presentations of material in books which might be for promotional purposes.) In many cases, publishers have simply foregone the illustrated material for the digital presentation because securing the rights is either too painful or too expensive a process. The process that publishing has lived with in the print world needs to be fixed, says Aronson, and then we can move on to do something about how this can work better for digital content delivery as well.

So, far, I agree with him. It is the specifics of his remedy with which I’d suggest some modification.

Aronson’s suggeston for print is that the Author’s Guild and Association of American Publishers combined (coincidentally or not, the two entities who are the plaintiffs and negotiators of the Google Books settlement currently pending) establish a “grid of standard rates” and then “compel rights holders to confirm to industry norms.”

Two problems with that. One is that the AG and AAP are really not in the business of securing licenses for publishers. The entity that is in that business is Copyright Clearance Center, the CCC (and, full disclosure: our client.) What Aronson is suggesting is actually a hybrid of two kinds of licensing that CCC enables: “collective” licensing, such as is done for photocopying where companies agree to allow their material to be copied, CCC collects annual licensing fees from corporations and other entities, and shares them based on surveys of actual usage; and individual licenses granted by a copyright-owner for use on the c/r owner’s terms. In the latter case, CCC facilitates many of the transactions but doesn’t tell the rightsholder what to charge (or conversely, tell the licensor what to pay.)

CCC is positioned better than any other entity to attack this problem, but it’s much harder to implement such a simple solution for printed books. The differences in value of different copyrighted material can be vast and the rightsholders know that. The owners of the most valuable material are going to be reluctant to license it for an “average” fee and there is nothing the AG or AAP or CCC could do to compel or persuade them to act against their own interests.

Rightsholders know that when a book is created and printed, many tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of dollars of investment are involved. They want their fair share which, from their perspective, would be “what the traffic would bear”, not an arbitrary, standard amount.

But the enhanced ebook problem that triggered Aronson’s piece, and for which he offers the additional “solution” of payments based on actual sales (i.e. downloads), might actually be amenable to a collective-based licensing solution (but still a hybrid.)

In the case of enhanced ebooks, the marketplace is going to be much more challenging. There will be many more rights requests because relief from the minimum investments in printing will put far more creative works into play. And at the same time, the pool of potential licensors is growing by leaps and bounds as we move toward a digital camera in the hands of every cell phone user. Because the barriers to entry for ebooks, enhanced or otherwise, are so much lower than for press-run books, these will reach a point (if they haven’t already) where the cost of the transaction — reaching the right person, connecting with them, describing the potential licensed use and negotiating the price — is going to be more than it is worth, regardless of the licensing fee. And these costs will effectively be driving down the licensing fee.

Imagine if each bar had to negotiate with each songwriter to put their tune in the jukebox. That’s a considerably less complicated problem than the one we’ll have with images and text licenses for ebooks, and still it can only be solved with a collective licensing solution from BMI or ASCAP, which deliver a service close to what CCC does for photocopying.

So we see applying a hybrid similar to what Aronson describes, but with some nuanced differences. The future we’d imagine is for CCC to start gathering rights for a reservoir of content that can be licensed on a standardized basis for ebooks and web use, with the understanding that the fee for each individual use is going to be low enough that it wouldn’t have been worth the transaction cost on both sides to have negotiated it. The most valuable material would remain outside that reservoir (because the rightsholders wouldn’t agree to put it in) and would, therefore, be bypassed by most licensors when they put their products together. So if you hold your stuff out you can sell it for more each time, but you’re likely to sell it less often.

Aronson’s explicit concern is that only the “most popular subjects” will be covered in enhanced ebooks under the present regime. The solution suggested here would probably appeal to the owners of material on the least popular subjects; those that are rarely licensed now and where anything that would encourage more widespread use would be attractive.

