Showing posts with label america. Show all posts
Showing posts with label america. Show all posts
Friday, August 26, 2011
Stormageddon
No round-up today, mes auteurs—we New Yorkers are all preparing for Hurricane Irene. We'll (hopefully) be back on Monday, and for those of you in Irene's path, stay safe and stay dry!
Friday, July 1, 2011
Happy Fourth of July!
Due to the Fourth of July weekend, mes auteurs, there'll be no round-up from Laura today and no new post on Monday, July 4th. Check back on Wednesday, and have fun blowing things up in the meantime!
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Market Update
It's been awhile since I've talked about what seems to be selling, mes auteurs, so below are the five categories I've noticed particular growth in over the past few months.
Keep in mind that (1) these are based on a healthy mix of data and anecdotal evidence, and (2) these are my thoughts on what seems to be selling now, not what will necessarily be popular in a year (the earliest your book would come out, assuming it's acquired in short order).
Graphic novels. It's likely these are seeing a bump because summer is superhero movie season, but it's pretty clear that this category is up from earlier this year. And (according to BookScan) it's not just properties with movies out/forthcoming, such as Thor or Green Lantern, so if you happen to be a graphic novel type of guy or gal, this is good news for you.
YA apocalyptic fiction. This (to my mind, anyway) was probably touched off by Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games in the same way vampire mania was touched off by Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series, but I feel like I'm seeing an awful lot of end-of-the-world scenarios (Harold Camping's failed Rapture prediction and the New Age folks' Mayan 2012 nonsense notwithstanding).
Weird diet books. I've seen everything from "only eat raw foods and if you eat a cooked vegetable you will die" to "feel free to eat your weight in bacon." Some of this is probably seasonal—while a ton of diet books come out in January, I figure there's always a beach season bump—but I feel like I've been getting an earful about Paleolithic diets, raw food diets, Mediterranean diets, and no- or low-carb diets for months.
Thrillers/horror novels. While I still firmly believe the mass market paperback is on its way out, sales appear to be holding steady in this format for thrillers and horror novels (not so much straight mysteries, for some reason). Again, it's beach season, and I imagine anyone without a Kindle is buying a stack of inexpensive paperbacks for the beach or pool.
Romance. A perennial favorite, romance is probably doing well for the same reasons as the aforementioned thrillers—it's generally inexpensive and great for beach or poolside reading. Romance readers also tend to buy repeatedly and generally buy more books per purchase than other readers, so the effect may be amplified by those kinds of consumer habits.
That's all I've got for today, cats & kittens. What books have you been hearing about/reading about/seeing everywhere lately?
Keep in mind that (1) these are based on a healthy mix of data and anecdotal evidence, and (2) these are my thoughts on what seems to be selling now, not what will necessarily be popular in a year (the earliest your book would come out, assuming it's acquired in short order).
Graphic novels. It's likely these are seeing a bump because summer is superhero movie season, but it's pretty clear that this category is up from earlier this year. And (according to BookScan) it's not just properties with movies out/forthcoming, such as Thor or Green Lantern, so if you happen to be a graphic novel type of guy or gal, this is good news for you.
YA apocalyptic fiction. This (to my mind, anyway) was probably touched off by Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games in the same way vampire mania was touched off by Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series, but I feel like I'm seeing an awful lot of end-of-the-world scenarios (Harold Camping's failed Rapture prediction and the New Age folks' Mayan 2012 nonsense notwithstanding).
Weird diet books. I've seen everything from "only eat raw foods and if you eat a cooked vegetable you will die" to "feel free to eat your weight in bacon." Some of this is probably seasonal—while a ton of diet books come out in January, I figure there's always a beach season bump—but I feel like I've been getting an earful about Paleolithic diets, raw food diets, Mediterranean diets, and no- or low-carb diets for months.
Thrillers/horror novels. While I still firmly believe the mass market paperback is on its way out, sales appear to be holding steady in this format for thrillers and horror novels (not so much straight mysteries, for some reason). Again, it's beach season, and I imagine anyone without a Kindle is buying a stack of inexpensive paperbacks for the beach or pool.
