Entries tagged with “disruption” from Tools of Change for Publishing

Lessons from Digital Disruption in the Music Business

Andrew Savikas
October 29, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | Listen

Last week's On The Media (mp3 download here) devoted the full program to challenges and changes during the past decade or so in the music business -- from the unanswered legal questions about sampling (check out Girl Talk for the genre taken to the extreme) to the shifting economics of concert tickets and promotion to the changing role of industry rankings like Billboard's Hot 100. (Fun fact I picked up while listening: more than 8.5 billion songs have been sold via iTunes.)

My favorite segment was near the end, about the changing nature of the relationship between artists and fans, a segment called "Why I'm not Afraid to Take Your Money" which featured a great interview with Amanda Palmer of the Dresden Dolls:

Everyone has to stop thinking there is an answer. The answer is, there's an infinite number of answers.

People don't love music any less. There might be a lot less money out there in the industry, but maybe that's a good thing. Maybe the fact that the live industry is tanking to a certain degree means that ticket prices are now going to be reasonable. As far as the music is concerned, maybe it ups the ante. If you're a teenager with a dream of being a rock star, maybe you'll really think about why. Were you doing this to be rich and famous or are you doing this because you really love music and you want to connect with people, and you'll do it even if it just means you make a living wage? If that's true, I'm - you know, I'm a fan of the new system.

"We had all the advantages and let it slip away"

Andrew Savikas
October 5, 2009 | Permalink | Listen

Among the most honest assessments of the failure of newspapers to adapt to the Web comes from John Temple, former editor, president and publisher of the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News. The whole thing is unflinching, powerful, and nearly every word worth reading if you're part of a media company hoping to survive the current digital environment, much less the shift to the mobile web. It was hard to pull out highlights, but here's a few:

As one former Scripps executive told me in talking about what has happened to the newspaper industry, words that I think apply to the Rocky, "We had all the advantages and let it slip away. We couldn't give up the idea that we were newspaper companies."

Also an admission of the (in hindsight) classic mistake of judging new ventures using the expectations of the old:

The service was shut down after about 9 months, but not before scooping the paper on the start of the First Gulf War, reporting 12 hours before the paper landed on most doorsteps that the war had begun. The project was halted, I was told, because "we just couldn't show that it was having any measurable impact on retention of print subscribers and it wasn't producing revenue."

Right from the start, new offerings were measured by what they did for the core product, not on their own merits. A big mistake.

And some great words about understanding that you're working with a new medium, not just a new format in which to present the old:

You have to have a strategy and you have to be committed to pursuing it. We perceived the Web site as a newspaper online, as a complement to the paper, not as its own thing. That's not a strategy.

Go. Read it now. Thanks to Jay Rosen for the link (via Twitter).

"Being wrong is a feature, not a bug"

Andrew Savikas
July 2, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (2) | Listen

A thoughtful piece from Michael Nielsen on the disruption of the scientific publishing industry includes a lot that's very relevant to other publishers and media companies. For example:

In conversations with editors I repeatedly encounter the same pattern: "But idea X won't work / shouldn't be allowed / is bad because of Y." Well, okay. So what? If you're right, you'll be intellectually vindicated, and can take a bow. If you're wrong, your company may not exist in ten years. Whether you're right or not is not the point. When new technologies are being developed, the organizations that win are those that aggressively take risks, put visionary technologists in key decision-making positions, attain a deep organizational mastery of the relevant technologies, and, in most cases, make a lot of mistakes. Being wrong is a feature, not a bug, if it helps you evolve a model that works: you start out with an idea that's just plain wrong, but that contains the seed of a better idea.

Around here we like to say "fail forward fast," and it's an acknowledgement that we will learn much more by trying and doing (and probably failing) than by planning. The real challenge with that is to make those experiments as cheap (financially and otherwise) as possible.

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.

Related Stories:

• Clay Shirky: "The Newspaper Industry and the Arrival of the Glaciers"
• The Confusion Between Content and Containers
• It's Time to Accept an Ambiguous Digital Fate
• News.com: "NYT's Sulzberger: 'We can't care' if newspapers die"

Can XML Help you Avoid a Disruptive Innovation?

Brian O'Leary
October 24, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (5) | Listen

This semester, I'm fortunate to spend my Wednesday nights teaching management to students who are part of NYU's M.S. in publishing program. Although a significant share of the course is given over to management fundamentals, the students are for the most part already working in publishing, so they also look for connections between lessons learned and their real-world application.

One recent class was given over to "managing in periods of change" (always relevant, seemingly more so this semester). Part of the lesson includes a discussion of disruptive innovation, a term coined in the mid-1990s by Joseph Bower and Clayton Christensen to describe upstart innovations that grow to disrupt or destroy the business you are in.

Disruptive innovations typically start out as inferior ways to meet the needs of customers who are currently not served at all or who are over-served by existing options and are open to a simpler or cheaper option. Walking through this description, I was asked for a content-related example.

Maybe I do my best work on my feet (you'd have to ask the class), but I started to describe travel books. "People visit France," I said, "but not all of it. Maybe they want information on just the area around their hotel in Paris ... What's a good restaurant, a trendy bar, a place where you won't pay an arm and a leg for show tickets ...