It is also important to remember that digital presentations have a capability print doesn’t: they can deliver the reader directly to the digital doorstep of the licensor with a link. If you run an obscure museum with an obscure collection of art and artifacts, a linked licensed image could deliver you traffic and customers very effectively. A program such as what we’re envisioning here could make the link a standard component of the licensing arrangement.

The bottom line on this story is that I agree with Aronson that we need a new model for permissions in the digital world or important creativity and commerce will be choked. But we have to start with the pool of material that is of the least individual value in order to start at all. As that pool grows and is used increasingly, the incentive will grow for rightsholders to place more and more of their material in it.

As for the Ethicist…

The question arose because somebody who bought the 1,074-page new Stephen King novel didn’t want to carry it around on a trip and found the publisher had not yet issued an ebook. This person, who says they “generally disapprove of illegal downloads” felt they were okay in this case because they had previously bought the book and the publisher wasn’t facilitating their need for a digital copy.

The Ethicist agreed.

This position outraged my friend, the literary agent Richard Curtis who, on his eReads blog, takes strong exception. Quoting Richard’s two most emphatic paragraphs:

These dirtbags now have a champion in Randy Cohen. Go on, help yourself. The author and publisher have been paid once and don’t need to be paid for another edition of the same book.  While you’re at it, rip off the book club and the mass market paperback editions.

Cohen’s exculpation of this morally challenged idiot buying an e-book from a pirate site is the equivalent of condoning the purchase of black market goods from a fence. Does anybody know what Talmudic tractate he consulted to justify stealing – to describe it as “illegal” but not “immoral?” If so, we invite you to submit chapter and verse.

Personally, I find the characterization “stealing” overblown (obvious to me, but I might well be provoked to explain more by commenters to this post) and the distinction between “ethical” and “legal” perfectly comprehensible.

The Ethicist’s piece already acknowledged Richard’s point of view. Cohen interviewed and quoted his own friend, Jamie Raab of Grand Central Publishing (Hachette) who said:

“Anyone who downloads a pirated e-book has, in effect, stolen the intellectual property of an author and publisher. To condone this is to condone theft.”

I see this as a digital transition problem (it won’t be long before an ebook edition is available for every book for which a print book is available) and, if the author is suffering in this case (and I’m not sure there’s any demonstration here that the author is), it is partly the fault of the publisher whose policies haven’t matured sufficiently to deliver a cash customer what they want to buy.

Would Raab or Curtis have taken a different position if the King book purchaser in question had scanned his or her own copy to make a digital file to carry in their ereader? Or would they consider that a legitimate “first sale” right? (And what would a court say?) It is hard for me to understand how the King reader who, after all, paid more for the print copy than they would have for an ebook if the publisher had made an ebook available should be characterized as a “thief” (Raab) or a “dirtbag” (Curtis.)

Joe Esposito and I wrote a piece almost four years ago strongly suggesting that publishers should declare a clear policy about the digital rights conveyed with the purchase of a print book. We wrote the piece in the earliest period of contention about what Google was doing scanning books, so our point was made from a library-centric perspective. But we anticipated problems like this one and we concluded our piece this way:

Developed, articulated policies about digital licensing are a much better way to protect publishers’ interests than lawsuits against marketing channels. The next decade or two will see the relationship between digital and printed content dramatically recast. Publishers can embrace that relationship, or watch it—and themselves—fall apart.

I’d say that the publisher and author would be standing on much firmer ground to complain if there were a stated policy about the digital rights that are conferred with a print purchase. The mere act of creating this policy would force a publisher to think through situations exactly like this one, which I really don’t think many have.

Where we stand now is that laws and policies written before any of these issues were contemplated (or possible) are transparently inadequate and insensitive to current reality. As a guy who accepts the necessity of DRM specifically to discourage casual sharing that could seriously undermine the commercial basis of publishing, I’m on board with the idea that we in the industry want to steer people away from piracy. But I don’t think we’re going to win many friends, or many arguments, putting no policy in place to cover these situations and then villifying paying customers who try to address their own legitimate needs.