Romance. A perennial favorite, romance is probably doing well for the same reasons as the aforementioned thrillers—it's generally inexpensive and great for beach or poolside reading. Romance readers also tend to buy repeatedly and generally buy more books per purchase than other readers, so the effect may be amplified by those kinds of consumer habits.
That's all I've got for today, cats & kittens. What books have you been hearing about/reading about/seeing everywhere lately?
Monday, April 18, 2011
Three Cups of Baloney
That title actually grossed me out a little more than I expected. My apologies.
In case you haven't heard, mes auteurs, it's looking like Greg Mortenson may have made up a lot of stuff in his books, Three Cups of Tea and Stones Into Schools, and now Jon Krakauer is calling him out on it. (You can download Krakauer's .pdf book, Three Cups of Deceit, for free for a limited time.)
The problem of partially fabricated memoirs isn't new to the industry; you probably remember Margaret B. Jones' Love and Consequences, which was found to be totally fraudulent not long after it was published, as well as the much more infamous "memoir" by James Frey, A Million Little Pieces, which was also (much) less than honest (the Daily Beast mentions both here).
Now, the allegations of fiscal misappropriation against Mortenson aside—as I think that's a very different, and far more serious, question—do you think it matters if the/a story is true or not? Does "memoir" mean "fact," or does it mean "how I remember it, which may or may not be super true"?
If this seriously offends/bothers you (it seriously offends/bothers me), what do you think publishers can do to remedy the situation (besides the easy and vague answer of "do a better job of fact-checking")? What actions should be taken against house and author, and should/how can we differentiate between memoirs that are "mostly true," "somewhat true," "fraudulent," &c &c?
Theories, questions, and diatribes in the comments!
In case you haven't heard, mes auteurs, it's looking like Greg Mortenson may have made up a lot of stuff in his books, Three Cups of Tea and Stones Into Schools, and now Jon Krakauer is calling him out on it. (You can download Krakauer's .pdf book, Three Cups of Deceit, for free for a limited time.)
The problem of partially fabricated memoirs isn't new to the industry; you probably remember Margaret B. Jones' Love and Consequences, which was found to be totally fraudulent not long after it was published, as well as the much more infamous "memoir" by James Frey, A Million Little Pieces, which was also (much) less than honest (the Daily Beast mentions both here).
Now, the allegations of fiscal misappropriation against Mortenson aside—as I think that's a very different, and far more serious, question—do you think it matters if the/a story is true or not? Does "memoir" mean "fact," or does it mean "how I remember it, which may or may not be super true"?
If this seriously offends/bothers you (it seriously offends/bothers me), what do you think publishers can do to remedy the situation (besides the easy and vague answer of "do a better job of fact-checking")? What actions should be taken against house and author, and should/how can we differentiate between memoirs that are "mostly true," "somewhat true," "fraudulent," &c &c?
Theories, questions, and diatribes in the comments!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The New Bibliophiles
Many people describe themselves as bibliophiles—book lovers—and I think many of you would count yourselves among them. Why would you be here if you didn't love books? Books: the bomb diggity. I think we all agree.
However! I ask myself (and, by extension, you): will the meaning of the word change over the next couple of years? That is, I wonder whether bibliophiles will become analogous to and as niche as, say, audiophiles.
Everyone listens to music; not everyone is an audiophile. And not everyone who loves music is an audiophile! These are the people who invest a lot in speaker equipment, often prefer analog to digital music, and spend time in small communities of like-minded individuals. They own a lot of stuff on vinyl. They know a lot of jargon that no one outside their subculture understands.
Just as audiophiles comprise their own niche community/market, I wonder whether tomorrow's bibliophiles will read and buy books similarly, what with their "eccentric" attachment to print and the experience of reading a physical book, their willingness to spend a lot of disposable income on rare books, and their predisposition toward (irony of ironies!) spending time on-line talking to people who also prefer to read physical books rather than electronic ones.
