So we read this week of major shifts in the world of Newsprint and magazines which by themselves may not mean much but collectively show a potential big problem for those reliant on advertising spend. Today all sectors that are reliant on a shrinking and fickle spend which is being spread across an increasing number of media. Television is already reeling from decreasing spend which effects production and investment, which in turn impacts viewing figures, which results in reduced advertising revenues. A cruel and clear circle.
The big news was obviously the filing of bankruptcy of the Tribune Group which includes those iconic brands Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Tribune. US advertising revenues are expected to fall by some 5.7% and the tribune group are not the only newsprint group feeling the pinch. The New York Times is considering potential asset sales and is in discussions with lenders. Its New England newspapers – including the Boston Globe and its 17 per cent stake in the Boston Red Sox baseball team are potential sales.
Newsquest, the UK regional news group and UK arm of US publisher Gannett plans to close 11 newspapers in the north-west of England in the face of declining revenues.
The magazine market is also in deep trouble as they not only depend on advertising but its recent growth has been fueled by a greater percentage of ‘non-renewable circulation’ than previous and this now combined with reduced reader demand has impacted circulation profitability. The advertising decline and increase in paper and postal costs exposes the whole magazine model.
Reed Elsevier can’t sell its business magazines division which includes Publishers Weekly and Variety. Such is the scale of the issue Newsweek is considering cutting 1.6 million copies from it’s current 2.6 million rate base. The newsstand sales of Newsweek and Time have fallen some 40% in the last four years.
American Media, the publisher of Star magazine and the National Enquirer moved a step closer to filing for bankruptcy when it failed to meet it deadline on interest payments. Cutbacks at Condé Nast Publications have been announced.
But against all this doom and gloom comes the New York Times ‘ TimesWidgets’ , a new service that lets you make embeddable widgets for your iGoogle homepage, blog, etc., of New York Times homepage headlines, blog posts, movie reviews, and more than 10,000 topics. We doubt it will stave off the debt knocking on their door but it keeps the technicians busy and doesn’t even carry advertising today!
Just when you thought that should cover it we read that Google Book Search now archives millions of pages of magazines from the likes of New York Magazine and Ebony to Popular Mechanics.
You can browse different covers of a magazine, select a specific issue search it or turn the pages complete with the original adverts, zooming in and out and even subscribing to the magazine. Google Map has been integrated to show all the places mentioned in various issues, with links to the pages where those places are mentioned.
So we are seeing the demise of newsprint and magazines as we knew them and the changing spend in advertising. We are also seeing the rise of the omnivore across all media sucking in content in its attempt to dominate all. The big question all the archival quest leaves us to raise is one of who will create the future articles, features, pictures, books when they have the destroyed the ecosystem that creates them today, or do they want that as well?
Showing posts with label publishers weekly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label publishers weekly. Show all posts
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
15% of What?
One of the thorny issues that continues to hold up the full adoption of ebooks by publishers is the question of rights. Should that be a question or many questions on rights? The problem is that for an industry based on content and rights we have failed to get a grip on the core information and focused instead on the easier logistics and supply chain standards , which are still important but pale into insignificance to those of rights in the digital world.
We read Jim Millit’s piece in Publishers Weekly on the Authors Guild and Simon and Schuster and wondered who is kidding who in the protracted tale of hardship, trust, contracts and abuse. On one side we have the authors who should be paid a fair price for the extension of the work into the new digital formats and on the other the continued tales of high investment and costs of digitisation and the cost of establishing the market.
Where do we sit?
First, the author right to revert is a given and must never be surrendered by the author under the false statement of ‘always in print’. As we see more and more publishers trawling of the backlist, delving into past sellers and creating general quick cheap wins we recognise that the author can do that himself today and servicing the long tail is relatively cheap and easy. As they demonstrate the publisher’s commitment to a work, the physical reversion rules often make good sense. Merely listing it on print on demand services is a one off and cheap exercise. Making the work into an ebook can be equally cheap and offer POD as well. Term time licence to digital copy is probably the second best solution. However does the digital copy remain with the publisher and have to be recreated or is it surrendered at rights reversion?
Reward is a lot harder as publishers have been slow to invest in content technology so face large initial investments. However, once digital workflow is achieved the incremental cost of creating an ebook is cheap, especially if the previous physically orientated processes are fully replaced. So in some respect we are talking of a set up investment and one off back list conversion. What an author should earn should be based on what revenues they can generate, the time and effort involved and obviously the cost. However, publishing is publishing and predicting winners is not easy. Making the author, in effect cross subsides the digital investment, also doesn’t make sense unless the terms also recognise that when the revenues rise they should also share the rewards.
The issues that we all tend to skirt around is to do with pricing and geography. Once produced digital files are cheap to maintain, distribute and repackage. What could happen is that we see a price reduction as the market establishes itself. Will the price of the digital be set against the current in print physical format or be separate? Digital incurs tax, which tends to be absorbed in the RRP and so creates an automatic dilution of potential revenues and a new price mark. Then we have the different territorial and format prices and before we know where we are, we are all confused as to what any percentage is a percentage of.
Trying to create a standard rule for society or guild of authors, may make sense to some, but it makes little sense to those, who are by their sheer creativity, are all individuals.
We read Jim Millit’s piece in Publishers Weekly on the Authors Guild and Simon and Schuster and wondered who is kidding who in the protracted tale of hardship, trust, contracts and abuse. On one side we have the authors who should be paid a fair price for the extension of the work into the new digital formats and on the other the continued tales of high investment and costs of digitisation and the cost of establishing the market.
Where do we sit?
First, the author right to revert is a given and must never be surrendered by the author under the false statement of ‘always in print’. As we see more and more publishers trawling of the backlist, delving into past sellers and creating general quick cheap wins we recognise that the author can do that himself today and servicing the long tail is relatively cheap and easy. As they demonstrate the publisher’s commitment to a work, the physical reversion rules often make good sense. Merely listing it on print on demand services is a one off and cheap exercise. Making the work into an ebook can be equally cheap and offer POD as well. Term time licence to digital copy is probably the second best solution. However does the digital copy remain with the publisher and have to be recreated or is it surrendered at rights reversion?
Reward is a lot harder as publishers have been slow to invest in content technology so face large initial investments. However, once digital workflow is achieved the incremental cost of creating an ebook is cheap, especially if the previous physically orientated processes are fully replaced. So in some respect we are talking of a set up investment and one off back list conversion. What an author should earn should be based on what revenues they can generate, the time and effort involved and obviously the cost. However, publishing is publishing and predicting winners is not easy. Making the author, in effect cross subsides the digital investment, also doesn’t make sense unless the terms also recognise that when the revenues rise they should also share the rewards.
The issues that we all tend to skirt around is to do with pricing and geography. Once produced digital files are cheap to maintain, distribute and repackage. What could happen is that we see a price reduction as the market establishes itself. Will the price of the digital be set against the current in print physical format or be separate? Digital incurs tax, which tends to be absorbed in the RRP and so creates an automatic dilution of potential revenues and a new price mark. Then we have the different territorial and format prices and before we know where we are, we are all confused as to what any percentage is a percentage of.
Trying to create a standard rule for society or guild of authors, may make sense to some, but it makes little sense to those, who are by their sheer creativity, are all individuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)