Share this post

Michael Cader did a brilliant analysis of Thursday’s New York Times piece on ebook pricing, published exclusively for paid subscribers to Publishers Lunch. The Times piece’s shortcoming was that it tended to sensationalize the news that the prices the public will pay for current brand-name ebooks will be going up. If you observe the book business for fun, you can perhaps afford not to have access to content like Michael’s analysis. But if you’re in it for a living and you want to seriously keep up with what’s going on, I suggest you save $20 somehow on other publications each month and reinvest it in a Publishers Marketplace membership. I am not the only blogger moved to make this suggestion by this piece.

I am working under the rash assumption that Cader will not sue me for quoting his remarks without regard to fair use limitations (particularly after the commercial in that first paragraph.) Of course, I do my best to add some Shatzkin Files value to my quotes and paraphrases as well.

Michael’s overall point, as I read it (and these are my words, not his): “we in the business know what’s going on with ebook pricing; apparently reporters outside the business do not. And therefore a great deal of misunderstanding is circulated among the book-buying public and it behooves the trade publishing community to get the word out to make sure that the public understands what’s really behind what they pay for ebooks.”

His device to illustrate this point is to describe some common misunderstandings fostered by the Times piece — all of which are real misunderstandings and none of which are just convenient straw horses — and knock them down.

Frankly, it is only the overall point on which I’m not sure I agree. I am not convinced it makes much difference whether we push the “truth” out or not. Amazon’s recent “concession” statement over the Macmillan dust-up tried to channel potential consumer anger at Macmillan and away from them. That’s an effort that is bound to fail. Everybody who buys from Amazon knows that they’re buying from Amazon. On the other hand, “Macmillan” is not an active book imprint at the moment in the United States. The books the corporation called Macmillan puts out are under the imprints St. Martin’s, Farrar Straus, and Holt, and their subsidiary imprints. My wife found the Macmillan Dictionary for Children online and that book is published by Simon & Schuster! So good luck to Amazon trying to get the consumer to punish a corporate entity whose name isn’t on the cover of its books.

But the myths Cader describes are ubiquitous misunderstandings and they were clearly promoted in the Times piece. As Michael describes them (in italics):

* $9.99 never was the top e-book price; people pay more than that every day.

The Times piece makes a big deal out of consumer expectations of the $9.99 price. Cader points out that recent data from the ebook retailer Kobo described at Digital Book World — which shows that at Kobo they sell as many books for more than $9.99 as they do for exactly $9.99 — and Amazon’s own data undercut that notion. Cader says surveys of Amazon data have shown that 30% of the SKUs are priced higher than $9.99.

I have been told directly by a responsible person at Amazon that 4% of the titles they sell are deep-discounted to $9.99 and those represent 25% of the total sales. Of the other 75% of the sales, many (most) are less than $9.99 without necessarily deep-discounting, according to Cader, 30% are more. I have personally bought many Kindle books for more than $9.99 and some for more than $14.99.

But what I’d see as the biggest fallacy in this whole “customer expectations” meme was not mentioned by Cader. So far we have a relatively small percentage of book readers who have ever purchased an ebook at all! General consumer expectations can not be set by a sliver of the group who are early adapters. In fact, publishers are being smart precisely because they are tackling this consumer pricing problem before the market really does become general and a large population of book readers do have experience with the current price structure.

* The implicit, false promise of cheap e-books was made by the people who profit, at very nice margins, from selling the devices, not from publishers.

This is true for the $9.99 books offered by Amazon and Sony and, now, Barnes & Noble. Other etailers, like Kobo or B&N before the Nook, were offering that same price to keep up with (keep down with?) Amazon. But the central point is right. Amazon created the expectation of $9.99 pricing to sell readers; publishers didn’t create it to sell books!

The two companies most likely to save publishers from an Amazon stranglehold on their future general readership, Apple and Google, would also place “margin from ebook sales” very low on their list of objectives for participation in the ebook supply chain.

