The New Sleekness

Remember when I went on my screed for production reform in publishing? Well, the heavyweights over in the web development community are starting to take notice of publishing’s little corner of the media space. Joe Clark has a fascinating article up titled Web Standards for E-books on A List Apart (which should totally be in your bookmarks or RSS feed anyway). It was a bit of an egoboo to read this bit:

What’s the solution? The canonical format of a book should be HTML. Authors should write in HTML, making a manuscript immediately transformable to an E-book. A manuscript could then be imported into that fossil the publishing industry refuses to leave behind, Microsoft Word. (MS Word’s Track Changes feature has become a kind of methadone for an addicted publishing industry.)

To typeset a print book from this source, translating twice (HTML → Word → InDesign) is a proven workflow with the added advantage of outputting tagged PDFs with good semantics.

Go read the entire article, it’s chunky and chock-full of compelling thoughts on ebook production from the point of view of people who have been working with HTML from the early days of the web, and, more importantly, are strident supporters of standards-based web development and the semantic web.

Post on:

Lately we’ve seen a lot of encouragement for publishing folks, like the editors and marketers, to come to communities and participate.  It’s a great sentiment, but I can see reluctance on the part of these people to fully engage in a reader community, or any community for that matter.  Perhaps in order for the people who make publishing hum to come and share their thoughts about books, there need to be some guidelines and tips and here are a few of mine (which are by no mean exhaustive or mandatory).

From the publishing side

First, I think that each publishing house should have a set of guidelines on how to interact with a community of readers.  The guidelines will help the editors and marketers have certainty regarding their behavior online so that these individuals can participate without fear of internal reprisals.

Second, the publishing house should have some kind of time set aside each day which would allow for the editor or marketer to participate in online communities whether it be message boards, blogs, twitter or facebook.

Third, the publishing house needs to allow the editors and marketers to have a personality.  Readers want to interact with people, not marketing machines.  People have personalities. It’s what makes them interesting.

In the community

Once the editor and marketer is allowed to be set free on the internet, I would offer these helpful tips in participating in online communities.

First, choose a community of which you actually want to be a part.  In other words, that community doesn’t need to be a specific reader community.  Perhaps you have great interest in knitting and would be more interested in interfacing with other knitters.  I get quite a few link backs and referrals from ravelry.com.  The point is to find a robust community around a topic or two that interests you the most.  This way, participating in a community won’t be a chore, but a pleasure.  Readers are everywhere, even at knitting sites.

Second, don’t push your books right away.  At Tools of Change, one presenter said that you have to talk up other products, goods, services, etc twelve times to build credibility before you can push your own products, goods, services, etc.

Third, go with the purpose of being part of the community.  If you go with the specific purpose of being part of the community instead of seeing it as a target for marketing books, then one and two fall into place.  Further, your interaction in that community will be far more natural.

Fourth, don’t be afraid to toot your horn.  In almost every community, there is a time to introduce yourself and make known your background.  You don’t have to hide the fact that you work for a publisher.  You should wear that badge proud.  This way, when someone has a question about publishing or books, you are the go to person for this knowledge.  (Just don’t preface every comment or post with “As an editor” or “As a marketer”.  That can get old fast).

I feel like readers are always looking for recommendations and if you are part of a community and have built credibility in that community, readers will trust you and your recommendations.

Post on:

I have to admit I’ve not really been paying too much attention to the two-year-old spat between Cablevision and Disney which has culminated in Disney pulling its ABC feed from Cablevision on the eve of  Oscar night. As someone who hasn’t bothered with a cable TV subscription since 1998, in favour of getting all my programming via the internet, it’s just not an issue for me: between iTunes, Hulu, Netflix and YouTube I’m pretty much covered (caveat: it helps that I couldn’t care less about sports or live broadcasts like the Oscars, although I hear that even the Oscars are being streamed online tonight).

As an outsider to that industry, I’m obviously not invested in the back-and-forth between Disney and Cablevision, and I have no informed opinions about who should or shouldn’t be paying money to whom—as someone who watched Macmillan/AmazonFail from a relative position of clarity recently, I’d wager to guess that the contractual issue is hardly black-and-white.

