Pete McCarthy

Book publishers do not do SEO like the big guys do although they could

Partner Pete McCarthy pointed me to an article a couple of weeks ago that also introduced me to a website called Viperchill and its gifted, self-promoting SEO/Marketing creator, Glen Allsopp. The linked post, which I strongly urge you to read, enumerates quite painstakingly the techniques used by 16 online media companies with a large portfolio of brands that enable them to dominate specific search results in Google across a very wide range of topics and categories.

The example ViperChill explained in detail was how Hearst created a lot of traffic very quickly to a new site and business it had created called Judicious placement of content and links to BestProducts from the very big brands that Hearst controls (Cosmopolitan, Womens Day, Marie Claire, Esquire, Elle) resulted in Google placing BestProducts startlingly high in search results.

This is a result of three elements Google values a great deal: “domain authority” and “inbound links”, nested in “content” that seems “natural”. “Natural” suggests that Google believes the content is genuine information, not a ruse to point to an otherwise irrelevant link.

This is tricky and problematic stuff for Google, as the story makes clear. Google’s objective is to deliver the most relevant search results for a user. While Womens Day’s editorial opinion about the best nail polish would seem worthy of high “authority” (which ultimately translates into an elevated position in the search results), Google does not intend to confer that authority on a nail polish suggestion that is motivated by BestProducts’s commercial interests. How can Google tell what motivates the placement of content and a link on Womens Day’s web site? They may still be figuring that out.

In other words, what is working so effectively for these brands, enabling them to use the collective authority of many powerful domains to drive traffic to something new and different, may not work forever without some serious adjustments. But it sure is working now!

This information wouldn’t be appearing on this blog if it didn’t have application to book publishers. It demonstrates a very large opportunity for many of them. The precise size of the opportunity depends entirely on the number of individual web domains that publisher controls or influences, the authority of each of the domains according to Google, and the judicious placement of content and links among those sites to push the desired result to a specific search term.

These powerful multi-brand content organizations have such massive traffic and authority that they can influence Google search for the most searched terms on the Internet. No book publisher would have comparable capability. But for terms that are more publishing-specific — those that reference books or reading groups or book genres or authors — the larger book publishing organizations have the ability to influence search results exactly the way these big outfits do.

And so would some smaller publishers, particularly vertical/niche publishers with any meaningful consumer-facing brands.

Probably the first big insight that created the success of Google was the recognition that links to content or a website told you something valuable about the worth of that content or website. So from the very beginning of SEO two decades ago, domain owners have understood that getting links is a way to improve their rank in search and increase their discoverability. What is documented in this article is that when one entity controls a large number of authoritative domains, they can constitute an ad hoc “network” that gets them the power of inbound links without having to persuade somebody outside their family of their worth. That’s particularly important when you’re trying to launch something new, as Hearst was with BestProducts.

And which publishers do every day with new books and debut authors.

There are two big steps publishers need to take in order to put themselves in position to execute this strategy effectively. The first is that they have to enumerate and understand all the web presences they own and control. Obviously, that includes the main domain for the publisher. But it also includes individual book sites, author sites, series sites, topical sites, or any other sites that have been created and which are regularly used and posted to.

In fact, any site that has meaningful domain authority can be helpful. We’ve worked with sites that have long since been defunct but that still have “weight” in the Google-verse. Those can be revived and used to impact SEO for current projects.

The second is to enumerate and understand all the related sites, owned or controlled by others, but where there is a mutual interest in some property between the publisher and the website owner. These will largely be sites for titles or authors, but might also include corporate sites for some authors and movie sites for some others. If a movie is made of a publisher’s book and there is no link from the movie site to the publisher’s information on the book, it is not good for anybody. The publisher is missing out on referrals that could lead to sales as well as additional discovery “juice”. The fans of the movie would want to know that it came from a book and it would be useful information for them that should be on the movie website and really constitutes an unfortunate omission if it is not. If the publisher sites can also influence the sites promoting the UK or international editions of the same title, they’d be helpful too.

Once the roster of usable sites is complete, the next step is to make sure there are relatively easy ways to add “natural” content to tie to links. Authors can really help each other here. They each have “authority” and they can, in combination, add a lot of power to the site for a new author or a new book. The more an author participates in useful reciprocal linking, the more that author helps their own cause and adds search power to the other authors in the publisher’s stable.

And the more the publisher can orchestrate these links, from their own sites and tethering their authors to each other on the web, the more the publisher adds otherwise unobtainable value for the author that costs nothing but a little administrative effort.

Indeed, the value added for authors, which would be tangible and visible, is one of the most important strategic reasons why publishers should heed the advice in this post.

The complete roster of useful websites, which is being added to all the time as new titles and authors are added to the publisher’s lists, should be centrally managed for maximum impact for the new titles publishers will launch. An SEO plan for every new book or author should be created from this roster of sites, soon pretty predictably adding another useful authoritative domain that can be put behind new titles that arise in the future.

An understanding of this opportunity also makes clear why authors having their own websites with their own domains is an important marketing component. Each site needs to be competently rendered and, of course, it should be linked to from the publisher’s own site. (And it should link back as well.) But assuring that those things get done should also be part of the standard book publisher playbook for maximum discovery. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it doesn’t appear to be now.

So, why is there that hole, universally (as far as we can see) across the industry? We’ve asked ourselves that question. The likely answer is that there is no one person or already-organized group of people within any house who can both do meaningful analysis and deliver the necessary execution with expertise, and who has the credibility and authority with all the stakeholders to make it happen. What’s essential is somebody who can corral parent companies, imprints, technology groups, authors, and agents and 1) get them to understand the value we’re pointing to here; 2) persuade them to participate; and 3) provide a convincing roadmap on how it will work.

Perhaps it is not surprising that we think it will take a powerful outside consulting team to make that happen, at least in the first place to do it. (After the value is more obvious, and as quickly evident to authors as it will be, others will figure out how to follow.) That’s the kind of thing that publishers would typically go to an outfit like Boston Consulting Group (there are others, like McKinsey or PwC) to get done. Of course, a smaller firm more focused on publishing might well do the job better, faster, and cheaper.


Big data matters but textual analysis really does not

I was honored today with a lengthy response to a recent Shatzkin Files post on the Digital Book World blog from Neil Balthasar, who apparently uses techniques similar to those in a forthcoming book “The Bestseller Code: Anatomy of a Blockbuster Novel”. My post had been a response to a PW article announcing the upcoming publication of that book. I reacted strongly to this sentence near the top of the story:

“In the forthcoming The Bestseller Code: Anatomy of The Blockbuster Novel (St. Martin’s Press, Sept. 20), authors Jodie Archer and Matthew L. Jockers claim they created an algorithm that identifies the literary elements that guarantee a book a spot on the bestseller lists.”

It was the “guarantee a book a spot on the bestseller lists” that got my juices flowing.

In his response to me, Balthasar moves the goalposts completely. To him, textual analysis is just one of a number of inputs he uses in his company (called Intellogo, an entity with which I am not familiar at all.) In fact, he says “The Bestseller Code” does not claim what the sentence I quoted above clearly does claim. And then he goes on to suggest that my post suggests a lack of appreciation for “machine learning” and “big data” and succumbs meekly to the “romance of publishing”.

It seems pretty clear that he doesn’t know much about Pete McCarthy or me, nor is he much aware that we have spent our careers arguing to the romantics in publishing that they need to be more data-centric.