If the market really could stabilize with three or more reliable paths to the general ebook consumer, with price competition among the content,  but not price-competition driven by external forces, it would be one of the most important strategic accomplishments of the current generation of publishing management, to whatever degree their policies enabled it to happen.

* Brand-new ebooks sold at $9.99 are generally sold at a loss by the retailer.

And, as Cader goes on to point out, this is led by a retailer with a $50 billion market cap with an implicit expectation that it will drive smaller retailers out of the game. Publishers are taking the steps they are explicitly to encourage a more diverse marketplace. So, Mr. and Ms. Consumer, whose side are you on?

* People who can afford an ereading device can afford all proposed ebook prices.

Cader is making the point that conscientious reporters should make put price complaints into context. I’d personally dwell more on the “dog bites man” aspect of reporting that people favor lower prices. Has anybody ever found a consumer who favored higher prices? Has anybody ever found anybody who would prefer to pay more for anything they buy? From here it would seem that all reports of what people say they want to pay or say they would pay in some hypothetical circumstances are pretty much meaningless. Michael says “put them in context.” I really wonder whether this kind of senselessly speculative commentary ought to be reported at all!

* Publishers are lowering [my emphasis] their ebook prices.

Cader captures the massive irony of what is going on here with this one. From reading this piece or from reading Amazon’s note to Macmillan, you’d get the impression that “greedy” publishers are “raising” ebook prices. That’s not actually the case. The publishers going to the Agency model are actually reducing their price per unit sold; they’re just insisting that booksellers not sell those books as loss leaders. As Cader put it, “we in the trade know that publishers are preparing to lower their ebook prices by 50 percent or more, and reduce their own profit margins. But customers don’t; they hear that publishers are raising prices.”

* The new “top price” is going to be $12.99 more often than not.

The public reporting is that the Agency-priced books from Apple will be $12.99 and $14.99, with no additional detail. Cader seems to know that most, or at least a large number, of those books will be at the lower of those two prices. Undoubtedly, some people will refuse a book they want to read on a device they paid over $200 for because of a $5 difference in price ($14.99) from their prior expectation ($9.99). But somewhat fewer will be reluctant at $12.99, which is where the price will apparently be a great deal of the time. Certainly, nobody writing for a newspaper knows the future balance between those two price points.

* Surveys show many people will pay more than $9.99 for ebooks.

Cader points out (and my personal repeated experience confirms) that people often do pay more than $9.99 now, even according to the stats we’ve seen. But what he doesn’t point out, so I will, is that those stats are stacked!  Amazon prices all the hottest and most desireable books at $9.99, and therefore so does Kobo and other Amazon competitors. So the clustering of consumer purchasing around that price is largely driven by the appeal of the product at that price point.

That is: people bought the book, not the price!

* Goldman Sachs says ebook prices are not the biggest factor in purchasing a device–but expensive devices are an obstacle.

This is from a survey that Cader has seen and I have not. But the point is that portability is the main benefit consumers see in ebook devices, with price running second and ease of purchase nearly even with price as a perceived benefit. Ebook purchase decisions are not made on price alone.

What this data also would tell us is that ebook reading is going to spread because the price of devices is coming down and the circulation of ebook-able devices, smartphones and iPads, is increasing regardless of dedicated reader prices.

* Publishers have rewarded and honored early ereader adopters with a lot of free book giveaways, and some very inexpensive price promotions.

Much has been made in other places (not in the Times piece and not in Cader’s report) of the fact that the Kindle “bestseller list” contains a lot of free or almost-free books. Some of those are public domain titles, but many are not. Those that aren’t are provided by publishers as promotions, usually an offer of an older book by a multi-title author who has a new one just out. Does any retailer billboard the publishers who “have made books available for you for free?” Not that I’ve ever seen.