Record companies recognize the existence of the audiophile/enthusiast market and continue to release a small number of vinyl albums, regardless of the fact that most people listen to music electronically. Which is exactly the point! Vinyl is not aimed at most people, while electronic music is. I think that over the next couple of years, we'll see the same change in the book market. Most people will read electronically, and bibliophiles will read and supply the niche market for paper books.
This isn't to say that bibliophiles won't read electronically—I expect many will. The distinction I'm trying to get at is that consumers will do what they do best—consume—in the least expensive and least inconvenient way possible, which is to say, electronically. Enthusiasts, aficionados, collectors, connoisseurs—bibliophiles—will buy and read physical books and will maintain physical libraries.
For this reason, mes auteurs, I think there will always be a market for physical books—particularly coffee table books or collector's editions, which don't translate as well to the electronic medium—but that market will surely become much smaller, while the overall market for books will increase. The e-book is the future of publishing; the book buff is the future of the physical book.
What do you think?
However! I ask myself (and, by extension, you): will the meaning of the word change over the next couple of years? That is, I wonder whether bibliophiles will become analogous to and as niche as, say, audiophiles.
Everyone listens to music; not everyone is an audiophile. And not everyone who loves music is an audiophile! These are the people who invest a lot in speaker equipment, often prefer analog to digital music, and spend time in small communities of like-minded individuals. They own a lot of stuff on vinyl. They know a lot of jargon that no one outside their subculture understands.
Just as audiophiles comprise their own niche community/market, I wonder whether tomorrow's bibliophiles will read and buy books similarly, what with their "eccentric" attachment to print and the experience of reading a physical book, their willingness to spend a lot of disposable income on rare books, and their predisposition toward (irony of ironies!) spending time on-line talking to people who also prefer to read physical books rather than electronic ones.
Record companies recognize the existence of the audiophile/enthusiast market and continue to release a small number of vinyl albums, regardless of the fact that most people listen to music electronically. Which is exactly the point! Vinyl is not aimed at most people, while electronic music is. I think that over the next couple of years, we'll see the same change in the book market. Most people will read electronically, and bibliophiles will read and supply the niche market for paper books.
This isn't to say that bibliophiles won't read electronically—I expect many will. The distinction I'm trying to get at is that consumers will do what they do best—consume—in the least expensive and least inconvenient way possible, which is to say, electronically. Enthusiasts, aficionados, collectors, connoisseurs—bibliophiles—will buy and read physical books and will maintain physical libraries.
For this reason, mes auteurs, I think there will always be a market for physical books—particularly coffee table books or collector's editions, which don't translate as well to the electronic medium—but that market will surely become much smaller, while the overall market for books will increase. The e-book is the future of publishing; the book buff is the future of the physical book.
What do you think?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Tip o' the Week
I've been re-reading Emerson, cats & kittens, and this quote of his caught my attention over the weekend: "The way to write is to throw your body at the mark when your arrows are spent."
Writing is work, folks. More than that, writing is hard work, it's getting up early and staying up late, it's sacrificing doing other fun things to put another few hundred or thousand words to paper, it's spending money on printer ink and postage and conference fees when you'd rather spend it on mega sweet vacations, it's applying for fellowships and retreats when you'd rather be watching reality TV, it's spending time on your on-line platform or reviewing proofs or perfecting your backlist of e-titles on Amazon instead of hanging out with friends.
Writing requires commitment and discipline even more than it requires talent. The hungrier writer will outperform the more talented writer nine times out of ten. If you don't want to be a writer more than you want any other professional goal, odds are you aren't going to make it very far.
This isn't to say that writers don't have families or personal lives or other hobbies and interests; they have all these things. They simply want to be professional writers badly enough to put in the requisite time and effort to improve their craft and make the necessary connections. If you want to be a writer, you'd better be willing to put in all the work and jump through all the crazy hoops. If you want to be a writer, you have to be good enough and smart enough and dedicated enough. And you've got to be lucky as hell.