Balthasar claims an overlap in our viewpoints but creates a total straw horse by saying “…I agree in theory with Shatzkin that an algorithm alone cannot predict whether a book will be a bestseller or not, that isn’t precisely what The Bestseller Code claims, nor what our experience working with machine learning at Intellogo defines”. (Of course, it is precisely what the sentence quoted from the PW story does claim for the book!)

While we apparently agree that big data is an essential analytical tool for publishers marketing books today, where we emphatically part company is on the relative importance of textual analysis. Compared to research into the audience, segmenting it, understanding its search behaviors and social activities, and understanding the competitive environment for a book at the moment that it is published, the analysis of the book’s content adds very little, even when it is deeply analyzed and bounced against other sources.

Or, let’s put it this way. We do lots of projects designing digital strategies for books without performing textual analysis. Maybe some of those plans would be improved if we also used a book’s text as seed data for portions of our analysis. But there’s no way we’d try doing any meaningful marketing planning without the other things we do, no matter how rigorous or skilled a textual analysis was.

I’m glad a fan of “The Bestseller Code” is moved to put the textual analysis in the category of “among the things we do” rather than “we can predict a bestseller from the text”. But that wasn’t the proposition I was reacting to when I wrote the post that provoked his response.

When Balthasar says (as he does), “Imagine a day when we take all our data about what people are reading and provide publishers (and authors) ideas of what people want to read, where to find those audiences, and better ways to reach them”, he is pretty much stating the nature of our work at Logical Marketing. We do precisely what he’s suggesting today for a wide variety of clients. Textual analysis has almost nothing to do with it.

1 Comment »

Full text examination by computer is very unlikely to predict bestsellers

PW currently has a story on a forthcoming St. Martin’s book called “The Bestseller Code: Anatomy of The Blockbuster Novel” in which authors Jodie Archer and Matthew L. Jockers “claim they created an algorithm that identifies the literary elements that guarantee a book a spot on the bestseller lists.” As readers of The Shatzkin Files know, I consider my Logical Marketing partner Pete McCarthy the industry expert on all things books-and-digital. Since we are knee deep in a new as-yet-not-announced project to build a SaaS capability for digital marketing, I have a few others with expertise to tap as well.

My team’s view is unanimous. The idea that the odds a book will make the bestseller list can be calculated from the content of the book alone, without regard to consumer analysis, branding, or the marketing effort to promote the book, is ridiculous.

This idea has arisen before. BookLamp was bought by Apple and they had a similar “full text analysis” proposition. Before they pivoted to being primarily a pathway for publishers to China, a company called Trajectory offered to generate the book marketing metadata from a full text search. Neither BookLamp nor Trajectory was so bold as to claim they could identify bestsellers from textual analysis. But even their more modest claims, to drive discovery from what they learned that way, failed to pass muster with us.

Trajectory did their demo on a Mayo Clinic Cookbook. To see how our methodology worked compared to theirs, we did what we do (audience analysis for a book’s potential customers) for the same title. We found everything useful that they did, plus a lot more.

As Pete has explained to us, repeatedly, the customers you’re looking for have not read the book. You capture them by appealing to their interests and their searches in ways that they find appealing and in language they understand.  He reminds us from time to time that the words “civil rights” “don’t appear in To Kill a Mockingbird”.

According to its Amazon page, “the Bestseller Code boldly claims that the New York Times bestsellers in fiction are predictable and that it’s possible to know with 97% certainty if a manuscript is likely to hit number one on the list as opposed to numbers two through fifteen.”

Our verdict on this: absolutely impossible.

And our hunch is that their publisher feels the same way. After all, if you had access to a capability like this, and you believed it, wouldn’t you do a few bestsellers on your own before you revealed any of it to the world?

And as a reality check and a basis for comparison, take this on board. Google now predicts the opening weekend’s box office for new movies. They look at all sorts of data: number of screens, box office results from previous movies by the headline actors, search volume for the movie itself, YouTube views of the trailer, genre, seasonality, franchise status, star power, competition, critic and audience ratings of any preview. They don’t try to read the script. They could semantically analyze the dialogue in the movie. (And Google has the most sophisticated capabilities in the world to analyze moving images or text!) But they don’t, because it wouldn’t be predictive.

Or, in book terms, it is much more predictive of bestsellers to look at the number of copies shipped and how many stores the book goes into. The Nora Roberts or James Patterson title that ships tens of thousands of copies with some going to every Barnes & Noble store will become a bestseller, regardless of the plot structure. And the greatest book in the world that ships 5,000 copies and only goes to a handful of B&N’s almost certainly won’t.

It isn’t just “books in stores”. Amazon orders printed books too. And there are ebook pre-orders (although damn few for any unknown author). From a publisher’s perspective, the book for which they can get an advance commitment from the supply chain (which today means “get it out in quantity”) will always have a better chance than the greatest book in the world for which they can’t.

The message for publishers is that audience research, with some of it specific to each title you publish, is the key to success in the digital age.


If the industry is changing, publishing house structures, processes, and budgets need to change too

A thought kept recurring — one I’ve written about before — while I was learning new stuff at Digital Book World last week. The structure of publishing houses and of the publishing process as it has developed over the past century make some of the challenges and opportunities of publishing in the emerging digital era very hard to address for publishers operating at any degree of scale.

One example arose from the incredibly insightful presentation from Author Earnings’ Data Guy. As most readers of this blog know, Data Guy is the pseudonym for an author-cum-analyst who scrapes the sites of book retailers, starting with Amazon, and breaks down the sales of ebooks (and now print books too) looking for insights. One of the most compelling Data Guy insights shown in what he presented at DBW is the importance of “introductory” pricing for debut authors. What DG’s data strongly suggests is that the odds of a debut author breaking through are increased dramatically by having very-low ebook pricing.

That’s quite a challenge for a conventional publisher who has a one-book-plus-option deal with a debut author. Making money becomes very much more difficult if ebook prices are lowered dramatically. Doing that would almost certainly also require that the print edition for the debut be a trade paperback, not a hardcover, or the stores would feel really disadvantaged by the edition they had to carry. So to adopt this as a strategy, publishers would have to sign all debut authors to contracts for two (or more) books, so the debut could be seen as a loss-leader with a later opportunity to cash in.

Otherwise, the publisher takes a loss on the debut book and then, even with an option, has to bid against other publishers if the debut is commercially successful (which does not mean it necessarily “made money”).

Here’s another way publishing as it is done now structurally precludes using modern techniques. One piece of wisdom from DBW workshops last week was repeated in Monday’s New York Times. Andrew Rhomberg’s Jellybooks enables publishers to track the ebook reading of a book across enough people to draw some interesting conclusions. The Jellybooks data is being used by some publishers, apparently right now mostly in Germany, to adjust marketing spending. Publishers can reduce what was planned to be spent on a book nobody’s finishing, or increase the budget for one which is getting a surprising level of traction. But there is clearly no time, or appetite, for addressing the fact that most people abandon midway through Chapter Five.

Now that there is a tool that enables publishers to understand how readers react to a book, wouldn’t they want a publishing structure that gave them time to use what they can learn to craft a more appealing piece of intellectual property?