However.

As a consumer, I couldn’t care less about these two corporate behemoths hammering it out, and as a consumer, it’s my perception that the only people who are losing, really, are the poor chumps who signed up—and are paying good money for—a bill of goods that has suddenly been reduced.

It’s simple, really. Let’s break it down:

ABC makes content that I want to watch, and am willing to pay for.

Cablevision lays down a pipe to my house, and I am willing to pay for that pipe. With that pipe I can access and pay (or not, as the case may be) for ABC’s content via one of many content providers.

Cablevision would like to deliver that content to my house in one specific way—through their cable TV service and set-top box/DVR, which I would have to pay extra for. However, since I only subscribe to Cablevision’s internet service (despite their annoying and excessive dead-tree snail mail campaign trying to “upsell” me on their Internet/Cable/Landline package. I have absolutely no use for two out of those three, dudes. Get it through your heads and stop killin’ trees.), and ABC has made the content that they created available to me by other means (iTunes, Hulu, etc), I’m perfectly fine without Cablevision’s double mediation. As far as I’m concerned, Cablevision’s value to me is as a dumb pipeline, the faster and fatter the better. Any additional ’services’ are simply Cablevision trying to take a vig from my interaction with ABC.

Granted, Apple takes a vig from ABC’s fee for my purchase of an episode of Lost on iTunes, but it’s on a per-show, or per-episode basis, and there’s no commercials. I’m only paying ABC for what I consume, and that, to my mind, is perfectly fair. Moreover, I’m paying Apple for the convenience that iTunes brings to the table, and that, to me, is also perfectly fair. With a cable subscription, I’m paying for what I consume and for the Home Shopping Channel, the 700 Club, and who knows how much more inane crap that I have no intention of ever watching *ahem*Jersey Shore*ahem*. That’s simply money I’m not willing to throw away.

Now, if instead of trying to upsell me on crap I don’t need, or trying to squeeze a cut out of my interactions with content providers, Cablevision said to me “Hey, we wanna charge you this extra money on a monthly basis, but in return we’re gonna give you the same ultra high-bandwidth connectivity and uptime that they’ve got in Asia,” that would be money well-spent, in my opinion. That would be Cablevision adding real value to my service, and I’d be all over that in a heartbeat.

Let pipes stay dumb, I say. This Disney/Cablevision squabble is a perfect argument for support of Network Neutrality.

As for ABC, this would be a great time for them to let all the dejected Cablevision subscribers know that they have the option of watching ABC’s (and most other networks’) content online. There’s only one hitch: since most content providers are scared of cannibalizing their current model*, they’ve artificially constrained their content to small computer screens (unless you have a PC or an TV connected to your big screen, like I do). Here, they’ve shot themselves in the foot. By trying to impose barriers to consumer behaviour by limiting choice of delivery method to what has worked for them in the past, they’ve locked themselves into being beholden to the whims of Cablevision.

There’s a lesson here for publishers, of course, and it’s a simple one: your consumers (readers, not the book buyer for B&N, ‘natch) are for the most part interested in paying for your quality content, but you have to meet them halfway and make it available on their terms—in ways that are easy, accessible, in tune to how people are using technology, and in ways seen as fair to consumers. For that to happen, you need to recalibrate your institutional compass; you need to listen to the reader, they’re being damn vocal about what they want to see from you. Otherwise, publishers will join the ranks of the record industry, cable companies, and TV networks as some of the most reviled corporate entities on the planet.

Post on:

Publishers  are starting to dip their toes into the social media water and are trying to learn more about the end user of their products, the readers.  I have to tell you right away, publishers, that readers are fickle.

What readers want today will not be want they want even twelve months from now.  One speaker at Tools of Change said that readers are always complicating the situation by buying new devices and wanting new things.  This was said with affection, though, not disdain.

It’s important to remember that readers are fickle and that there is no one set of tools that will work for every reader, all the time.  When Sarah, Angie and I were preparing for our own talk at the Tools of Change, we engaged in a heated discussion over whether the cover blurb should be included at the front of an ebook or in the metadata to be pulled up at the reader’s convenience.  Angie and I are both avid book readers and in some ways we are a lot alike but our own preferences in how we consume the book can be quite different.