Nothing worth doing or learning comes easily, dear readers, but if that were the case, you wouldn't get any satisfaction from doing or learning those things. Keep working, keep reading, and keep writing, and your efforts are bound to pay off in some respect sooner or later.
Tomorrow: a lesson on special markets!
Writing is work, folks. More than that, writing is hard work, it's getting up early and staying up late, it's sacrificing doing other fun things to put another few hundred or thousand words to paper, it's spending money on printer ink and postage and conference fees when you'd rather spend it on mega sweet vacations, it's applying for fellowships and retreats when you'd rather be watching reality TV, it's spending time on your on-line platform or reviewing proofs or perfecting your backlist of e-titles on Amazon instead of hanging out with friends.
Writing requires commitment and discipline even more than it requires talent. The hungrier writer will outperform the more talented writer nine times out of ten. If you don't want to be a writer more than you want any other professional goal, odds are you aren't going to make it very far.
This isn't to say that writers don't have families or personal lives or other hobbies and interests; they have all these things. They simply want to be professional writers badly enough to put in the requisite time and effort to improve their craft and make the necessary connections. If you want to be a writer, you'd better be willing to put in all the work and jump through all the crazy hoops. If you want to be a writer, you have to be good enough and smart enough and dedicated enough. And you've got to be lucky as hell.
Nothing worth doing or learning comes easily, dear readers, but if that were the case, you wouldn't get any satisfaction from doing or learning those things. Keep working, keep reading, and keep writing, and your efforts are bound to pay off in some respect sooner or later.
Tomorrow: a lesson on special markets!
Thursday, January 13, 2011
A Lesson on Brand Management
As I've mentioned a few times before, mes auteurs, publishing is a strange industry in many ways. One of the ways in which it differs from other enterprises is that the author of the work, not its physical manufacturer, is the brand name. For the most part, no one cares who publishes a given book; they only care about who wrote it and what it's about.
Part of this is intrinsic to the industry: just like with movies and music, the writer(s)/actor(s)/artist(s) is/are the source of the desired material, so regardless of whose label is affixed to those names, consumers will make their purchases based principally on the artists involved. As a culture, we care about Johnny Depp more than Lionsgate, Jay-Z more than Def Jam Recordings, and Suzanne Collins more than Scholastic.
Another part of it, however, is due to publishers' treatment of their own brands. Many include their logos on the spines and back covers of their books, but never the front (Penguin Classics is a notable exception), and publishers with myriad subdivisions and imprints further confuse consumers by including those logos but not the logo of the parent company.
How many of you knew that Dutton, Gotham, Prentice Hall, Riverhead, and Viking were all part of Penguin? That Knopf, Crown, and Ballantine are all Random House (and that those groups contain their own smaller imprints)? That Grand Central (with its imprint, Twelve) is Hachette's, as is Little, Brown & Co.? I could go on, but you get the point.
I think a significant problem for publishers in the industry today is a lack of brand consolidation. A lot of it is because individual imprints have their own specialties and want to maintain their identities apart from their parent publisher: Threshold (Simon & Schuster) specializes in conservative politics and nonfiction, Tor (Macmillan) in science fiction and fantasy, &c. This is all fine and good—or at least, it has been—but with companies like Amazon and Barnes & Noble beginning to dominate the market, publishers will have to change the way they play the game.
As Sarah Lacy at TechCrunch notes, Amazon is preparing to take over the role of publisher in the world of tomorrow. And in that hypothetical world, I think Amazon's name would be just as important as most of its authors'.
Unless traditional publishers can reinforce their names and reaffirm their relevance over the next five years, I don't see why anyone will prefer a Random House book or a Penguin book over an Amazon/Kindle book. Authors will always be major brands in publishing, but I think publishers will need to increase their visibility as well. If they continue to bank on running the show from behind the scenes, it's my opinion that it will be to their long-term detriment.
Part of this is intrinsic to the industry: just like with movies and music, the writer(s)/actor(s)/artist(s) is/are the source of the desired material, so regardless of whose label is affixed to those names, consumers will make their purchases based principally on the artists involved. As a culture, we care about Johnny Depp more than Lionsgate, Jay-Z more than Def Jam Recordings, and Suzanne Collins more than Scholastic.
