Offered below are just three arguments that force us to
question what we publish today and what we should publish tomorrow.
Individually, the arguments may not pass the ‘so what?’ test, but taken
together they should ring alarm bells in every publishing building.
Firstly, we often
assume we will see and understand change and importantly be prepared for it.
The reality is very different and change today is not linear, nor is it
predictable and in many cases it is disruptive. The industrial giants of
yesterday have been overtaken by technology and networking companies who
connect stuff. Things that were once impossible to imagine can now be achieved
from anywhere, at any time, in a click. Technology is enabling us to reevaluate how
we develop, manage and market content and its associated context. As change
happens society adopts and adapts and expectations and values we took for
granted also change. Technology is now enabling everyone to be a creator of
content and to connect to an audience and this democratisation of creativity is
further impacting content formats such as books, film, TV, music, games,
photography, art.
Secondly, we are
a society, which in the main, has an ownership culture. We buy bricks and
mortar and called it home, we then set
about filling it with possessions, some transient and throw away and others
more assets and collectibles. Our possessions often reflect and describe who we
are, or who we aspire to be. Unlike yesterday many rooms may not be filled with
shelves of books, music, films, magazines etc. On demand instant access to very
large ’libraries’ starts to question the basics need for ownership and opens
the market to models such as rental and subscription, which were not attractive
in the old analogue world. Netflix, Lovefilm, Prime, Spotify, Pandora are all
creating the on demand market in film and music and now the likes of Oyster,
Scribd, Amazon and others are following their lead in the ebook market.
Thirdly, the way
we read, what we read and when we read and how we spend our leisure time today
is increasingly different from 100 years ago, fifty years ago and even 20 years
ago, yet the content itself has altered very little. The vast majority of
ebooks today take the content developed for the physical container and merely pour
it into a digital one. Is that logical? Are we presuming that’s what consumers
want? Imagine we could take the text and create a perfect audiobook at a click,
would we really expect that to be good enough or just a lazy quick fix. Today
audiobooks are adapted from books and professionally read to fit the medium and
consumers’ expectations. It’s true that they no longer are restricted by the
digital media but just how long would it take to listen to ‘War and Peace’ with
a synthesised voice? Screenplays of books adapt the content to fit the format,
consumers’ expectations and budget. We do not have many 5 hour films and most
fit within 180 to 240 minutes and may only cover a fraction of the book content.
We don’t have many 15 minute music tracks and again these are no longer
restricted by the media.
So why are ebooks so wedded to the 75,000 word or 256
page economic physical book model?
How we should respond to these arguments today and what will
we have to consider tomorrow?
We have been fixated on the end form, the finished book and
not the creative process itself which for many has changed very little. We have
remained locked to the physical book economics and presumed that the chicken
will always lay the ebook egg. We have continued to be obsessed with units sold
and largely ignored other models which may cause contract friction. We have
continued to pour the same content into a similar digital container without
thinking. We continue to view the book as the start and not the book as a
potential subsidiary. We have many very well subscribed short story
competitions which go nowhere. We have failed to grasp or translate the
Japanese Keitai opportunity.
There is no silver bullet. No one solution way forward.
Expecting that worked yesterday will continue to work tomorrow, is not good
enough.
1 comment:
Post a Comment