I do believe that the price of content will be driven down over time because of the laws of supply and demand. The amount of content being made available every day is staggering. However, the established publishing companies still have pretty much a monopoly position on curating and branding it. Curating and branding save consumers an enormous amount of time and effort; that’s why they are willing to pay for them. Publishers and the authors whose brands they are enhancing and maxmizing are operating in an increasingly competitive world, but they are both totally sensible and totally unremarkable in trying to maximize the rewards for their efforts.

Share this post

Kindle is certainly engendering a lot of confusion by billboarding the downloads of free ebooks as “sales.” That paradoxical scorekeeping was the lead for an article by Motoko Rich in The New York Times on Saturday that quoted a lot of people, some apparently disagreeing with each other, but none of them necessarily wrong.

There really are three separate questions to consider, which get elided in these conversations.

1. What is the impact of giving away ebooks as a promotional device, either to boost the word of mouth on the book being given away or to promote an author’s other titles?

2. What is the potential impact on the industry overall of ubiquitous giveaways of ebooks that would apparently have commercial value?

3. When ebooks are given away, how should that sale be “scored” in any measurement of the book’s popularity?

The answer to the first question appears, anecdotally but just about universally, to be that giving ebooks away boosts sales of that title and related titles. Rich’s piece sites numerous publishers attesting to that. She apparently found no publisher that is skeptical about whether giveaway promotions work or has seen the tactic fail. And that would confirm my experience: I don’t know of one.

But as we’ve noted before, this effect could change over time. We’re still in a period where ebooks are not an acceptable format to most book readers. That means the benefits of giving them away is not confined to the word-of-mouth from the recipients, it can result in a print book purchase by the very person you gave it to! As ebook reading becomes more popular, particularly if we go to a DRM-free universe, the impact of cannibalization from giveaways could grow dramatically from what it is now.

The second question is what is apparently paramount to David Young of Hachette (as quoted in the Rich piece) and is influencing the policies described at Penguin. As more and more ebooks are given away, it offers a wider array of choice to people who prefer to select from the free offerings and just never pay. For the last 15 years of his life, my father, Len Shatzkin, refused to buy anything except remainders. He shopped from several mail order catalogs and, if he was in a bookstore, shopped at the bargain tables. His position was that if publishers were going to be dumb enough to reliably give the books away six months or a year later, he’d just wait and choose his reading from among what had been marked down. With free ebook marketing the way it is today, sometimes you don’t even have to wait!

And that’s obviously what was on Young’s mind when he said the tactic was “illogical.” It is illogical if you take a long-term, industry-health view of the situation. It is totally logical if you’re trying for short-term advantage to break a new book or build a particular author, as most of the other authors and publishers were trying to say.

There was a long comment string on the HarperStudio blog about this question six or eight months ago. I said at the time that I figured that if these giveaways kept spreading, one of our more industrious web entrepreneurs would create an ebooksforfree.com site which would be a consumer directory to “free” offers at various publishers and web retailers, title by title.

It’s a classic Tragedy of the Commons. Each person giving away ebooks succeeds in their intentions to boost their sales, but everybody will pay for the overgrazing in the end.

The third question is a tricky one. It is worth noting that the App Store makes it very easy to for the consumer to decide whether to shop the free apps or the priced apps. I think Amazon is hurting themselves by not at least sorting their bestseller pages that way. And they don’t. Amazon says the Kindle bestseller listings change every hour: I just checked the Top 10 and found one 25 cent book, one book at a substantial price (higher than $9.99), and eight free. Some of the eight free were self-promoters like the lead in Rich’s story; some were public domain; some were multi-book authors from established publishers. But only one of the Top 10 was elected with votes paid for with dollars from the Kindle clientele, which is what I think most people looking at “best sellers” would be looking for.

This raises a question I don’t know the answer to and my way to do the research will be to see if somebody with knowledge posts a comment. Kindle reports to the USA Today Bestseller List. This is, as far as I know, the only reflection of ebook popularity in the public domain. It would be interesting to know if USA Today has a standard for that reporting. Of course, most of the “weight” of the USA Today list, quite properly, would be print sales so whatever Kindle reports might not move the needle much. Most sales today are still print sales. But we’re headed for a crazy world if the concept of what “sold best” is expanded to include what people were willing to take for free.

