People are tools of change not technology, but no change happens when you don't go about it in the right way. Many inventions fail because the brilliant inventor was a mediocre marketer, but those same inventions sweep through the world when a brilliant marketer picks them up.
For publishing, the impediments of change in the digital age surround rights. Digital Rights Management (DRM) gives power to distributors who could become the publishers in 10 years (most likely Amazon of course). Territory and format rights were created for different, less global times. We are in an age of instant global distribution and increasingly format agnostic devices. Some have suggested the better course for publishers may be less books better chosen. Having all the rights means having all the book -- a book that is far more important when you have fewer baskets for your eggs. Also the cost of supporting the infrastructure for these rights will only rise as the complexity increase in the global digital economy, which could be fatal to an industry that needs to cut costs to remain competitive. Furthermore, the long tail may be an argument for not making a quick short term profit selling rights which may someday return bigger dividends.
That said, technology may play into the notion of territory. Amazon's Kindle depends on a wireless network that is currently defined by political borders (it's US only now). Publishers should watch closely how Jeff Bezos speaks about the Kindle's wireless network, because this sleeper may awaken to be the true power behind this device's control of the industry. Corey Doctorow already pointed out the danger of giving Amazon the key to your own content via Amazon DRM. The Kindle's wireless network may be the wings for this content which will give power to both the concept of territory rights and more importantly Amazon. If Amazon sets up the wireless networks based on the old concept of territory, then they will be the way to maintain existing territory rights, which will make an argument for giving up just a little bit more autonomy to Amazon.
We all know that the digital world (the internet in particular) changes the scale of things, but absent from the discussion of pricing eBooks was scale. Production costs must be figured into the price of any product however this alone is not an argument for matching print and eBooks prices. If scale of eBook sales is vastly different than what we are used to then the price will be to. Furthermore there is a public perception that eBooks cost less to produce than print books. NPR recently reported (incorrectly?) that publishers agree that eBooks cost less then print books when NPR discussed the Kindle. Arguing the reality of the situation may be a dangerous PR move for publishers.
Toyota broke into the auto market in the US by pricing cars based on what consumers were willing to pay. Will US publishers take the course of Detroit and price books at the price they want or will they listen to the market?
If eBooks cost $2 or $5 might we all not just buy them just to have them? Maybe the modern definition of what Mark Twain said about classics is that a classic is a book you keep in your iPhone to show off. Already apps for iPhone hold social value (look at me I have a cool new app) -- maybe eBooks can be the same thing. It changes our outlook on purchasing books if they become so cheap that instead of buying a book because you will read it, that you buy it because you might read it.
The Espresso Book Machine offers publishers a way to keep all books in print. I'm sure there is a moral argument for piracy (Corey D's concept) to make illegal copies of a book that's not in print: If you're not willing to sell, why shouldn't I steal?
Since Amazon created the first (and still best) book data web services, the industry should simply standardize on them. Reps from good reads, library thing and others made the point that parsers have already been written for this standard. Why waste time and money on coming up with something else?
The book industry has missed some amazing opportunities. Radio came out and it was just a new technology for story in -- the same sense that cave walls, scrolls, and books were, but it was thought of as "not what we do". Then movies came out -- just a new medium for story, but "it's not what we do". Video games, blogs, and more are now falling into that category, but still publishers like to go into categorical boxes instead of being publishers of ideas/stories they want to be defined by their format. All publishers at base choose a good story/idea (discriminate), package the idea/story, and sell it.
Which may get to the core of the service publishing offers: It is the decider of what is and is not literature. It is the entity that works through the slush pile and discriminates.
Or then again, maybe the core business is books and publishing will slowly find its niche printing the mass produced illuminated manuscripts in smaller print runs with higher prices.
Lulu + good reads = amazon.com?
IT (and other techies) are not wagering the same stakes in the new publishing world. If publishing is lost to new digital economies, the IT folks feel they can just get a job at some other website or some other company with an IT department. Publishers and editors need the publishing world and would have to retrain (unless of course you buy the argument above about all publishing being essentially the same).
So everyone from the techie side should consider what (not just they, but what) everyone wagers when we dare to re-imagine the book publishing world. And everyone should remember that people are and will always be the real tools of change.
No comments:
Post a Comment