Another part of it, however, is due to publishers' treatment of their own brands. Many include their logos on the spines and back covers of their books, but never the front (Penguin Classics is a notable exception), and publishers with myriad subdivisions and imprints further confuse consumers by including those logos but not the logo of the parent company.
How many of you knew that Dutton, Gotham, Prentice Hall, Riverhead, and Viking were all part of Penguin? That Knopf, Crown, and Ballantine are all Random House (and that those groups contain their own smaller imprints)? That Grand Central (with its imprint, Twelve) is Hachette's, as is Little, Brown & Co.? I could go on, but you get the point.
I think a significant problem for publishers in the industry today is a lack of brand consolidation. A lot of it is because individual imprints have their own specialties and want to maintain their identities apart from their parent publisher: Threshold (Simon & Schuster) specializes in conservative politics and nonfiction, Tor (Macmillan) in science fiction and fantasy, &c. This is all fine and good—or at least, it has been—but with companies like Amazon and Barnes & Noble beginning to dominate the market, publishers will have to change the way they play the game.
As Sarah Lacy at TechCrunch notes, Amazon is preparing to take over the role of publisher in the world of tomorrow. And in that hypothetical world, I think Amazon's name would be just as important as most of its authors'.
Unless traditional publishers can reinforce their names and reaffirm their relevance over the next five years, I don't see why anyone will prefer a Random House book or a Penguin book over an Amazon/Kindle book. Authors will always be major brands in publishing, but I think publishers will need to increase their visibility as well. If they continue to bank on running the show from behind the scenes, it's my opinion that it will be to their long-term detriment.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Happy Thanksgiving!
We'll return to our regularly scheduled programming on Monday, November 29th. Until then, have a happy and safe holiday!
Monday, November 22, 2010
Unfair Use
In case you haven't been on the Interwebz in a few days, mes auteurs, here's the scoop: Gawker published an excerpt of Sarah Palin's forthcoming book, America By Heart, and Mama Grizzly got super mad. She had a judge issue an order for Gawker to take down the leaked pages, and now Palin and Gawker, llc will face off in court on November 30th.
Now, according to Ben Smith of Politico, it does look like Gawker may have been in the wrong: apparently Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) establishes a precedent for this sort of thing (dealing with the then-unpublished memoir by Gerald Ford, A Time to Heal). It even seems that Palin could use the avenue of discovery to retaliate against the "lamestream media" that has been "criticizing her" for so long.
The thing is, meine Autoren, after having read the four-balance test of fair use under Title 17 of the United States Code, I really don't see why Gawker's use of Palin's words doesn't fall under the protection of fair use. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.) The four-balance test for fair use basically asks these questions:
1. What's the purpose of the use? This seems, to me, to fall under news reporting/criticism, which is protected.
2. What's the nature of the copyrighted work? This is where (I think) you could make the argument that fair use doesn't apply because the work is unpublished—except that 17 U.S.C. § 107 actually says, "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
3. How much of the work was reproduced? In this case, a few pages out of a 304-page book. No biggie.
4. Will reproducing this work hurt the market for the book? I can't see how it would; if anything, it will add to Palin's exposure and increase her sales, potentially with an audience who generally finds her insufferable (i.e. most people who read Gawker).
It seems to me that Gawker should be able to print those excerpted pages with or without Palin's permission, and I don't really see why they should lose their case next month. Then again, the precedent of Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 does sort of complicate things, so I may not have all the facts here.
What do you think, mes amis? (Particularly you lawyers in the audience.)
Now, according to Ben Smith of Politico, it does look like Gawker may have been in the wrong: apparently Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) establishes a precedent for this sort of thing (dealing with the then-unpublished memoir by Gerald Ford, A Time to Heal). It even seems that Palin could use the avenue of discovery to retaliate against the "lamestream media" that has been "criticizing her" for so long.