Here’s another takeaway from DBW that requires structure changes at publishers. The “transforming” publishers often cited the need to create consumer-facing brands to work for them. Mary Ann Naples mentioned it as part of Rodale’s strategy. Dominique Raccah’s Sourcebooks has created “Put Me In the Story” and “Simple Truths” to appeal directly to consumers, while not trying to make Sourcebooks a consumer brand at all. Marcus Leaver is in the process of reorganizing Quarto around verticals and nesting them in the “Quarto Knows” rubric to create a public face that is logical for consumers.

Publishers need to come to grips with this. Publishing brands — house names and imprints — have always cultivated their B2B reputations. They are about impressing bookstore buyers, library collection developers, reviewers, and authors. They are not about selling to the public. Yet imprints that are not audience-centric are still being created, and most big houses have books for the same or similar audiences housed in different imprints. It certainly won’t always be possible to create new brands that are also new businesses, as Sourcebooks has done (once from a standing start and once by acquisition) and which Quarto may ultimately aspire to do with Quarto Knows. But all houses need to be rethinking their imprint and presentation structures, as well as tailoring their acquisition decisions to fit an audience-centric strategy.

Another point Mary Ann Naples made, citing a speech that Dominique Raccah made a couple of DBWs ago, is that experimentation and failure are a critical requirement for success. One wonders how many of our biggest publishers — which are, after all, corporations seeking profits and measuring their sales and margins quarter-by-quarter — have built that understanding into their internal scorecards. It seems doubtful that employees of big houses are encouraged to try things that might very well not work and then take the learnings on to a next experiment.

We’ve been experiencing the structural barriers to doing the right thing throughout the building of Logical Marketing Agency, the digital marketing enterprise I work on with Pete McCarthy and Jess Johns. One of our core tenets is that valuable market research is now pretty cheap, and it should be done to inform all acquisition decisions and as a first step preceding all other marketing decisions, including the writing of any copy.

Even getting publishers to accept the idea that research should be the first step built into the marketing workflow has been hard, although we’re making progress. We’ve worked with all the Big Five houses, and lots of others, and perhaps 100 bestselling authors. We now see a couple of big houses that are really beginning to see the light. What has been much harder to get across, even though it should become standard practice, is persuading publishers to do research into a topic or author they’re looking to acquire. Only in a couple of cases where publishers were preparing for a possible bidding war have we succeeded in getting publishers to make that investment.

Understanding “why” isn’t hard. There is simply no budget for editors to do research on a book not yet under contract. But there should be a research budget for editors. To not have it means we are requiring editors to invest the house’s money based on hunches and guesses when actual data and facts could be employed. Sometime in the future, we’ll look back at a time when editors had no budget to do research into big acquisitions and wonder what we were thinking. And the answer will be that big houses hadn’t yet matched their structures, processes, and workflows to the new digital realities.

It would be nice to think that big houses are indeed rethinking their imprint structures and acquisition-to-development-to-publishing workflows from end to end, but out of the public eye. The industry is transforming. Each house has to examine itself for how it too should change.

I was flattered that the folks at Bookbub, writing about the marketing takeaways from DBW, ranked my observations about how publishers need to work more effectively with authors on their digital footprints and branding number one. This also points to two really significant structural issues.

One is that publishers sell individual titles, not author careers. Many authors have books across houses, and houses are reluctant to invest in selling other publishers’ books. That creates a real barrier to thinking through and investing in the author’s branding in many cases.

The other problem is this. Even the marketing departments of publishing houses are challenged to keep up with all the opportunities in digital and to think about them across titles and verticals as well as authors. But the house’s normal “interface” with authors and agents is through editors, not marketers. And editors are often not as conversant with these digital issues as their marketing colleagues are.

Some things have to change. Probably most houses need to start schooling editors in digital marketing, at least so they know uniformly more about what authors ought to do to help themselves than the typical author or agent does. That kind of training should perhaps extend to authors as well. But that calls for marketers to be directly in touch with authors and agents, which at the very least complicates the “control” the editors have over those relationships.


Now Kings of ebook subscription, what will impede the ebook share growth for Amazon?

With the news this morning that Scribd has thrown in the towel on unlimited ebook subscriptions, Amazon is the last player standing with an “all-you-can-eat” ebook subscription offer for a general audience. The juxtaposition of the publishers’ insistence on being paid full price for ebooks being lent once and the late Oyster’s and the now thrice-hobbled Scribd’s (they did a reduction of their romance offering last summer and then cut back on audiobooks to stem prior waves of over-consumption) pursuit of customers with an unlimited-use offer was always doomed. The only hope for the subscription services was that they would grow so fast that publishers wouldn’t be able to live without their eyeballs and would relent on the sale price.

That didn’t happen.

When Digital Reader reported the Scribd news this morning (the first place I learned of it, although I learned a lot more when I saw the Pub Lunch account an hour or two later), they also linked back to a story I’d missed in October explaining that Amazon was fiddling with what they put in their own unlimited sub offer, Kindle Unlimited.

Because Amazon couldn’t get cooperation from agency publishers (which, at a prohibitive and ultimately suicidal price, Oyster and Scribd did), they exploited their ability to deliver ebooks from the non-agency publishers to the max. Or, they did that at first. What Nate Hoffelder of Digital Reader uncovered last Fall was that Amazon was selectively removing those titles as they saw fit, which lowered their costs. (The information that led to this discovery was originally posted as a comment by Kensington’s CEO Steve Zacharius on this blog.)

A lot, if not most, of what Kindle Unlimited “lends” are ebooks compensated for by a “pool” of cash Amazon puts in each month. The size of that pool is solely determined by them and the per-page compensation for those books has inched downwards. Nonetheless, in the aggregate it amounts to a lot of money that is available only to ebook “publishers” (usually indie authors) who give Amazon an exclusive ebook license for the title. The publisher can sell print and audio elewhere, but if they want to share in the KU pool their ebook has to be Kindle only.

The disruptive news that I had missed last October is that a handful of smaller publishers — not just indie authors — are now seeing it as financially beneficial to be Kindle-only for ebooks.

This next bit is reporting what is still a rumor. But I have just been told by somebody who would know that Barnes & Noble will be withdrawing Nook from the UK market. That news is unrelated to the subscription business, but it is additional good news for Amazon.

For anybody concerned about a diverse ebook marketplace, these are ominous developments. With both the biggest ecosystem and the deepest pockets, Amazon can afford to continue to reward ebook copyright owners with increased compensation for exclusivity. As their share grows, it will be increasingly tempting for ebook publishers, be they indie authors or something a bit larger, to take the higher rewards for cutting out the other ebook vendors. And so Kindle progressively builds a better catalog than any of its ebook competitors. Which leads to more market share.

Etcetera. Or, in the modern parlance, “rinse and repeat”.

With Kindle Unlimited now the only “unlimited” ebook subscription play left (although Scribd can still claim a better selection of titles, at least for a while longer), presumably its market share will also continue to grow. As that happens, even big publishers may start to see financial benefits in putting some titles from their backlist into it. (Who knows? Authors, working on a percentage of the ebook revenues, might start insisting on it!) If and when that starts, the challenge for iBooks, Nook, Kobo, and Google to maintain a competitive ebook title offering will escalate.

Presumably, there is some percentage of the ebook market that Kindle could control that would lead to anti-trust concerns. Their share has been growing almost inexorably since the Department of Justice and Judge Cote put their thumbs on the scale a few years ago to punish the publishers and Apple for what they saw as price-fixing.

