Entries tagged with “publishers” from Tools of Change for Publishing
Some Tasty Bits from the StartWithXML UK Survey
Laura Dawson
August 5, 2009
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen 
- 48.7% of the respondents were in the STM market, followed by trade (24.4%) and college (16%).
- The bulk of respondents were from large houses - 50.4% - and the rest were evenly divided between midsized and small presses.
- Nearly 55% of the respondents considered themselves "tech-proficient." As most of them were from production or management, this was not surprising. We did have a significant number of editorial respondents, however - 19.3%.
- To 40.6% of our respondents, digital publishing is "very important - it informs all we do." Meanwhile, 59.4% of respondents are grappling with its impact in their companies. Only 17.8% of respondents say that they do not focus on the downstream uses of their book content, but on the print volume alone.
- As far as expanded editions are concerned, 53.5% of publishers say they don't offer these. And 69.3% do not offer more than the basic ONIX marketing content (cover image, description, first chapter, table of contents) in their digital marketing efforts.
- Over 73% of publishers do not have a formalized (formalised, if you're in the UK) DAM system.
- And over 50% do not maintain files in an XML format.
- Nearly 69% of respondents have problems retrieving files from storage, and have to institute workarounds. But over 56% look at XML as a way of complementing CMS and DAM tools they have already invested in.
Hearst Gets Into the E-Reader Game
Mac Slocum
February 27, 2009
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Hearst Corp. is developing its own wireless e-reader that may debut this year. From Fortune:
According to industry insiders, Hearst, which publishes magazines ranging from Cosmopolitan to Esquire and newspapers including the financially imperiled San Francisco Chronicle, has developed a wireless e-reader with a large-format screen suited to the reading and advertising requirements of newspapers and magazines. The device and underlying technology, which other publishers will be allowed to adapt, is likely to debut this year.
The larger screen size will put the Hearst reader in the same class as devices from Plastic Logic and iRex.
Fortune says Hearst isn't discussing product specs, but the company has a longtime association with E Ink. Last September, Esquire published the first E Ink magazine cover.
Webcast Video and Slides: Social Media for Publishers
Mac Slocum
December 18, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (2)
|
Listen
Below you'll find the full recording from the recent TOC Webcast, "Social Media for Publishers" with Chris Brogan.
Chris has also made his presentation slides available:
Magazines Now in Google Book Search
Mac Slocum
December 11, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Google is adding back issues of magazines to its Book Search index. From the Official Google Blog:
Try queries like [obama keynote convention], [hollywood brat pack] or [world's most challenging crossword] and you'll find magazine articles alongside books results. Magazine articles are tagged with the keyword "Magazine" on the search snippet.
Over time, as we scan more articles, you'll see more and more magazines appear in Google Book Search results. Eventually, we'll also begin blending magazine results into our main Google.com search results, so you may begin finding magazines you didn't even know you were looking for. For now you can restrict your search to magazines we've scanned by trying an advanced search.
The Associated Press says Google will share advertising revenue generated by Google ads with magazine publishers. Embedded advertising from the original print editions remains intact as part of the overall archive. It'll be interesting to see how Google and magazine publishers coordinate on ads if/when publishers seed current editions into the service.
In recent months, Google also released a similar newspaper archive through Google News and a large collection of photos from LIFE magazine.
Random House Expands Ebook Offerings, Embraces EPUB
Peter Brantley
November 25, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (3)
|
Listen
Random House is pursing digital with a vengeance, recognizing a growth market. From the Huffington Post:
The publisher already has more than 8,000 books in the electronic format and will have a digital library of nearly 15,000. The new round of e-books is expected to be completed within months; excerpts can be viewed online through the publisher's Insight browsing service.
Also notable, Random will make all current and future ebooks available in EPUB format.
Point-Counterpoint: Digital Book DRM, the Least Worst Solution
Bill McCoy
November 24, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (30)
|
Listen
Last week my friend and International Digital Publishing Forum board colleague Peter Brantley, Executive Director for the Digital Library Federation, published a thoughtful article on TOC arguing that "digital book DRM is bad bad bad."