Take a look at the iPhone/iTouch as a reader.  Some people believe it is too small.  Others find the convenience of the size perfect for their reading needs.  Some readers like the flat readable aspect of the eink screen and others clamor for a backlight.  Everyone likes the convenience of the one click shopping.

What’s the answer to the reader fickleness? It’s not to denigrate the reader for being fickle. You just have to accept it.  This behavior will not change.  You have to embrace it. It’s reader fickleness that allows you to take advantage of our impulse buying purchases.  It’s reader fickleness that makes us take chances on new authors.  It’s reader fickleness that will open new markets and new opportunities.

Embrace us readers, warts and all, and we will buy your books and be your evangelists.  Denigrate or talk down to us and we will be fierce adversaries.

Post on:

So, as some of you may or may not know, Kate Rados and I participate on a weekly discussion webinar, the Digital Book World Roundtable, along with Laura Dawson and Bridget Warren, and moderated by Guy LeCharles González. The webcast happens every Thursday at 1PM EST. For this last one, both Laura and Bridget couldn’t make it, leaving the two more foul-mouthed, incendiary members (that would be Kate and yours effin’ truly, of course) of the round table without a tempering foil. Since Guy’s a smart dude, he quickly rounded up a cohort of special guest stars to temper Kate and me, including Heather McCormack of Library Journal, Brett Sandusky from Kaplan, and Jane Litte, of Dear Author and #romfail fame.

The show was, of course, a success—great discussion, high energy, and mad passion. During the back-and-forth emailing after the show, Jane mentioned the New Sleekness, and I casually mentioned that we’d love to have her as a guest blogger, if she ever wanted to. After consulting with Ami (“1000x yes!”), we extended the invite, and she said yes. So without further ado, we give you the formidable Jane Litte, a sleek, sleek publishing person if there ever was one.

Welcome to the Sleekness, Jane. Stick around for as long as you want.

Post on:

I was on Twitter (natch…) and saw that the 1980s Pop Culture feed/podcast Retroist was touting a memoir written around the time Star Wars had leapt onto the scene.

“Collect All 21! Memoirs of a Star Wars Geek – http://bit.ly/aEN3yu“

As a complete and unashamed geek, I immediately clicked on it and saw the author had created a landing page for the book, offered it as a $5 PDF download, as well as a paperback via Lulu, Amazon, and BN.

I immediately Re-Tweeted:

RT @retroist: Collect All 21! Memoirs of a Star Wars Geek – http://bit.ly/aEN3yu // $5 for the PDF – I may make that donation!

Within the next couple of hours, I found an email in my Inbox from the author:

Kate -

I just wanted to say thanks for the re-tweet of The Retroist’s note
about my Star Wars book. It’s always a pleasant surprise to see my work
get a boost from unexpected sources. If you decide to get the PDF,
please drop me a note and let me know what you think!

- John Booth

Strange thing is – I wasn’t creeped out by the unsolicited email.  In fact, I was feeling pretty special and pretty damn impressed that he took the time to look me up.  True, my email is on my site and I’m pretty transparent about how to reach me, but I thought it was cool all the same.  So cool, in fact, that I bought the paperback today.  I hate PayPal (a story for another time…), so the PDF option didn’t work for me personally.  After hearing from the author, I had no problem parting with an extra $10 to get the print edition…nor adding tags on Amazon…and ‘liking it’ on Glue.  He’s got me not only as a customer and reader, but an activist.  AND I haven’t even read the damn thing yet!

I’m not saying that every author should Tweet-Stalk their potential readers, but I think the takeaway here is for authors to make a complete investment in reaching out to their community, even through non-traditional methods.  Would I have advised John to follow Retroist, then check out @ replies, then look up email addresses and reach out?  Probably wouldn’t have asked him to go there, but I think this minimally invasive approach hit the right note with me and I applaud his effort.