We will look for enlightenment on this subject from anti-trust attorney Jonathan Kanter at Digital Book World. Is there any percentage of the ebook market that if one entity controlled it would constitute a prima facie monopoly that calls for government action? Or even of the total book market, including print?

Even before we get to whether they plan 100 or 400 bookstores beyond the one they’ve got and the one more they are apparently planning, it is hard to see what will impede the growth of Amazon’s ebook market share. Inexorable growth by Amazon? That’s a topic we’ve been thinking about for years.

I was kicking this post around with Pete McCarthy before publishing it. I’m really struck by a point he made to me. Pete points out that buying and owning units of content has become anachronistic behavior for music and video. Kids today don’t stuff their own iTunes repository. They eventually move from streaming YouTube to subscribing to Spotify. (And that’s why Apple started Apple Music.) Nobody buys videos anymore; we just subscribe to Netflix or take temporary custody of content through an “on demand” service.

So book publishers are probably fighting a rearguard action trying to perpetuate the “own-this-content” model, particularly at relatively higher prices than they could command last year or five years ago.

Of course, that’s what Scribd and Oyster were thinking about when they built their repositories and committed themselves to invest to build a user base. Oyster ran out of time. Scribd has had to trim their sails. Subscriptions seemed like a natural business for Google, but they haven’t gotten into it. (Although they hired much of the Oyster staff, so perhaps that’s a chapter not yet written.)

But Amazon continues with Kindle Unlimited, able to shift their economics without disrupting their business. And, if Pete McCarthy’s insight about the direction of consumer behavior must inevitably extend to books — and renting access to a repository becomes the dominant model replacing owning-your-content — that’s another way they’re better positioned than anybody else to dominate the last mile of book distribution in the years to come. Publishers should always be aware that it’s a risky business to have a business model that contradicts the trends in consumer behavior.


Market research used to be a silly idea for publishers but it is not anymore

When my father, Leonard Shatzkin, was appointed Director of Research at Doubleday in the 1950s, it was a deliberate attempt to give him license to use analytical techniques to affect how business was done across the company. He had started out heading up manufacturing, with a real focus on streamlining the number of trim sizes the company manufactured. (They were way ahead of their time doing that. Pete McCarthy has told me about the heroic work Andrew Weber and his colleagues did at Random House doing the same thing in the last decade, about a half-century later!)

Len Shatzkin soon thereafter was using statistical techniques to predict pre-publication orders from the earliest ones received (there were far fewer major accounts back then so the pre-pub orders lacked the few sizable big pieces that comprise a huge chunk of the total today) to enable timely and efficient first printings. Later he took a statistically-based approach to figure out how many sales reps Doubleday needed and how to organize their territories. When the Dolphin Books paperback imprint was created (a commercial imprint to join the more academic Anchor Books line created a few years before by Jason Epstein), research and analytical techniques were used to decide which public domain classics to do first.

In the many years I’ve been around the book business, I have often heard experts from other businesses decry the lack of “market research” done by publishers. In any other business (recorded music might be an exception), market research is a prerequisite to launching any new product. Movies use it. Hotel chains use it. Clothing manufacturers use it. Software companies use it. Online “content producers” use it. Sports teams use it. Politicians use it. It is just considered common sense in most businesses to acquire some basic understandings of the market you’re launching a new product into before you craft messages, select media, and target consumers.

In the past, I’ve defended the lack of consumer market research by publishers. For one thing, publishers (until very recently) didn’t “touch” consumers. Their interaction was with intermediaries who did. The focus for publishers was on the trade, not the reader, and the trade was “known” without research. To the extent that research was necessary, it was accomplished by phone calls to key players in the trade. The national chain buyer’s opinion of the market was the market research that mattered. If the publisher “knew different”, it wouldn’t do them any good if the gatekeeper wouldn’t allow the publisher’s books on his shelves.

And there were other structural impediments to applying what worked for other consumer items. Publishers did lots of books; the market for each one was both small and largely unique. The top line revenue expected for most titles was tiny by other consumer good standards. The idea of funding any meaningful market research for the output of a general trade publisher was both inappropriate and impractical.

But over the past 20 years, because a very large percentage of the book business’s transaction base has moved online and an even larger part of book awareness has as well, consumers have also been leaving lots of bread crumbs in plain digital sight. So two things have shifted which really change everything.

Publishers are addressing the reader directly through publisher, book, and author websites; through social media, advertising, and direct marketing; and through their copy — whether or not they explicitly acknowledge that fact — because the publisher’s copy ends up being returned as a search result to many relevant queries.

The audience research itself is now much more accessible than it ever was: cheaper and easier to do in ways that are cost-effective and really could not be imagined as recently as ten years ago.

We’ve reached a point where no marketing copy for any book should be written without audience research having been done first. But no publisher is equipped to do that across the board. They don’t have the bodies; they don’t have the skill sets; and a process enabling that research doesn’t fit the current workflow and toolset.

So when the criticism was offered that publishers should be doing “market research” before 2005, just making that observation demonstrated a failure of understanding about the book business. But that changed in the past 10 years. Not recognizing the value of it now demonstrates a failure to understand how much the book business has changed.

What publishers need to do is to recognize “research” as a necessary activity, which, like Len Shatzkin’s work at Doubleday in the 1950s, needs to cut across functional lines. Publishers are moving in that direction, but mostly in a piecemeal way. One head of house pointed us to the fact that they’ve hired a data scientist for their team. We’ve seen new appointments with the word “audience” in their title or job description, as well as “consumer”, “data”, “analytics”, and “insight”, but “research” — while it does sometimes appear — is too often notable by its absence in the explicit description of their role.

Audience-centric research calls for a combination of an objective data-driven approach, the ability to use a large number of listening and analytical tools, and a methodology that examines keywords, terms, and topics looking to achieve particular goals or objectives. A similar frame of mind is required to perform other research tasks needed today: understanding the effect of price changes, or how the markets online and for brick stores vary by title or genre, or what impact digital promotion has on store sales.

The instincts to hire data scientists and to make the “audience” somebody’s job are good ones, but without changing the existing workflows around descriptive copy creation, they are practices that might create more distraction than enlightenment. Publishers need to develop the capability to understand what questions need to be asked and what insights need to be gained craft copy that will accomplish specific goals with identified audiences.

Perhaps they are moving faster on this in the UK than we are in the US. One high-ranking executive in a major house who has worked on both sides of the Atlantic told me a story of research the Audience Insight group at his house delivered that had significant impact. They wanted to sign a “celebrity” author. Research showed that the dedication of this author’s fans was not as large as they anticipated, but that there was among them a high degree of belief and faith in the author’s opinions about food. A food-oriented book by that author was the approach taken and a bestseller was the result. This is a great example of how useful research can be, but even this particular big company doesn’t have the same infrastructure to do this work on the west side of the Atlantic.

What most distinguishes our approach at Logical Marketing from other digital marketing agencies and from most publishers’ own efforts is our emphasis on research. We’ve seen clearly that it helps target markets more effectively, even if you don’t write the book to specs suggested by the research. But it also helps our clients skip the pain and cost of strategic assumptions or tactics that are highly unlikely to pay off: such as avoiding the attempt to compete on search terms a book could never rank high for; recognizing in advance a YouTube or Pinterest audience that might be large, but will be hard or impossible to convert to book sales; or trying to capture the sales directly from prospects that would be much more likely to convert through Amazon.

With the very high failure rate and enormous staff time suck that digital marketing campaigns are known for, research that avoids predictable failures pays for itself quickly in wasted effort not expended.