On the other hand, if you try to separate free from paid, you will still face the question of where to draw the line. If publishers sell a $20 hardcover as a $5 ebook, should those units count equally in determining bestseller status? How about a dollar? How about a penny?

A tip of the hat here to my sometimes colleague Brian O’Leary of Magellan Media, who hinted at what I have said at length in this piece in his brief turn in Rich’s article. Brian has done extensive research that tends to confirm what Rich’s interviews and my anecdotal information suggest: that giving away ebooks boost sales in the present marketplace. But Brian managed to bridge the enthusiasm of the giveaway marketers and the incredulity expressed by David Young with his observation that there was a risk that free reading could eventually “supplant paid reading.”

And that wouldn’t really be good for anybody.

This is absolutely the last post you will see promoting Digital Book World 2010, which is on this Tuesday and Wednesday at the New York Sheraton and which is turning out to exceed my fondest hopes when we started out planning it this summer. But we have a panel on the very subject of this post called “Ebook challenges: competing with free and getting the timing right.” Brian O’Leary is moderating, and the panelists include agent Robert Gottlieb of the Trident Group; marketing director Mindy Stockfield of Hyperion (which published Chris Anderson’s book “Free”); ebook retailer Kobo’s VP Michael Tamblyn, and Steve Ross, who has been a publisher at both Random House and HarperCollins. There’s another panel on “Ebook pricing: what should they cost and why?” which includes the head of Penguin’s ebook publishing efforts, Tim McCall.  I enjoy having The New York Times stamp the topics we selected last August as “current” 72 hours before our show begins, even if just implicitly.

If you like this blog, I know you’ll enjoy Digital Book World. I hope to see you there.

Share this post

The story in today’s New York Times about the new Daily Beast publishing imprint created by Perseus obviously didn’t hit everybody else the way it hit me. I think it is really important news. It is also a smart approach. And I think it is a harbinger of many things to come.

The two things that struck Michael Cader about this initiative were not the things that struck me. What he said in Lunch:

The Daily Beast is the latest entrant in the shouldn’t books be written shorter and issued faster sweepstakes, launching Beast Books and focusing on current events. They plan to publish ebook editions first, followed by traditional print editions. The site has partnered with Perseus for sales, distribution and other services, represented in the deal by Larry Kirshbaum and Ed Victor.

Aiming to publish just three to five titles a year, the line begins with John Avlon’s ATTACK OF THE WINGNUTS: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America, with a foreword by Tina Brown. The ebook will be available in December 2009; the trade paperback in January 2010.

“Written shorter” and “issued faster” are definitely part of the offer here, but I don’t think they’re the most significant news and, as Michael reminded me when I asked, people have been talking about shorter and faster for a long time. I share Michael’s interest in noting that the ebook will come out first and the print book will follow, which only follows the reality of what is available when! But even that isn’t the most noteworthy aspect of this announcement; as The Times’s story makes clear, publishers have issued ebooks ahead of print before.

What struck me about this initiative is that it shows the publishing power moving from the book publishers whose model is to own content to the website entrepreneurs whose model is to own eyeballs. It shows that online brands with regular around-the-clock followings can do books more efficiently and effectively than publishers with a big apparatus.

The reason that publishers have not shortened publishing schedules in general (they all know that it would be better to accelerate the recovery of the cash invested in author advances and title origination) is because of the marketing requirements that have become standard and part of the landscape. Publishers Weekly, perhaps still the single most powerful pre-publication review (but declining), wants to see galleys for a book four months before publication. Some major accounts want books presented to them as far as six months before publication. If you ask most experienced publishing marketers, I believe they would still tell you that anything less than six months’ lead time to market a book means marketing will both cost more and be less effective.