I rashly volunteered to offer a counterpoint. Now, let me say up front that I don't think ebook DRM is "good good good" any more than I think that of taxation, standing armies, or the proliferation of nuclear technology. But although one may dislike taxation, one may dislike even more the likely consequences of eliminating taxes (diminished schools, roads, law enforcement, ...). Peter's post focused on negative attributes of DRM in isolation. But to me, the important thing is to look at likely outcomes given various scenarios, and to consider what these outcomes would mean for the principal actors involved (authors, publishers, and readers). Not whether something is good or bad but whether it's better or worse than the likely alternative.
To me, it's pretty clear that the establishment by the industry of a broadly adopted cross-platform ebook DRM system should lead to a significantly better outcome for all concerned than if no such platform ends up getting established. "DRM" is a somewhat loaded term: to clarify, by "ebook DRM" I mean a relatively lightweight means of limiting and/or discouraging copying and use beyond publisher-permitted limits, intended more to "keep honest people honest" than to totally prevent copying. After all, a book can be scanned and digitized, or even re-keyed, with only a middling level of difficulty -- so aiming for "ironclad" DRM is not warranted, even if it were feasible.
Read more…Publishers Need to Get In on the Conversation
Peter Brantley
November 19, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Kassia Krozser has a Cluetrain-like manifesto for publishers. From Booksquare:
It's time to get your hands dirty, to dig into the real-world conversation. It's a weird thing, and sometimes awkward and uncomfortable, especially if you're accustomed to public relations-speak and the cheerleader behavior that accompanies marketing messages. When you talk directly to real people who read and buy books, they tune you out when you try to stay on message. If they wanted to rehash cover copy, they'd read the back of the book.
APIs, New "Transactions" and the Google Book Search Registry
Peter Brantley
November 13, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Listen
At PersonaNonData, Michael Cairns discusses the Google Book Search registry, and muses whether it might support certain types of transactions through an API:
How the registry may be formed is anyone's guess, but for sake of argument I envision a pyramidal structure. The identifier segment forms the pointy top layer, bibliographic data the second layer, content the third and the 'transaction gateway' the bottom tier. Then again maybe it's a cube and I should be adding subjects, a retail/library segmentation, and transactional details like rights information. Regardless, it seems to me combining each of these segments into a registry might engender significant opportunities to improve the publishing supply chain. But more than that, the combination I suggest works better for the on-line world than the off which is the failing of the current crop of ISBN databases (including Amazon.com) ...
... The most obvious application enabled via the 'transaction gateway' would be purchase but a 'transaction' can be many things: views, queries, checkin-out, use rights, syndication and may more. An open service architecture would enable development of third party API's that could result in all kinds of new applications but existing ones would also benefit as well. Worldcat and Copyright Clearinghouse applications are good examples where users could find the physical content in a library or attain usage rights from CCC.
Change Always Leaves Someone Behind
Mac Slocum
November 11, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Listen
Seth Godin discusses the realities of digital change and free distribution in an interview with HarperStudio's The 26th Story:
... the market and the internet don't care if you make money. That's important to say. You have no right to make money from every development in media, and the humility that comes from approaching the market that way matters. It's not "how can the market make me money" it's "how can I do things for this market." Because generally, when you do something for an audience, they repay you. The Grateful Dead made plenty of money. Tom Peters makes many millions of dollars a year giving speeches, while books are a tiny fraction of that. Barack Obama used ideas to get elected, book royalties are just a nice side effect. There are doctors and consultants who profit from spreading ideas. Novelists and musicians can make money with bespoke work and appearances and interactions. And you know what? It's entirely likely that many people in the chain WON'T make any money. That's okay. That's the way change works.
(Via Differences & Repetitions and Jose Alonso Furtado's Twitter Stream.)
Google Responds to Some Book Search Questions
Mac Slocum
November 6, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Shortly after last week's Google Book Search announcement, Siva Vaidhyanathan posed a number of questions about the agreement's impact on publishers, libraries and consumers.