McCarthy tells me from his in-house experience that marketers — especially less-senior marketers — often know they’re working on a campaign that in all probability won’t work. We believe publishers often go through with these to show the agent and author — and sometimes their own editor — that they’re “trying” and that they are “supporting the book”. But good research is also something that can be shown to authors and agents to impress them, particularly in the months and years still left when not everybody will be doing it (and the further months and years when not everybody will be doing it well.) Good research will avoid inglorious failures as well as point to more likely paths to success.

Structural changes can happen in organic ways. Len Shatzkin became Director of Research at Doubleday by getting the budget to hire a mathematician (the term “data scientist” didn’t exist in 1953), using statistical knowledge to solve one problem (predicting advance sales from a small percentage of the orders), and then building on the company’s increasing recognition that analytical research “worked”.

If the research function were acknowledged at every publisher, it would be usefully employed to inform acquisition decisions (whether to bring in a title and how much it is worth), list development, pricing, backlist marketing strategies, physical book laydowns to retailers, geographical emphasis in marketing, and the timing of paperback edition release.

Perhaps the Director of Research — with a department that serves the whole publishing company — is an idea whose time has come again.

But, in the meantime, Logical Marketing can help.

Remember, you can help us choose the topics for Digital Book World 2016 by responding to our survey at this link.


The utility of examining the text of a book to find search terms for SEO

The first two things to understand about optimizing book copy for SEO that I’ve learned from Logical Marketing partner Pete McCarthy are:

1. Copy always used to be written based on “knowledge of the book”. It should now be written based on “research into the audiences”.

2. Copy from publishers was almost always B2B, intended for intermediaries in the marketing and supply chains. Now all copy ends up being B2C, important for consumers and search.

These are tough hurdles for the most established publishers to jump, because executing on the audience research piece not only requires a change in the workflow and distribution of work among staff, doing that also requires additional effort that employs skills that may be in short supply, if they exist in the publishing house at all.

With all that additional work in front of them, any automated solution that can be offered to publishers to diminish the pain of this transition is attractive. (We’re working on a few of those ourselves.) I’ve recently become aware of the new technology offered by Trajectory, which examines a book’s text for words that should be used for SEO.

Automation is good, but this is still coming from within the book. So I asked my Logical Marketing team to help me understand: is this helpful?

The answer seems to be, “it is a positive step but a very partial one. And it does not help anybody avoid the research we think is fundamental.”

The article by Jim Bryant of Trajectory on the Publishing Perspectives blog demonstrating the value of their capability is very clear. He used as one example a book called “The Mayo Clinic Diet”. A word cloud Trajectory created from the book showed clearly that there were two big words, “calorie” and “exercise”, which appeared frequently in the book, were important to its thesis, and were not in the copy the publisher created to describe it. That’s the positive step.

But Logical Marketing methodology is to find out what words the consumer uses to describe what is in the book, particularly in search. With a backlist book, this can be easily researched in Library Thing. The word cloud at Library Thing for this very same book says the terms that the consumers use are “diet” and “dieting” (which, being in the title, were already in the descriptive copy), “cookbook” (not in), “health” and “health and fitness” (not in), “nutrition” (not in), “weight loss” (which was in the original copy; hey! it is a diet book!), and “exercise” (in because it was identified by Trajectory.) “Calorie” apparently didn’t figure as important to the consumers on Library Thing as an associated term.

But going beyond the important terms not in the book and therefore never to be found by the Trajectory methodology, were those other prime terms — “cookbook”, “health”, “health and fitness”, and “nutrition”. And a bit more work on our part also identifies longer-tail terms that will be more important for discovery than what Trajectory found: “healthy diet”, and “lifestyle changes” among them. You get that very clearly from Library Thing.

Pete McCarthy did a post for the DBW blog recently that used “To Kill a Mockingbird” to show why the words that are in the book are not sufficient for first-rate SEO. (Pete used a fiction title because it is often said that fiction is harder to SEO than non-fiction. The point is that the methodology still works.) What is that literary classic about that a semantic examination of the text probably won’t tell you? Racism. Civil rights. It is also important Southern Literature. As an aside, you can combine certain of those tags to find comparable other authors for specific aspects of the book that will resonate with certain customers. You know another author who jumps out with that analysis? John Grisham. Will Trajectory’s method show you that? We don’t think so. They have built sophisticated technology to analyze writing style and story structure, but whether that would connect Harper Lee and Grisham is very doubtful. Using the characterizations of consumers connects them very clearly.

We don’t mean to dismiss Trajectory. We might well learn to incorporate it into our methodology in circumstances where it is available to us (if a publisher we’re working with has it), but almost certainly for new titles only. It is not worthless to examine the text of a book looking for clues to good keywords. But it is a mistake to ignore McCarthy’s first rule: that the descriptive copy that serves you best for SEO requires research into the audience, even gaining knowledge as rudimentary as in the example. Semantic examination of the text automates what we’ve always tried to employ manually: knowledge of the book. That’s useful, but it is really the smallest part of a much larger job to create descriptive copy optimized for search.

To modify an old aphorism, knowledge gained from the text is often unnecessary, but never sufficient.

As for backlist, the important terms that the Trajectory examination uncovered are found much more easily and quickly at Library Thing. The tool that was well-built to begin with, has existed and been iterated upon and had data added to it for years, and been underutilized for a long time because it was seen as a “niche consumer” capability, is still the best one. It is populated with terms used by real people not employed by the author or the publishing house. Its data is not based on transactional history, but on reading history. That’s what you really want for SEO. New titles are a bit harder, and Trajectory over time will likely solve pieces of that puzzle, but audience research is still a lot more important than an examination of the book’s text to achieve the desired result of having readers who are unaware of a book but would be likely to want it have it put in front of them for consideration.

We recollect that Amazon had the full text for many books and used to do a semantic analysis of it. (They certainly still do X-ray in Kindle, which is a version of it.) They haven’t emphasized it and they haven’t built on it. That suggests that the commercial value of it is questionable. And Google also identifies “common words and phrases” and provides a word cloud, which you can see here for “The Mayo Clinic Diet” if you scroll down.

And, indeed, we’re dealing with Trajectory 1.0. Over time they may make their analysis increasingly relevant and useful. But no matter how smart and sophisticated you are, you can’t examine the book itself to find out how people reading it react to it and think about it and that is the information that tells you most about who might read it next.


Advice for an author looking for a literary agent

Until last week, I hadn’t stopped to think about how often I’m advising authors about how to deal with the publishing business. I would imagine this is something that most of us in the industry find ourselves doing very frequently. There are, after all, a lot of aspiring authors in the world and when one’s a friend, or a friend of a friend, they ask. And you try to help them.

As I wrote in an April post, I had assumed until very recently that an author couldn’t do herself any harm by self-publishing her work on her way to finding an agent or a publisher. When an agent I know and respect told an author I’d sent to him that he really found it hard to sell publishers already self-published books, it stopped me short. I sent out a query to a long list of agents and the consensus opinion that came back was that publishers are really uncomfortable picking up a book that has already made an appearance in the marketplace. (A deeper look at the results of this canvassing will be the subject of a future post.)

Although we all know stories of self-published books that went on to have fabulous runs with a publisher (“50 Shades of Gray” being the obvious example), it seems that most agents think that most publishers see the previous publishing history as a challenge. If the book didn’t do well, they don’t attribute it to poor or non-existent marketing. And if it did well, they sometimes wonder if the audience has been exhausted.