Post on:

Wow, cool. Macmillan started a blog! (Incredibly well-designed, too. Wonder who did that…)

First of all, I think I speak for a lot of people by saying, good on you, John Sargent. This is absolutely a move in the right direction, and I can’t think of an executive better suited that Sargent for speaking plainly and honestly. It really suits him.

And now? Now is when the heavy lifting begins—making Macmillan Speaks a success.

The pitfalls of executives blogging are well known. It’s hard for anyone to blog regularly, let alone someone as busy as Sargent must be. I suspect crafting posts takes even longer once you add in the additional challenge of needing to make sure nothing you say inadvertently, you know, makes the lawyers angry.

There’s also what I’ll call the SXSWbp problem. Remember last year at SXSW, when the audience went a little berserker over a panel of the publishing executives who were “there to learn” what readers wanted? As Kassia from Booksquare smartly described it:

At the after-party, one panelist told me that “this is all new to us.” Give. Me. A. Break. It’s only new for those of you who’ve been pretending change is something you get from a dollar bill. Now you’re wondering how to interact with blogs? Now you’re learning that there’s an entire conference devoted to change in the industry?

Obviously there are differences between Macmillan’s blog and the panel. But I believe the underpinnings to be the same: the smart comments on Sargent’s post are questions and thoughts that have been kicking around in discussions on digital publishing for a while.

At this point, for the most part, discourse seems respectful, and even civil. Readers are willing to give him some breathing room because hey, he’s new at this! But how will they respond in two weeks? In a month? In half a year? The key to social media is right in the name: it’s social. As in, to be successful, you need to both speak…and listen.

Getting Sargent on the blog is a great first step. His responding directly to comments on his post is an incredible second step. We’re all excited to see what’s next.

Post on:

Dave Winer is, well, Dave Winer. And he gets it:

There are a bunch of smart, mostly young, people who work either in tech startups or inside big publishing companies who will, in a few years, form the companies that are hybrids of technology and publishing that will lead us into the future. They won’t be like Google, Facebook, Twitter or Apple. And they won’t be the NY Times, Time-Warner or even the Huffington Post or Gawker. But they will learn from all of them.

This is exactly why Ami and I started this blog. For all my railing and kettledrum-beating for legacy publishers to move, move, move and get with it, changing things from inside the big companies will only get us so far. And the fact that someone with Winer’s insight gets that feels very gratifying. There’s hope yet—we’re only getting started here.

Post on:

India Amos is tired of shitty-looking ebooks. The lack of attention to detail, or rather, the lack of any quality control at all lets errors like this make it onto readers’ ebook devices:

a McGraw-Hill Professional book in which the first letter of every paragraph appears on a line by itself. Thus:

T
he quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Hella annoying. And there was an egregious typo in the book, repeated three times in one paragraph.

So she’s set up a web form for people to log their ebook tales of woe: the E-book Abomination Index submission form.

Due to the mass-production, assembly line, and outsourced nature of ebook production at the big publishing houses, and due to the fact that, until the Kindle-fueled exponential growth in ebook sales last year, eBooks were seen as a very, very, very small source of revenue (practically negligible), there’s been little to no effort to internally police the quality of electronic books coming out of the big six publishers.

With the increasing popularity of the Kindle, and the imminent arrival of Apple’s iPad, ebooks are about to gain some serious k-points in readers’ mindshare—not to mention marketshare vis a vis their print coutnerparts. Not monitoring quality, and letting errors like these reach the end user gives validity to the accusations that some in the very zealous, very vocal, but very under-informed and up to now very small eBook enthusiast community have been making for years about the big publishers: that they don’t give two shits about readers in general and eBook readers in particular, and—in some extreme cases—that the big six are somehow out to actively sabotage the burgeoning ebook market, and that they should respond in kind.

Both charges are patently false, of course, and my serious issues with the zealots in the ebook enthusiast community could be the subject of not one, but many additional posts. However, that doesn’t mean that they’re entirely wrong—to the best of their ability they’re interpreting the message that publishers are inadvertently putting out there. Actions speak louder than words, and in this case, for every “we’re interested in eBooks” platitude that publishers put forth with their words, there’s twenty such cases where their actions (or lack thereof) communicate a different story.

Post on: