Entries tagged with “containers” from Tools of Change for Publishing
Coming to Grips with the "Unthinkable" in Publishing
Andrew Savikas
March 18, 2009
| Permalink
| Comments (11)
|
Listen 
While much of the Twitter chatter this past weekend was about the annual South by Southwest festival and conference, there was quite a bit of "retweeting" of links to a post by Clay Shirky:
During the wrenching transition to print, experiments were only revealed in retrospect to be turning points. Aldus Manutius, the Venetian printer and publisher, invented the smaller octavo volume along with italic type. What seemed like a minor change -- take a book and shrink it -- was in retrospect a key innovation in the democratization of the printed word. As books became cheaper, more portable, and therefore more desirable, they expanded the market for all publishers, heightening the value of literacy still further.
That is what real revolutions are like. The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place. The importance of any given experiment isn't apparent at the moment it appears; big changes stall, small changes spread. Even the revolutionaries can't predict what will happen. Agreements on all sides that core institutions must be protected are rendered meaningless by the very people doing the agreeing. (Luther and the Church both insisted, for years, that whatever else happened, no one was talking about a schism.) Ancient social bargains, once disrupted, can neither be mended nor quickly replaced, since any such bargain takes decades to solidify.
And so it is today. When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems won't break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains aren't in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to.
There are fewer and fewer people who can convincingly tell such a lie.
I'll second Tim O'Reilly's reaction to the piece:
This is a piece that anyone concerned with the future of publishing simply MUST read.
It's a long post, but well worth a close read (and re-read). Though Clay's talking about newspapers, much of what he has to say applies to book publishing in particular, as well as media in general.
More on Shirky's post from Mark Bertils (@mdash) over at indexmb.com:
Journalism is the act. Newspapers are the artifact. The infrastructure around the artifact is imploding, never to be replaced.
Publishers: Let the Containers Go
Mac Slocum
December 3, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
In a guest post at Boing Boing, Clay Shirky says publishers who focus on book lovers rather than readers are setting themselves up to fail:
Businesses don't survive in the long term because old people persist in old behaviors; they survive because young people renew old behaviors, and all the behaviors young people are renewing cluster around reading, while they are adopting almost none of the behaviors tied to cherishing physical containers, whether for the written word or anything else. Can you imagine a 25-year-old telling a publisher "To get my business, you should stick to a single, analog format? Oh, and could you make it heavy, bulky, and unsearchable? Thanks."
The Confusion Between Content and Containers
Mac Slocum
October 6, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
The digital realm allows content and containers to exist separately, but their old bond is still tough to break. An article in yesterday's New York Times education section illustrates this point:
Spurred by arguments that video games also may teach a kind of digital literacy that is becoming as important as proficiency in print, libraries are hosting gaming tournaments, while schools are exploring how to incorporate video games in the classroom...
... But doubtful teachers and literacy experts question how effective it is to use an overwhelmingly visual medium to connect youngsters to the written word. They suggest that while a handful of players might be motivated to pick up a book, many more will skip the text and go straight to the game. Others suggest that video games detract from the experience of being wholly immersed in a book.
The problem with this thinking is that it only assigns "literacy" value to books. Certainly, books are an essential learning tool and students should be exposed to them early and often, but if the goal is to improve literacy -- i.e. "being able to read and write" -- then the argument against games falls apart. A game-based project that boosts reading and writing skills in even a small percentage of children is still worthwhile, especially if it's one initiative amidst a broader literacy effort.
The anti-game contingent noted in the Times piece is falling into a familiar trap: assigning value to a container instead of content. The container trap was innocuous in years past because the audience (consumers, students, etc.) was limited to passive acceptance of a few choices. Now that digital delivery empowers audiences to naturally gravitate toward material they deem worthwhile, shoehorning people into a particular form diverges from bigger goals. If you want to accomplish something -- be it literacy improvement or creation of sustainable revenue streams -- you need to go with the audience grain, not against it.
- Stay Connected
-
TOC RSS Feeds
News Posts
Commentary Posts
Combined Feed
New to RSS?
Subscribe to the TOC newsletter. 
Follow TOC on Twitter. 
Join the TOC Facebook group. 
Join the TOC LinkedIn group. 
Get the TOC Headline Widget.
- Search
-