Google responded, and today Vaidhyanathan offers paraphrased answers and additional analysis:
The agreements with and about publishers, libraries, and the registry were all non-exclusive, as is the habit and tradition of Google's approach to competition in the Web business. The registry will be started with Google funds, but it will be an idependent non-profit that may deal with the Open Content Alliance and other services without restriction from Google. Generally, Google's lawyers don't see this service as presenting a "typical anti-trust" problem. There are so many segments to the book market in the world, including real bookstores, online stores such as Amazon.com, and used-book outlets that no one may set prices for books (even out-of-print books) effectively. There is always a competing source - including libraries themselves.
There's additional coverage in Vaidhyanathan's post.
What Cookbook Publishers Can Learn from the Music Industry
Mac Slocum
November 4, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
The similarities between the music and book industries tend to diverge when you examine the smallest possible component of each format: unlike songs, book chapters aren't usually self contained.
But recipes are a different matter. A recent story in the New York Times looks at the upcoming Web site, Cookstr, which aims to catalog recipes from top chefs:
Cookstr, which will be supported by advertising revenues, will aggregate recipes from published cookbooks. All of the authors will have their own pages, with biographies, links to recipes and books, and in the case of restaurant chefs, links to their locations on Google maps.
Cookstr isn't blazing new trails here: All Recipes, Epicurious, Big Oven, FoodNetwork.com and other Web outlets have built their sites around aggregation of individual recipes. But there's still a silo-based mentality in play because recipes are only free to roam within the boundaries of each site. This is equivalent to a record company only making songs available through its own proprietary service. As we've seen with the success of iTunes, YouTube and most recently through Hulu, users flock to platforms that replace traditional boundaries with massive catalogues of material. Shoehorning content and users into a specific channel rarely works on the Web (iTunes is the exception), so the record labels eventually moved toward wide distribution across multiple platforms.
There are key differences between songs and recipes -- paid downloads vs. free text content most notable among them -- but a variation on the song model might work for recipes: sell advertising against publisher-owned recipe pages; allow standalone recipes to disperse with attached branding and pull-back opportunities; and use increased attention from wider distribution to deliver related products with built-in scarcity, such as traditional cookbooks, custom books, curated collections, cooking classes and events.
Report: Random House Shifts Ebook Royalties to Net Receipts
Mac Slocum
October 29, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Listen
Richard Curtis says Random House has announced a shift in its ebook royalties in a letter recently sent to literary agents. From E-Reads:
Commencing December 1, 2008, the new royalty rate for sales of ebooks will be 25% of the amount received for all sales, Random's letter goes on to state. What does Random House actually receive? Most e-book retailers take a discount of approximately 50% of an e-book's list price. Therefore, the amount received by Random House -- the amount on which the new royalty will be based -- is about half of the list. [Emphasis included in original post.]
Reaction to Google Book Search Settlement
Mac Slocum
October 29, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (6)
|
Listen
Updated 10/30, 7:53 AM -- Publishing experts, bloggers and interested parties are weighing in on the Google Book Search settlement. I'll be updating this post as new material comes in. If you see something that deserves notice please post a comment:
Posts Added October 30
On the Google Book Search agreement
(Larry Lessig, Lessig Blog)
The hard question for the registry is how far they will go to support the range of business models that authors and publishers might have. E.g., Yale Press "Books Unbound" and Bloomsbury Academic both have Creative Commons licensed authors. Will the registry enable that fact to be recognized? Indeed, though the comment was made by someone from the plaintiffs' side that it would be "perverse" for authors to choose free licensing, it is perfectly plausible that an author would choose to make his or her work available freely electronically, but contract with one commercial publisher to deal with selling the physical book, or licensing rights commercially. That, again, is the Bloomsbury Academic business model. Ideally, this non-profit should encourage the widest range of rights-respecting business models. One clear signal about what kind of organization this is will come from this.
Posts Added October 29
My initial take on the Google-publishers settlement
(Siva Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything)
From the beginning, this has seemed to be a major example of corporate welfare. Libraries at public universities all over this country (including the one that employs me) have spent many billions of dollars collecting these books. Now they are just giving away access to one company that is cornering the market on on-line access. They did this without concern for user confidentiality, preservation, image quality, search prowess, metadata standards, or long-term sustainability. They chose the expedient way rather than the best way to build and extend their collections.
Short Term Profits Over Long Term Principles; Google's Caving On Book Scanning Is Bad News (Mike Masnick, Techdirt)
... it's quite upsetting to see Google cave on this. The settlement does not establish any sort of precedent on the legality of creating such an index of books, and, if anything pushes things in the other direction, saying that authors and publishers now have the right to determine what innovations there can be when it comes to archiving and indexing works of content. Unfortunately, this was really inevitable. As was the case with Google caving on YouTube and the Associated Press, it becomes a situation where Google realizes it can throw a little cash at the problem to make it go away -- while also creating a large barrier to entry for any more innovative startup. From a short-term business perspective this might make sense, but from a long-term business perspective (and wider cultural perspective) it's terrible.
Google Book Search Lawsuit Settled, Fair Use Questions Remain ... (Sherwan Siy, Public Knowledge)
But while the legal landscape isn't altered too much by the settlement, the practical landscape could be. Rightsholders and other potential plaintiffs might view this settlement as the model for all future relationships with digitization efforts--if Google pays for digitizing, why shouldn't everyone else? Such a landscape might make a plaintiff more likely to sue, although the results in court, ideally, shouldn't differ, with or without this settlement in place.
Boondoggle in Google Rights Win? (Warning, Rant) (Erik Sherman, Erik Sherman's WriterBiz)
Going forward, people will buy books they want online and libraries will pay for access. Who gets 37 percent of the revenue? Google. Plus, there's advertising revenue and Google gets the same percentage of that. So for $125 million, it's probably nailed down many, many times more future revenue. This will turn out to be a pretty cheap business acquisition for them.
Author's Guild Settlement Insta-Blogging (James Grimmelmann, The Laboratorium)
Read more…The issue is that this is a class-action settlement requiring judicial approval to bind all authors. It's practically impossible for anyone else to take advantage of Google's terms without filing suit to obtain a similar class-binding order. Individual license negotiation -- the route that Google considered and rejected when it started the project -- is utterly infeasible. Since voluntary negotiation can't produce the result one needs to do comprehensive indexing, there's still no market for it, and this settlement therefore shouldn't prejudice future fair use claims by search engines.
Google Reaches Book Search Settlement
Peter Brantley
October 28, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (2)
|
Listen
Google has announced a settlement plan for the suits filed by the Association of American Publishers and the Authors' Guild. From the Google Book Search site:
Today we're delighted to announce that we've settled that lawsuit and will be working closely with these industry partners to bring even more of the world's books online.Together we'll accomplish far more than any of us could have individually, to the enduring benefit of authors, publishers, researchers and readers alike.
It will take some time for this agreement to be approved and finalized by the Court ...
Publishers' Weekly says Google will pay $125 million and institute a new licensing system as part of the settlement. Section 2.1 of the settlement agreement (pdf) details the settlement payments and licensing structure.
Additional information is available on the primary Book Search site and a separate settlement site.
Where's the IMDb for Books?
Mac Slocum
October 27, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (3)
|
Listen
Over on the TOC Community, David Henley expands on recent discussions around publisher and author brand building by drawing an interesting connection to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb):
Not everyone chooses a film because of who directs it or who the screenwriter was, but some of us do, and now with databases like IMDB we can easily find lists of films containing the actors we like, or directors and discover more things we might like to watch.
I think books can be the same. Currently I don't get to know who edits each book, or acquires the rights, but if I did I might start to follow their work. Authors need not be the only brands. Publishers can establish a brand identity the way imprints used to. Most will have to start over as they've diluted any meaning they ever had.
The Economic Value of Trust
Mac Slocum
October 21, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Philip Meyer looks at the connection between consumer trust and publishers' viability. From the American Journalism Review:
The best publishers have always known that trust has economic value. In "The Vanishing Newspaper," I reported that advertising rates increased by $3.25 per Standard Advertising Unit (SAU) for each one percentage point increase in the persons who said they believed what they read in the paper. And papers with higher trust were more successful in resisting the long-term decline in household penetration.
Publishers Rush Economic Crisis Books
Mac Slocum
October 10, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
The Economist says book publishers are rushing to cash in on the economic turmoil bubbling up across world markets:
Like any good bank in the pre-crash days, some publishers are splashing out to secure talent. Penguin's American arm has been particularly eager, bagging four inky-fingered "stars" in the past month, reportedly at a cost of over $2m in advances.