Obviously, there are both agents and editors who don’t think that way, but I was really surprised to learn that so many of them apparently do.

I would never attempt to advise an author on the techniques for self-publishing. That’s not what I know and there are many people, starting with our friend Jane Friedman (not the one from Open Road), who specialize in that (although she knows about finding agents and regular publishing too). But I have long had a formulation of how to recruit an agent which I passed along when asked.

This assumes the aspiring author is starting from scratch: they have a manuscript completed or in development and they need to start knocking on agents’ doors. What I suggest — not rocket science but most writers don’t know about it — is using the databased information at Publishers Marketplace to find which agents to target.

PM has a database of deals, so you can see what books have been sold from which agents to which editors and get a sense of what prices they sold for. That means an aspiring author can look for books of the same type or genre as the one s/he wants to sell, find the editors that are signing those up and the agents who are successfully pitching them. That not only gives the author a feel for who is right, it gives them “what to say” that will entice the agent. “I am writing to you because I have a book that fits the profile of deals I see you’ve made on Publishers Marketplace.”

Of course, I do know dozens of agents personally. But rarely do I have a sense of what they are looking for, what kind of author would be suitable for them. I have one friend in particular who runs a large agency and for whom I have very high regard. So, often, if I know somebody to be a good and competent writer, I’ll send them to him. But that’s a sloppy answer. I find I have no good way personally to distinguish among the dozens of agents I know. That’s why I send people to the databases at PM. I tell my writer friends that if they narrow down their search and let me know whom they’re targeting, I’ll introduce them to any targets that are in my circle. But that’s been the extent of my help and that’s as far as I’d thought it through.

Last week, I found myself offering advice to an extremely thoughtful author and her business-savvy husband. The author is Geraldine DeRuiter, who has an extraordinarily popular blog called The Everywhereist where she writes about travel (and lots of other things). We were introduced to her by her husband, Rand Fishkin, who is a longstanding thought leader about search and the creator and owner of Moz Analytics and Moz Research Tools, the experts on optimizing one’s presence through Google.

My Logical Marketing partner, Pete McCarthy, has long been an admirer of Rand’s. Aside from being Moz’s inventor, he’s a prolific blogger whose blog shows him to be very generous about sharing his knowledge and perspective. Because we’re working on a business idea that we thought Rand could provide useful insight about, Pete reached out to him. Because Rand is a mensch, he gave Pete an hour call of great advice for nothing. During that, we learned that his wife, Geraldine, had a book she was trying to sell. All I knew was that it had something to do with travel and that she had a very big blog. I didn’t even know her name. But we knew she was looking for an agent and we wanted to at least minimally return the favor Rand had just done us.

So I reached out to a very powerful travel publisher I know and asked for an agent suggestion. He gave me one name, an agent based in San Francisco and, as it happens, a person I know well. Since Rand and Geraldine are in Seattle, I thought that was worth passing along and I offered to make the introduction. That’s when I started to learn what even very smart people who know how to look have trouble finding out about how our business works. And I was forced to learn because Rand and Geraldine asked me about assumptions I had made that, it turns out, at the least required some explanation and perhaps required rethinking!

First I told Rand I had an agent to send Geraldine to if she wanted to connect with him. Rand passed me to her. She said that being in Seattle, she was as comfortable with people in NY as with somebody in San Francisco. But, she added, she had already reached out to a number of agents in New York. Some had gotten back. Some hadn’t at all. So, first she wanted to know, is that typical? Do agents often just fail to respond?

I told her:

There are SO MANY agents that it is extremely hard to generalize accurately about them. Except that one generalization that is pretty universal is that dealing with writers they don’t (yet) represent is the weakest part of their game. It should be. What they really DO is work on behalf of the ones they’ve got and the follow-ups that are important to them are around deals in the making for projects they represent.

I would assume nothing at all from non-response, not even any indication of competence. And yes, I think non-response may be the most common response.

You only need one agent. There’s not a lot of point from your end or from theirs to auditioning an army of them. You should insist on feeling very comfortable with whomever it is you choose but I wouldn’t try to handle more than two or three at a time at most. If you have any positive indications from ones you’ve connected with before, obviously you should keep them in play until you’ve made a decision. But there should be no need to “chase” in this case. If you have agents who have already indicated they’d represent you, I’d stick to that group for now. You can check them out on Publishers Marketplace or ask me about them and I might know something.

Rand came back questioning an assumption.

I just have one follow-on question – are you saying/suggesting that the agent themselves doesn’t matter all that much in terms of their ability to help get a good publisher/good deal? That they’re (nearly or somewhat) interchangeable? And therefore, Geraldine shouldn’t worry too much about pedigree, background, experience, or agency, and more worry about her personal fit/comfort with the agent?

I hadn’t ever thought about my own advice that way, but I have always stressed to authors the importance of feeling a personal comfort level with an agent. So I told Rand:

Well, there are definitely levels of capability. They’re not all the same. I would definitely check an agent out on Publishers Marketplace and make sure they’ve made deals with the houses and editors you care about (and you’ll have your ideas about them from the deal database at PM too). You can ask me and I might be able tell you about their brand, or even about them personally. But, yes, in general I think having somebody you feel comfortable with is the best way to choose.

Here’s the reality. There are five major houses. There are probably 500 editors to know in there. There are dozens of smaller houses. There are dozens of significant agencies in NY and London, and there are still indie agents that can do significant deals. So at the very top of the power end of the curve, you might not want the agent because your book wouldn’t be big enough to keep their sustained attention. You’re not “long tail” but you’re also likely not megabucks. You’re almost certainly in the middle.

There are a LOT of agents that have enough access to be successful for you. The most important thing is that they care and that they’re prepared to be persistent. Personal chemistry is the best guarantee of that.

By the way, I’ve actually done some agenting myself, including of six books I wrote, but also a bunch of others over the past five decades. But I’d never do it myself today. The industry has become more corporatized and structured. Even the editors I’m friends with who know me as a longtime publishing professional would know I’m a rookie agent. Publishers count on agents to be a reliable career guide to writers. They prefer real pros for many good reasons.

One more point occurs to me that is responsive to your question. The same agent is not equally good for every book they might represent. Enthusiasm matters. Happening to have strong connections with three editors who would just love this particular book matters. Having belief that Geraldine can be groomed into a prolific author over time would matter. In other words, the agent who made the most deals for the most dollars last year might not make a better deal for Geraldine and this book than somebody who had done half as well.

And all that uncertainty is why I’d go with a person with whom the relationship feels good.

Rand came back to me with this:

That makes tons of sense – thank you Mike. I only wish that information was more discoverable on the web – I’ve been doing plenty of searching the last few months as we’ve thought about this, and not come up with anything as credible or sensible as the reply you just sent. Goes to show that, for some queries, Google just isn’t good enough.

Now, Rand Fishkin is the master of how to find things out through Google. And Geraldine DeRuiter has built an extraordinary following (being married to the King of Search can’t have hurt), writes like a dream, and is pursuing an agent for her book with seriousness of purpose and calculation. The fact that all of this could be so helpful to them was actually a bit of a surprise to me.