But The Daily Beast has announced that they will routinely go from a concept to an ebook in the marketplace in six months or less.

This kind of publishing is not primarily made possible by short books, or even ebooks, as much as it is because The Daily Beast has a big online audience and, in addition, serious chops at the practice of getting a story they publish going round and round on the Web. They can get the core audience aware of and talking about a book with their own proprietary engine, so if PW wants to skip reviewing the book they don’t care. And the retailers will know that there’s going to be demand for a book they’re hearing about less than six months in advance, so they’ll break their own rules and stock it on shorter notice.

Now, that is power. How much power? The Times reports (suggesting, but not explicitly saying, that this comes from Brown) that Daily Beast has 3 million unique users a month!

The financial model aspects of this are interesting. The report says that Perseus is financing the publication, signing the author and paying Daily Beast for editing and design. Then Perseus splits profits robustly enough so that their CEO, David Steinberger, can say that authors will get “meaningfully more” than traditional book contracts pay. Obviously, Perseus believes that the marketing that Daily Beast can provide is worth giving away margin for, and that surely seems sensible to me.

The takeaway from this for the industry is that owners of eyeballs are moving into the driver’s seat. The world isn’t completely upside down yet; the owner of the copyright is still paying the owner of the eyeballs for the content and, ostensibly, dictating the terms of the deal. But as more and more web brands develop this kind of audience, publishers are going to get some hard lessons about where the power really will lie as the shift continues to take hold. Remember that what Perseus is bringing to deal is a commodity: lots of other publishers can offer the same suite of capabilities. What the Daily Beast brings is unique. Dollars flow to scarcity.

The one comment worth making on the substance of this is a relatively minor one. Why not enable a print-0n-demand edition to be offered simultaneously with the ebook, at a higher price, of course, which is pulled off the market when the print book’s pressrun arrives? There’s no reason to make somebody wait to read timely information just because they haven’t switched over to ebooks yet. A bit complicated and messy for the retailers; probably have to go to a separate ISBN that isn’t returnable. I’ll bet they’ll get there; this whole idea reflects people who are making total sense and thinking about their community!

Share this post

Every time I read a story about why newspapers are failing that doesn’t mention the role of aggregation and curation in their troubles, it reminds me that something very fundamental is being missed, even by very sophisticated observers.

Aggregation is one of the core concepts of content presentation and commercialization. Any analysis of what happened to the record business, what is happening to newspapers, or the future of books and bookstores and magazines and TV that does not feature this concept prominently is almost certainly flawed.

Aggregation, of course, simply means pulling together things which are not necessarily connected.

Curation is a term that has always referred to the careful selection and pruning of aggregates, such as for a museum or an art exhibition. But the concept in the digital content world means the selection and presentation of these disparate items to help a browser or consumer navigate and select from them. Aggregation without curation is, normally, not very helpful. Curation creates the brand.

No content makes its way from its creator to the public without aggregation. Agents are aggregators, pulling together the work of many writers to present an (agent-) branded offering to publishers. The business would be considerably more inefficient and expensive if agents didn’t aggregate the work of writers to present to publishers.

Publishers are aggregators, pulling together lists of books to present a (publisher-) branded offering to bookstores, libraries, and various review media. Bookstore buyers would find it much more difficult to purchase tens of thousands of new books each year without this branding.

Bookstores are aggregators, and their curation is reflected in front tables and shop windows and store sections that create a (retailer-) branded offering that consumers can navigate.

In the music world, record companies aggregated 10 or 12 or 15 songs by a single artist into a single offering (called an “album”, nomenclature that goes back to when it took a collection of 78 rpm records to deliver a concerto or a symphony, and those were delivered inside the sleeves of a bound volume.) When long-playing technology (33 rpm records) was perfected, the longer form became more cost-efficient than the single, on a pennies-per-minute-of-sound calculation, so the longer form took over.