The thing is, meine Autoren, after having read the four-balance test of fair use under Title 17 of the United States Code, I really don't see why Gawker's use of Palin's words doesn't fall under the protection of fair use. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.) The four-balance test for fair use basically asks these questions:
1. What's the purpose of the use? This seems, to me, to fall under news reporting/criticism, which is protected.
2. What's the nature of the copyrighted work? This is where (I think) you could make the argument that fair use doesn't apply because the work is unpublished—except that 17 U.S.C. § 107 actually says, "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
3. How much of the work was reproduced? In this case, a few pages out of a 304-page book. No biggie.
4. Will reproducing this work hurt the market for the book? I can't see how it would; if anything, it will add to Palin's exposure and increase her sales, potentially with an audience who generally finds her insufferable (i.e. most people who read Gawker).
It seems to me that Gawker should be able to print those excerpted pages with or without Palin's permission, and I don't really see why they should lose their case next month. Then again, the precedent of Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 does sort of complicate things, so I may not have all the facts here.
What do you think, mes amis? (Particularly you lawyers in the audience.)
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Other NBA
For those of you that missed it (either in person or via the #nba10 Twitter hashtag), the 61st annual National Book Awards were presented last night in New York City. While yours truly was neither a winner (they have yet to institute a blogging category) nor an in-person attendee, I had fun following via the Interwebz and am pleased to announce this year's winners:
Lifetime achievement award: Tom Wolfe (whose speech apparently went on forever).
Young people's literature: Mockingbird by Kathryn Erskine (NOTE: while her writing may be superb, her website is an example of what yours should not look like). (Other finalists: Paolo Bacigalupi, Ship Breaker; Laura McNeal, Dark Water; Walter Dean Myers, Lockdown; Rita Williams-Garcia, One Crazy Summer.)
Poetry: Lighthead by Terrance Hayes. (Other finalists: Kathleen Graber, The Eternal City; James Richardson, By the Numbers; C.D. Wright, One with Others; Monica Youn, Ignatz.)
Nonfiction: Just Kids, Patti Smith. (Other finalists: Barbara Demick, Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea; John W. Dower, Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, 9-11, Iraq; Justin Spring, Secret Historian: The Life and Times of Samuel Steward; Megan K. Stack, Every Man in This Village Is a Liar: An Education in War.)
Fiction: Lord of Misrule, Jaimy Gordon. (Other finalists: Peter Carey, Parrot and Olivier in America; Nicole Krauss, Great House; Lionel Shriver, So Much for That; Karen Tei Yamashita, I Hotel.)
Suffice it to say, I have four more books to add to the "to-read" pile, including the new Hayes (of whom I'm a big fan, & was rooting for to win—not that I didn't/don't love the other finalists). If anyone's interested, my picks were: Terrance Hayes (poetry), Barbara Demick (nonfiction), and Nicole Krauss (fiction). (I don't read enough children's literature/YA to have an informed opinion.) Congrats to all, however, winners and finalists alike!
What about you, meine Autoren? What do you think of the finalists/winners and their books?
Lifetime achievement award: Tom Wolfe (whose speech apparently went on forever).
Young people's literature: Mockingbird by Kathryn Erskine (NOTE: while her writing may be superb, her website is an example of what yours should not look like). (Other finalists: Paolo Bacigalupi, Ship Breaker; Laura McNeal, Dark Water; Walter Dean Myers, Lockdown; Rita Williams-Garcia, One Crazy Summer.)
Poetry: Lighthead by Terrance Hayes. (Other finalists: Kathleen Graber, The Eternal City; James Richardson, By the Numbers; C.D. Wright, One with Others; Monica Youn, Ignatz.)
Nonfiction: Just Kids, Patti Smith. (Other finalists: Barbara Demick, Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea; John W. Dower, Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, 9-11, Iraq; Justin Spring, Secret Historian: The Life and Times of Samuel Steward; Megan K. Stack, Every Man in This Village Is a Liar: An Education in War.)