Then again, maybe it isn’t all so surprising. This is yet another example of how granular publishing is: so many editors, so many agents, and then the numbers of them dwarfed by aspiring authors. In fact, they’re even dwarfed by the number of competent aspiring authors there are. Writing takes time. Reading takes time. Editing takes time. Developing a project takes time. Nobody gets paid until the reading takes place at a publishing house and a buying decision can be made. No wonder so many authors throw up their hands trying to break in and just publish themselves. Even with the best techniques and people with industry contacts to help make introductions, finding an agent is not easy for a writer.

Rand and Geraldine both suggested I summarize the advice I’m offering in bullet points:

  • If your goal is an agent to get you a publisher, think twice before you self-publish
  • Learn to use the tools at Publishers Marketplace to zero in on the agents who sell stuff like yours
  • Be persistent
  • It’s okay to approach more than one at a time, but don’t waste your time or theirs by approaching many
  • After you’ve found the right agents, make your selection from among them based on personal chemistry
  • Expect the process to take time

Maybe now that this piece is up on the blog for Google to see, Google will, for this question, now be good enough! (Or better, anyway.)

I checked in with some writers whom I’d advised in the past to see if they had any advice they wanted to give me! I got useful tidbits from two of them to add to this piece.

One suggested a website called, which is, in effect, a directory of literary agents with an emphasis on which are looking for new clients. It might be a useful tool in conjunction with Publishers Marketplace.

The other made the point that, these days, your agent is your primary editor and all writers need an editor. He said that your manuscript should come back from your agent heavily marked up and requiring a lot of additional work. His advice was to be wary of an agent that doesn’t start you off that way. This particular writer has had a long career as a magazine editor; he has the proper respect for the value of an independent editorial eye.


No author website rules of the road in publishing contracts is a big fail for the industry

The topic of author websites and what the relationship between publishers and authors around them should be is a big “fail” for the publishing industry at the moment. Nobody seems to have thought this through. Publisher policies are all over the lot, even within houses, and that demonstrates that agents haven’t figured out what policies and publisher support an author should require. When they do, there will be much greater uniformity across publishers. (Note to conspiracy theorists about often-alleged Big Five “collusion”: that’s how it actually happens. They’re bullied into it by agents or accounts.)

Although we have been thinking about this for a while, it has been hammered home to us, once again, by events in our own shop this past week. On one hand, we have supplied an agent who asked for one with a proposal to build a website for a key author. The agent is talking to the publishers on both sides of the Atlantic (different divisions of the same big house), trying to get some financial support from them for what the author wants to build and own. Each of the two imprints is lobbying to build the site themselves. We’re not privy to the details of that conversation, so we’re not sure exactly why they want to build it themselves or what other considerations — like domain name ownership, list ownership and management, outbound links, and day-to-day attention to the site — might be motivating the publisher side of this conversation (in addition, we’d assume, to legitimate concerns about the quality of the site and its SEO).

Last week we did a seminar at another house. As we usually do in those sessions, we gave the house the benefit of some of our research into digital footprints for some of their own books and authors. What we found, as usual, is that the author website deficiencies were handicapping their sales and discovery efforts, sometimes by their total absence. That is, on occasion we found no author website at all.

As far as we know, there is no clear policy in either of these big houses concerning author websites. The decisions around how much to help or intervene or invest are, like so many decisions in publishing, left to each imprint to negotiate with each agent for each author. In yet another big house where we have had live meetings and this question came up, it was clear that the marketers understood the author-owned website SEO issues much better than the editors did, and everybody was hamstrung by the editors’ widely varied ability and willingness to engage with their authors or their agents on this subject.

From where we sit, not having contractual policy around a host of questions that involve an author’s web presence is as big an omission as it would be not to have clearly-defined subsidiary rights splits. In fact, we’d argue that, for most authors, the commercial value of the assets around the web presence are more valuable than subsidiary rights are! No publisher or agent would accept a contract that didn’t cover subsidiary rights. It is a sign that the industry is not keeping up with the new realities that the website policy is so far from being worked out.

This is a big challenge on both sides: for agents and for big houses. Most agents don’t operate at a scale that would enable them to gather the expertise and the knowledge to set their authors up properly or to inform what the demands on the houses should be. But the biggest publishers have a hard challenge too. They’ve all structured themselves around clear delineations between what’s big, requires scale, and should be handled centrally (warehousing, sales, IT) and what’s small, requires an intimate relationship with the author, and should be handled in decentralized imprints (title acquisitions, creative decisions, individual title marketing and publicity). This is a really tricky balance to strike from an organizational perspective. It is reflected in job descriptions and in each staff member’s bonus structure. That is, it is really complicated stuff to mess with and requires attention from the very top of enormous businesses to affect and change.

And because there really is no “house policy” on these things anywhere, any agent except the very biggest would get nowhere trying to handle these issues within a contract.

This is a problem that can’t possibly be solved in a big house without CEO-level involvement because it cuts across too many lines: central and imprint, marketing and editorial, author and agent relationships and contractual terms.

There should be no doubt about the critical importance of an author’s web site (and no, a page on the publisher site isn’t an adequate substitute). The author site serves three absolutely essential purposes that will not be adequately addressed without one.

1. It gives an author the capability to make it crystal clear to Google and other search engines precisely who the author is. All SEO efforts are hobbled without it. An author’s website is a central hub of data (a Pete McCarthy point: “data” isn’t always about numbers, in SEO “data” is often words) about the author, to which both fans and search engines can go for authoritative information.

2. It gives the author an extensible platform from which to engage more deeply with fans, some of whom are megaphones and media from whom the benefits of deeper engagement are substantial. An  author can use it to gather email signups and really only with a site can an author reliably and systematically build and own direct relationships.

3. It gives a logical place for anybody writing about the author to link. That’s why author websites often score so high in search. (Inbound links are SEO gold.) And if an author doesn’t have a website, the next logical place to link might be the Amazon author page, or the Amazon product page (the book). The next choice would be a primary social presence, like Twitter or LinkedIn.

This last point is not registering in many places. At one big house, we know that their policy is to avoid linking to Amazon if they can; they’d rather link to B&N. But they also don’t highly value author websites, and they certainly don’t routinely make sure they exist. The omission of author sites means they’re creating links to Amazon, whether they like it or see it that way, or not. The contradiction is apparently not evident.

Let’s kill the thought once and for all that it doesn’t matter whether an author has a website. We’d maintain that if it’s worth the investment to print the books, it’s worth the investment to have a website. Yes, you can do all sorts of useful things in social media, but the website is the only platform the author can own. Everything else is a rental, and the landlord can change the rules about what you can or can’t do at any time. We note that indie author expert Jane Friedman agrees and is helping guide authors to set up their own sites.

There is one more over-arching truth publishers and agents need to understand. And this one goes to the “what’s big and what’s small” paradigm around which big houses organize themselves.

Superior website management, particularly of SEO, is supported and enabled by knowledge of a lot of author websites. In fact, Logical Marketing partner Pete McCarthy has been noodling the process for a publisher-operated Google Analytics capability across multiple author sites that would, if implemented, apply learnings that would improve the performance of all of them. This is a Logical Marketing project still in its conceptual stages, but what we envision is that authors would get great benefits from allowing the publisher to put Google Analytics (or something else to serve that purpose) on the author site around the publication of a book or longer because they’d get better insight than they could get running it on their own. Publishers can help authors do this better than they could do it alone. To date, they don’t (that we know of), but they can and they should.

If you accept it as a fact that there should be at least a rudimentary website for just about every author, a little thought makes it clear that there is a lot a publisher and author should negotiate agreement on as part of their contractual arrangement.

At the very least, this includes site ownership, design, ongoing maintenance (including content creation), and to what extent it promotes author activity not related to the house (which could be other books). The site will gather email addresses; how can the publisher and author work collaboratively to get the most value from them? (Now, there is a question that has hardly been explored!) The site could well earn affiliate income from sales made through referral links to retailers; is that divided in any way?

The site ownership should logically be with the author, but ownership usually goes to whoever makes the necessary cash investments. That’s the tricky bit our agent client is dealing with right now. The agent wants the author client to own the site but also wants some financial support from the publishers. The publishers apparently are willing to pay for it, but they also apparently want to own it.

The design of the site touches three things: tech competence, SEO competence, and aesthetics. The house should be able to provide important expertise around tech and SEO, but the author will frequently want a voice in the aesthetics. And despite scale advantages that provide a real edge, no house we know of has clearly established that they can provide the tech to make something solid and extensible, or that they have the chops to really deliver the SEO.

The ongoing maintenance of the site opens up a number of questions, particularly around content creation. And content creation questions go beyond the site. Is the author, or the author’s staff, able to write the blog posts for the site, the Facebook posts, and the Tweets (let alone create what is needed if Instagram or Pinterest is being employed)? Or should the publisher or a freelancer be providing that help?

And how does that help, beyond the design and creation of the site, get paid for? It could be any combination of author pays, publisher pays, or publisher advances and recoups.

It is my plan in a subsequent post to lay out a scenario or two for a sensible House Position on these questions. It is my hope, but one not supported by any evidence I have in hand, that the Big Five houses and the biggest literary agents are already working on this problem.


Doing SEO right requires research into the audience, not maximum knowledge of the book

There is a core point that Pete McCarthy made clear to us when we first started working with him on digital marketing challenges a year or so ago, which, critical though it is, seems extremely difficult for publishers to take on board.

For all our careers, descriptive copy — catalog copy, title information sheets, press releases — about any book was written by somebody who really knew the book. That normally meant it was drafted by a junior editor or marketer who had read every word of the manuscript, and perhaps even worked on developing it.

But in today’s world, where the most important job of descriptive copy is to make the book “discoverable” through search to the person likely to buy it, it must be written with knowledge of the potential audiences, and that knowledge can only be gathered through research.

The reason for this change is not hard for anybody to understand. Almost all publisher-generated copy until the past ten years was intended for B2B intermediaries: buyers at accounts, book reviewers and editors, or librarians. It was their job to translate an accurate description of what was in the book for their audiences. Most consumers never saw publisher-generated copy except if they were browsing a shelf and chose to pick up a book and read its flap or cover copy, which usually differs only slightly from the B2B copy.

And whether or not consumers today see publisher-generated copy on a product page, search engines do, and consumers are increasingly driven by what search engines tell them. Writing copy without knowledge of the potential audiences, the language they use, the frequency with which specific search terms arise, the ability to interpret what they mean about consumer intent, and the other people, places, and things (let alone books!) competing for those terms, is not going to achieve the desired results for discovery, no matter how accurately and eloquently the book’s content is described.

Even if the logic is fully absorbed and appreciated, the challenge for most publishers to change their process for creating descriptive copy is substantial. We’ve now replaced “knowledge of the book”, which has usually been routinely gained through work that takes place before the copy is needed, with “research into the audience”, a separate task that can take a couple of hours or more and requires a dedicated effort.

(A parenthetical point here: if that audience research were done before the book was completely written, it could inform what content would sell best, not just what descriptive copy would be most readily discovered. That’s where publishers have to go in the long run, which would actually suggest that editorial staff needs to learn the audience research techniques as urgently as marketers. And we will add the massive understatement that knowing what this research would tell you can be extremely helpful in gauging the true potential audience for a book or author, which would influence the amount you’d calculate would be a sensible advance.)

The research exercise we’re suggesting is a prerequisite doesn’t just take time: it takes knowledge and skill, as does applying what is learned to the copy. Even if the knowledge were there and distributed across all the people who write descriptive copy today — and there is no publisher on the planet in which it is — the time required for the research would tax the resources of any house.

And that’s before we get to the distractions that can make publishers forget the core point, and they are plentiful.

The most recent one we’re aware of arose twice recently, two weeks ago in a piece by Porter Anderson and then again last week in an article in Publishing Perspectives  which featured the new tech-driven book deconstruction and analytical capabilities developed by an ebook distributor called Trajectory. They acquired the assets of another auto-analysis engine, described in the piece as a “book discovery site”, called Small Demons.

What Small Demons and now Trajectory do — somewhat like BookLamp, which was acquired by Apple — is use natural language processing and semantic indexing to identify characteristics of the book that can be discerned by examining the writing. Small Demons seemed to focus on proper nouns, so it could find all the books that had action taking place in Paris. Trajectory and BookLamp focused as well on writing style, sentiment analysis, and story construction.

The logic is that if you like books set in wealthy suburbs with handsome 34-year old male protagonists who break four hearts before falling hopelessly in love and who speak eloquently with the frequent use of five dollar words, and then get chased by bad guys until the heroine comes to the rescue in the last chapter, we can find them for you.

Even before I met Pete McCarthy, it seemed dubious to me that the kinds of similarities these analyses could document really predicted what a person would want to read based on what they’d read before. This logic would only make sense if the objective were to recommend a “next book” to a reader, assuming they liked what they were reading and wanted their next book to provide a similar experience. (There clearly are readers like this and they are very visible in fiction genres, but I’m quite skeptical that most readers are like this.)

But if the point to the analysis is to create copy that will promote “discovery”, off-page keywords or even “comps”,  and you buy Pete McCarthy’s premise that delivering solid SEO (search engine optimization) depends primarily on “understanding audiences”, it is clear that calling this kind of analysis a tool to aid “discovery” is a massive misnomer that mostly leads to a wild goose chase.

In fact, it is doubling down on the very thing the industry needs to rethink. It is not nearly as important to develop a deeper tech-assisted understanding of “the book” as it is to do research into the audience. And analyzing a book’s text doesn’t deliver that understanding.

The promise of BookLamp, Small Demons, and, presumably, Trajectory, is that they can deliver an analysis that requires little or no staff time because they use sophisticated technology. And the main barrier to wider adoption of Pete McCarthy’s SEO techniques is that they require research that, even using the best tools, will take 2-to-4 hours of human investigation before the first word of copy can be written.

If you’re looking for books that are similar in style and content, the tech can help you and you should use it. But if what you want is to make your book pop in the searches of likely readers, you can’t dodge the work. And finding a book that is similar in writing style, pacing, and story construction really won’t help you at all.

“Discovery” is often discussed by publishers as though it were a problem consumers consciously have. I don’t think they do. My own unproven paradigm is that there are people who are always reading a book and people who are not. The former group knows well how to find them, but using search is part of many of their arsenals. For the latter group, the books tend to find them rather than the other way around, but today the best way for the book to find them would be when they’re searching for something else and a book would be a relevant return to the query. In either case, publishers have a vested interest in showing up for the right searches for the right people at the right times.

The Logical Marketing Agency we’ve built around Pete’s knowledge of digital marketing offers a variety of ways to help publishers with this challenge, including both having us do the audience analysis for particular books and delivering training seminars that can teach a publisher’s staff what it needs to know.