Or it took over until it wasn’t more cost-efficient anymore, which it wasn’t when the Internet happened. Aggregation and curation into 40- and 50-minute offerings no longer served the purpose that it used to. And since the unit of appreciation always had been the individual song, the aggregated album lost its sales appeal. It wasn’t just piracy that downloading enabled; it was the ability of the listener to curate for herself!

Newspapers are obviously aggregators and curators. The differences in their curation create their brand. The New York Times leaves out the comics. The New York Post leaves out the multi-syllable words. The Daily News beefs up its sports section and, for years, was known for having the best pictures. But one thing has been common to all of them and to all other newspapers: they cover the waterfront. (I have called that being “horizontal.”) They aggregate news of the world, the nation, and the city with sports, weather, stock quotes, advice to the lovelorn, and many other things. They sell almost all their advertising against the aggregate and against the brand, not against any specific item or interest being aggregated. And the competition for each paper is against other curated aggregates.

Newspapers can sell the curated aggregate to people who don’t want most of it because the total price is a good deal for the parts they want, just like the album was a good deal even if you only liked some of the songs. Or they could.

But now they are suffering precisely the same fate as the record album. The unit of appreciation is smaller than the whole. And for each unit of appreciation — each ball score, stock price, report from Washington, or political cartoon — there is a whole host of new competition.

So the long story short on newspapers is this: a business model of selling a horizontal (many-subject) aggregate, curated by something other than subject, was based on the economics of a physical world where aggregation produced efficiencies of production and distribution. The Internet changed that. It is no longer necessary for an aggregator to provide news to deliver me sports, or to provide a whole newspaper to deliver me the weather or a stock quote.

Horizontal aggregation was more efficient in a world of physical delivery. Vertical aggregation makes more sense in a world of digital delivery. And enabling the customer or user to have some control over the curation is possible in the digital world but hardly is in the physical.

What are the takeaways from this?

1. Don’t blame newspapers for not being ready for the new world. Their strategy of aggregation and curation was created for a physical world and it does not port to a digital one. This is not about whether the content is free or behind a pay wall. It is about the Internet rewriting the rules for what constitutes sensible aggregation and curation.

2. Booksellers must also take the new realities on board. Until the Internet, aggregating the largest possible selection under one roof had enormous customer value because the difficulty of obtaining what was not under that roof was high. It isn’t anymore. Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and any retailer served by Ingram has a nearly-universal selection available for delivery within days, if not hours. So the gap between what’s in the store and what’s not has narrowed dramatically. The relative power of the large aggregate has been diminished.

3. The importance of curation becomes more prominent. If having lots and lots of books in a store doesn’t have the power it used to, having the right books becomes more important.

4. Publishers’ aggregation and curation created their brand, and their brand (in most cases) was intended to communicate meaning to retailers, librarians, and reviewers, not to the public! In a world where the powerful intermediaries are becoming more responsive to subject than to format, publishers need to rethink what they publish and how they present the collection that they choose.

5. Recommendation engines aside (“based on what you bought before, have we got a book for you!”), online book retailers have a long way to go to enable the customized curation that seems both possible and desireable in the digital age. Even as sophisticated a retailer at Barnes & Noble will present multiple duplicate entries of a public domain scan from Google to an ebook search for a Shakespeare play. And even as sophisticated a retailer as Amazon will sell you a Kindle ebook that is a self-published tome in a way that is indistinguishable from a book from a legitimate publisher. These are failures of curation.

Except for the writers, all of us in the book value chain are part of the effort to aggregate and curate the offerings of writers to others. Every editor and publisher, every bookstore and agent, got to where they are by aggregating and curating writers’ work in ways that made commercial sense in a physical world. Some of those assemblies are challenged; I’ve been saying that the more horizontal is the collection, the less likely it is to work in the digital world.

But, remember this: when you are looking for reasons to explain why a winner in print media is losing on the web, it almost certainly starts with aggregation and curation and how it needs to change to be optimal in the new digital environment.

Share this post