Fiction: Lord of Misrule, Jaimy Gordon. (Other finalists: Peter Carey, Parrot and Olivier in America; Nicole Krauss, Great House; Lionel Shriver, So Much for That; Karen Tei Yamashita, I Hotel.)
Suffice it to say, I have four more books to add to the "to-read" pile, including the new Hayes (of whom I'm a big fan, & was rooting for to win—not that I didn't/don't love the other finalists). If anyone's interested, my picks were: Terrance Hayes (poetry), Barbara Demick (nonfiction), and Nicole Krauss (fiction). (I don't read enough children's literature/YA to have an informed opinion.) Congrats to all, however, winners and finalists alike!
What about you, meine Autoren? What do you think of the finalists/winners and their books?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The First Billion Is The Hardest
(With thanks to T. Boone Pickens, who is also on my List of Billionaires with the Coolest Names Ever.)
We've all known that e-books are kind of a big deal, meine Autoren, but the requisite benchmark facts & figures haven't been consistently available. Well, good news, everyone!
Forrester Research has found that e-book sales are closing in on one. Billion. Dollars. (For 2010.) And with sales up 176% year-on-year, they project that that billion-dollar figure will triple by 2015. Some of you might be thinking: "that is totally bananas." I'm thinking: "it's probably going to be even more than that."
As I've recently mentioned, I believe that parity between physical book sales and e-book sales (that is, the point at which electronic sales will comprise 50% of the market) will be in 2013 or 2014. Keep in mind that currently, only 7% of on-line adults who read books read e-books; as the price of devices comes down (I think the magic number is under $99) and the industry further adapts to the electronic format, I expect that number to spike. My guess (and this is just a guess!)? At least 30% over the next three years. If 7% of on-line reading adults are generating a billion dollars in e-sales this year, how much money will 30% of on-line reading adults generate three years from now?
It's hard to say. The industry made $35 billion in 2009, but that was almost exclusively physical media (e-books accounted for only $169.5 million, or 0.48%, dollar-wise). If the industry were to make another $35 billion in 2010 with $1 billion representing e-book sales, that percentage would jump to 2.9%. My guess is that the industry will make a little more money next year, but over $1 billion will be in electronic media sales. At that rate, it's not difficult to imagine double digits next year and parity two or three years after that.
It's true that e-book pricing will become an even bigger problem over the next few years, and I expect that, on average, e-books will become cheaper as more competitors enter the market and attempt to undercut each other. There's already some downward pressure on pricing from retailers like Amazon, so unless publishers withdraw from third-party retailers altogether and begin selling directly to consumers, there's no reason to assume e-books will stay at $14.99 (or $12.99, or even $9.99). But! Another topic for another day, mes auteurs.
We've all known that e-books are kind of a big deal, meine Autoren, but the requisite benchmark facts & figures haven't been consistently available. Well, good news, everyone!
Forrester Research has found that e-book sales are closing in on one. Billion. Dollars. (For 2010.) And with sales up 176% year-on-year, they project that that billion-dollar figure will triple by 2015. Some of you might be thinking: "that is totally bananas." I'm thinking: "it's probably going to be even more than that."
As I've recently mentioned, I believe that parity between physical book sales and e-book sales (that is, the point at which electronic sales will comprise 50% of the market) will be in 2013 or 2014. Keep in mind that currently, only 7% of on-line adults who read books read e-books; as the price of devices comes down (I think the magic number is under $99) and the industry further adapts to the electronic format, I expect that number to spike. My guess (and this is just a guess!)? At least 30% over the next three years. If 7% of on-line reading adults are generating a billion dollars in e-sales this year, how much money will 30% of on-line reading adults generate three years from now?
It's hard to say. The industry made $35 billion in 2009, but that was almost exclusively physical media (e-books accounted for only $169.5 million, or 0.48%, dollar-wise). If the industry were to make another $35 billion in 2010 with $1 billion representing e-book sales, that percentage would jump to 2.9%. My guess is that the industry will make a little more money next year, but over $1 billion will be in electronic media sales. At that rate, it's not difficult to imagine double digits next year and parity two or three years after that.