The Economist notes that long publishing deadlines may prevent book publishers from capitalizing on the current flush of consumer interest (and worry), especially if the situation stabilizes. But traditional publishing's burden is Web publishing's gain: Beet.TV says The Wall Street Journal's impeccably timed Web redesign coincided with record traffic, and there's been a surge in interest for NBC, BBC and Reuters Web properties.
Do Publisher Brands Still Have Relevance?
Peter Brantley
October 3, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (5)
|
Listen
Kate Eltham espies HarperStudio, asking whether they should have a separate Web portal/site, or just operate with a blog. She wonders: can a publisher drive a brand these days? Or just authors? What would make the return on investment worthwhile?
Personally, growing up, discovering reading, I remember some imprints with fondness, and I might see their name as an added validation of quality -- e.g. Black Cat/Grove always meant something specific; so did Pantheon (not the same thing!). But I would never purchase solely because of the brand "hey another Black Cat by an author that i've never heard of -- I'll give it a go!" That never has happened to me.
Anyway ... back to Kate:
And all this got me thinking ... is the author the only brand? Isn't it possible, however unlikely, that some publishers could create an identity so strong and a community so vibrant that audiences seek out their books because they trust and like the people producing them? It's hard to imagine of the multinationals, but not so hard to imagine of the quirky independents who have well-known identities associated with them, such as McSweeney's (Dave Eggers) or Small Beer Press (Kelly Link).
Of course, even a wildly successful publisher blog is unlikely to generate the kind of audience that would shift books in the quantities required to make the ROI worth it. Then again, when you look at blogs like Boing Boing it's quite clear the awesome power of conversation and community. The publisher as brand may not be something to write off just yet. Perhaps publishers just haven't worked out how to do it well in the new paradigm.
What Does Esquire's E Ink Cover Mean for Print Publishing?
Mac Slocum
September 10, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (3)
|
Listen
I've been noodling on the implications of Esquire's E Ink cover (video available here), and for the life of me I can't see how this is anything more than a small change in a mature technology. It's on par with terrestrial radio's embrace of HD Radio and the music industry's attempts at super-high-fidelity discs (SACD and DVD-A).
Esquire deserves credit for experimenting with E Ink, and I certainly think E Ink itself has a variety of uses (Kindle and Sony Reader owners would agree). But the merging of E Ink displays and traditional print formats garners the same level of interest as National Geographic's hologram covers: neat idea ... nice execution ... but beyond the publicity and potential newsstand sales, what's the long-term point?
Future E Ink screens are projected to be ultra-light, interactive and updateable via Web connections (the Kindle offers a variation on this), but millions of consumers already own mobile devices with the same functionality. Even if these features come to pass, why would I purchase a print-digital hybrid or a separate digital-only device when I have easy access to content on a device I already own?
Bolting digital elements onto an analog medium may yield new ideas -- and there's value in that -- but there's something to be said for adaptation within a format. Radio has survived by adapting its content. Television, newspapers and magazines are in the midst of their own adaptations, and what these formats become will be influenced by the content they deliver, not the technological add-ons they incorporate. E Ink may someday emerge as a vital aspect of print material, but only when it furthers the essential elements of storytelling, information delivery and clear consumer value.
What's your take? Do you see opportunities in the merging of E Ink and print material? Please share your thoughts in the comments area.
Perseus Targets Small Publishers with Digital Services Suite
Mac Slocum
September 4, 2008
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Listen
Perseus Book Group's new Constellation service offers independent publishers a conduit to digital formats and platforms. From the New York Times:
The companies involved in the deal include Google, for its Google Book Search feature; Amazon, for its Kindle electronic reader; Sony, for its Sony Reader; Barnes & Noble, for its "See Inside" feature on its Web site; and Lightning Source, a print-on-demand company.
Publishers who use the new service can provide a single digital book file to Constellation and specify how they would like it to be used.
Ingram Digital, OverDrive, LibreDigital and the non-profit Caravan Project provide similar digital services, although the tools, formats and distribution channels vary across firms.
- 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
-