"Today, you could get this information, but you might have to buy all of three or four different books to combine it. After that, you might go to the Web to get current information on the shows that are scheduled for the day you are in Paris. And then, you'd probably try to print maps to get you from your hotel to wherever you decided was interesting.

"Suppose instead, we created a travel database that you could search using criteria that mattered to you -- proximity to a hotel, a particular neighborhood, a time of year, your preference for trendy bars ... Zagats does this for its database, after all, and still makes printed guides. And maybe you'd buy just the parts you want, download them to your laptop or handheld and head to Paris, lighter, greener and better informed."

A structured approach to content development and management -- XML -- makes it possible to create and serve relevant searchable content.

Someone said, rightly, "But that would hurt (print) book sales." I had to agree. Disruptive innovations fundamentally disrupt the old model. If you're in a market that will be disrupted, the choice isn't whether you get disrupted; it's whether you are one of the firms that disrupts.

Ultimately, XML won't help you avoid a disruptive innovation. Depending on the type of book you publish, XML could provide the vehicle that sponsors the disruption. The choice you make in considering XML (or, to pre-empt my friend bowerbird, some form of structured content) may be between staying with your existing business model until it runs out, or hastening its demise in pursuit of a blended mix of new revenue opportunities.

Related:

• See more StartWithXML posts

Which Game is the Kindle Changing?

Mac Slocum
August 7, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | Listen

Labeling the Kindle a game changer is premature, says Liz Gunnison from Portfolio:

... the Kindle's target buyer would be a person who reads so much that they have ceased instilling books and periodicals with nostalgic value...yet not so much that they are rarely far enough from a computer to really need a separate device.

To top it off, one can imagine a single device (and Amazon account) being used by an entire household. And we're talking only about those that choose a Kindle, of course, rather than a competing device such as Sony's portable reader.

So, all things considered, how many Kindles does that work out to? Two million? One million? Five hundred thousand? [Emphasis included in original post.]

Gunnison's analysis looks at the Kindle as a book game changer, but Gary Frost from futureofthebook.com says the device is actually a shopping disruptor:

The book reading function is a decoy to disguise a portable shopping device. The one click is a well known Amazon purchase feature. The connected Kindle device makes this relation portable and the format is just as accessible for a baby register or power tools as it is for books. Its also worth a mention that Kindle sells print books.

Frost is on to something. Amazon built its early business on books, but it eventually diversified with thousands of additional product categories. The Kindle might follow a similar path: sink the first mobile-buying/digital-consuming hook into early adopters with the Kindle, then expand.

(Via Jose Afonso Furtado's Twitter stream.)

Related Stories:

• TechCrunch Reports 240K Kindles Sold
• Amazon's Non-Media Products Show Growth
• Amazon Ups the Ante on Platform Lock-In
• The Pitfalls of Publishing's E-Reader Guessing Game

Technology's "Killer" Distraction

Mac Slocum
July 29, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (3) | Listen

A new search engine, Cuil, is attracting the requisite "Google killer" coverage. Thankfully, Seth Godin provides some much-needed perspective:

I have no doubt that someone will develop a useful tool one day that takes time and attention away from Google, but it won't be a search engine. Google, after all, isn't broken, not in terms of solving the iconic "how do I find something online using my web browser" question.

I have no beef with Cuil itself (the handful of queries I ran worked fine), but this "killer" business is another matter. In the history of tech prognostications, has an upstart killer ever successfully terminated its target? More importantly, what possible benefit do any of us get from this type of analysis?

I can only imagine the useful commentary we would see if the killer oeuvre could be stricken from the record. The bombastic flavor-of-the-day cycle might be replaced with actual thoughts about the future of particular applications and their accompanying industries. Perhaps we'd even stop shoehorning lightning-in-a-bottle success stories into unrelated products (e.g. the Kindle/iPod comparisons). And maybe we'd finally see that the exciting developments -- the products and experiments that really stir things up -- come from people who focus on creation rather than dominance.

As Seth eloquently notes:

... success keeps going to people who build new icons, not to those that seek to replace the most successful existing ones.

Related Stories:

• Lamenting the Digital Decline is a Dangerous Path
• The Pitfalls of Publishing's E-Reader Guessing Game
• Calling Google a Publisher Underestimates its Platform

New Publishing Models

Allen Noren
February 11, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | Listen

I spend a fair amount of my evening time searching for and studying new publishing models, most of which are unfortunately not being created by traditional publishers. Bill Burger of the Copyright Clearance Center talked about some excellent sites that we as publishers should be studying. They are:

Wikitravel: Though there are a plethora of travel sites available, this one is built on the very successful Wikipedia model. And now users can purchase a book through it, no traditional publisher involved.

Encyclopedia of Life: A dense and gorgeous site that comes to us without the involvement of a traditional publisher.

Sermo.com: A members-only site for doctors in the Boston area that publishes medical information, without the involvement of a traditional publisher.

I could add a bunch more to this list--Knol, 101 Cookbook, Baby Center--but the trend is clear, and if publishers aren't willing to participate in this new world, really participate, then alternatives will be created.