Lost in Transition

The ISBN, ISSN, BIC and BISC codes and jacket images have all helped the trade, but do they still matter as much in the digital and direct marketing era?

It’s as if we have all been on a constant never ending journey to improve the contextual information and identification of works. Everyone in publishing today understands the relevance and power of good structured bibliographic information. This helps us search, find, validate and select the right work, but is this still enough in today’s consumer driven market?

Today we use the likes of Google to search, Wikipedia to search deeper, Amazon and ABE to search for books and the likes of email, Facebook and Twitter to communicate. The reality is that they are what many of us use and so are pivotal to any marketing strategy. Does the consumer know or even care about the ISBN and would they know the BIC and BISC category codes?

Today we have to start to think about the user, how they want to find things, how they socialise and how they can validate the relevance of what they find.

The emergence of the jacket image, which really started with the likes of Amazon in the 90s, has now become a de facto standard. Whether we like it or not, users can and will often immediately, ‘judge a book by its cover’. It’s hard to imagine selling physical let alone digital trade books over the internet today without the jacket, but is that enough?

We all dabbled with ‘search inside’, but even Amazon often got this wrong and their ‘surprise me’ page could often turn out to be a ‘reject me’ one. First chapters were not fully exploited as a free teaser and the page selection experience was and remains somewhat inconsistent and haphazard across the market. It is interesting that academic publishers often understood the key pages to sell their books, but others left it to the arbitrary, ‘pick 10% from anywhere’, which could include front matter and even blank pages!

A product description, (blurb) and readers comments and their ratings often now accompany an individual title, but again more as filler than a driver and are often restricted to one site. Some would also suggest that some consumer comments, read like they had been written by a marketing person, an author and not a consumer.

We have seen the author video which often was too long and also tended to play to the converted. We have seen the emergence of other video reviews from retailers and fans but these often languish on YouTube looking for a home. Youtube is as valid a promotion platform as any, but how many use it and what information is tagged?

Google gave us the ultimate search across the content itself but this often was only as good as the term used and the pages rendered. How many jacket images and illustrations are correctly tagged, promoted and linked through the likes of Google images?

So as we move into the ‘enhanced ebook’ world and the content itself can explode into different media, how do we package that contextual wrap such that it is contestant across the market, engages consumers and sells books, be they physical or digital? Esther Dyson once said that the key to the Internet was being able to find that digital needle in the digital haystack. We would suggest that we haven’t found it yet. We may also have to rethink what we do and consider a revolution not a gentle evolution.

Some would suggest we adopt the DOI identifier but they would be as foolish as when it was first muted in the late 90s. Some would suggest that every form of a rendition is given a unique ISBN and that would appear to miss the mark. Some would suggest it more important that we are able to group renditions and present choice than divide them and offer a disjointed picture.

Finally, we are moving from a front list bestseller mass market to one that sells all books, in all forms and has a distinctively long tail. How do we revisit those long forgotten titles and ensure that they too have visibility?

It is important that we recognise that context needs to be uniform and available to all across the market. So what would you see as the contextual information of tomorrow?

How Do We Identify Digital Content?

We now have ebook identifiers in the for of ISBNs which works fine for the work itself and we can have a separate ISBN for each rendition. We have a ISTC identifier which may help to group renditions to a work but has still bee adopted and or fully embraced within the trade. We don’t have an identifier for chapters or part works and although the ISBN may work it would appear to some to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, especially if these were not effectively linked to the work. There are other issues or opportunities to link ISBNs to licencing, permission or access rights and ownership. After all we know that there is no Rights registry and the speed that the Google Book Settlement is going this review we be probably done and dusted before any decision is made.

Some ten years ago a group tried to force the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) onto the trade as a means of identifying ebooks. This somewhat naïve approach was thankfully shot down and effectively buried but is a reminder to all that the practical approach needs to be sought and it has to benefit all not just the few.

Finally we must remember that there is now a wealth of books coming into the digital arena that never had an ISBN are public domain or orphans. Some orphans may have an ISBN today which has long reverted in the physical world. Any solution should cover not just today’s books but also yesterdays.

Earlier this year BISG's Identification Committee began a review of the International ISBN Agency recommendations for the identification of e-books and digital content. They have now announced that they have contracted with Michael Cairns to ‘conduct an objective, research-based study that describes, defines and makes recommendations for the identification of e-books in the U.S. supply chain’.

We feel that their choice of Michael, who steeped in the trade and also ex head of Bowker, is a wise choice. The challenge now is to get the common understanding of the issues, an open debate of the options and a cross industry buy in to practical solutions that can be applied not just in the US but globally within the trade.

So how do you identify a digital fragment?

Nielson informs us that the number of titles published in 2006 in the UK has grown from 110,925 to 115,000 and globally in the English language from 256,500 to 258,350. In addition the number of publishers has risen to 2801 from 2739.

In years past we would all raise our hands, scream and say ‘can the market ever consume that many books?’ However, today the world is changing and we should welcome the news. The questions now are what is a title and how are ISBNs being used within the digital world? To-date, the allocation of ISBNs has been the barometer commonly used to measure the volume of published works but it becomes increasingly murky in the digital world.

As every individual rendition of a title requires its own ISBN the digital world potentially doubles the potential number of ISBNs. There will be separate ones for MS Reader, Adobe, OeB, Mobibook, Sony etc. They will be many different ISBNs against the same title (hardback, paperback, audio CD, large print, ebooks etc).

We welcome the long overdue introduction of the ITSC (International Standard Text Code) which will be the system for the identification of textual groups of works. The ISTC will be a unique, internationally recognized and permanent identifier for each textual work to which it is assigned. It will uniquely distinguish one textual work from another across national boundaries and language barriers, regardless of the various editions and/or formats in which a textual work is published. The ISTC starts to address the aggregation of works and is long overdue but still poorly communicated to the industry.

At the other end of the spectrum, the digital world introduces fragmentation, be it chapters, pages, or paragraphs. These can now be sold individually, or combined with others to form a new work. Today many have started to issue ISBNs against these fragments and although this is not desirable, fragments need to be identifiable and track able in the digital world. Permission rights may be assigned to fragments and importantly transactions need to be aligned to them.

So we have a potential explosion of ISBNs which all will require their own metadata, rights, commercials and a need to be resolved. We also have an explosion of contextual information in an increasing number of media formats and constructs. Some may immediately point to the DOI as the solution but others that its open ended construct and resolution would not be conducive to the wider commercial sectors.

What is clear is that we may find standards coming not from within, but out with, the industry to fill the gap. That is unless the standards bodies can act swiftly, agree, communicate a solution and move the agenda forward.