It's true that e-book pricing will become an even bigger problem over the next few years, and I expect that, on average, e-books will become cheaper as more competitors enter the market and attempt to undercut each other. There's already some downward pressure on pricing from retailers like Amazon, so unless publishers withdraw from third-party retailers altogether and begin selling directly to consumers, there's no reason to assume e-books will stay at $14.99 (or $12.99, or even $9.99). But! Another topic for another day, mes auteurs.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
World of Tomorrow Week, Part 4 of 4: The Independent Renaissance
Part four of four, meine Autoren! Without further ado—
A Little History
For those who don't remember (though I suspect many of you do), before the late 1970s, independent stores were the primary retailers of books. Where chains (such as Walden Books or B. Dalton) existed, they were mall operations that generally didn't stock a large number of titles; for used, rare, or non-commercial books, independent stores were the way to go.
The '70s saw the purchase of Barnes & Noble by Len Riggio, however, and within a decade he had converted the company into a retail chain. Barnes & Noble bought B. Dalton in 1987, and by the 1990s, Barnes & Noble was the largest book retailer in the United States. Borders Books (which now, more often than not, is accompanied in print mentions by the adjective "beleaguered") evolved more or less contemporaneously, acquiring Walden after itself being acquired by K-Mart.
All this to say: by the 1990s, independent stores had lost their dominance in the market and were being replaced left and right by outlets of the rapidly expanding book store chains. The chains could offer title selections and deep discounts that the indies couldn't, and as a result, the number of independent booksellers has decreased by over 60% over the past twenty years.
On average, that's an independent book store closing every two days.
The Rise of On-Line Retailing
Granted, on-line retailers like Amazon didn't exactly help the situation. Although Amazon didn't become the monolithic book retailer it is today until the early 2000s, the convenience of on-line shopping and deep discounts similar to those offered by the brick-and-mortar chains (not to mention great deals on shipping and, later, aggressive bestseller and e-book pricing) set the stage for phenomenal growth. They are now the largest book retailer in the world and the largest on-line retailer in the United States.
Needless to say, the combination of lower prices, greater selection, and increased convenience offered by chain book stores and on-line retailers took a significant bite out of independent booksellers' bottom lines. Many closed; others contracted. Several that had planned to invest in their businesses by opening additional locations were unable to do so.
The Fall of the Chains
As I mentioned yesterday, right now I'm predicting that the major brick-and-mortar chains will, without significant reallocation of their business to the Internet, be all but gone within a decade. The decrease in physical print runs coupled with the increasing cost of warehousing, shipping, and rent for physical storefronts has already caused store closures for both Borders and Barnes & Noble. As e-books replace physical copies as the go-to format for mass production and consumption, the sprawling physical presence of brick-and-mortar chain retailers will become unnecessary and unsustainable. That is to say: easy come, easy go.
While some think that this will lead to the complete domination of the market by electronic retailers like Amazon or Barnes & Noble's .com operation, I think that consumer demand for physical books (albeit reduced) will remain strong, and physical store locations offering in-person browsing, readings, community events, book signings, and immediate access to used/rare books will ensure the survival of independent book stores. Moreover—if they play their cards right and participate as much as possible in the new media and formats—they could see something of a renaissance.
The Independent Renaissance
Again, as mentioned yesterday (and above), I think independent book stores offer experiences and benefits that are simply unavailable from e-retailers like Amazon. Amazon cannot host authors for readings or signings; it cannot function as a community center; it cannot grant you a quiet space to read or meet friends for coffee.
As the economy begins to recover and the e-revolution continues, I think it's pretty unavoidable that 1.) the chains will continue to close underperforming stores, 2.) existing indepedent book stores will begin to see their sales recover, and 3.) more money will be available for the creation of new small businesses (indie booksellers included).
Beyond this, however, independent stores can take advantage of social networking sites (like Twitter), electronic ordering systems for quick acquisition of new titles from publishers (instead of relying on paper catalogs), and potentially even in-house distribution of POD titles and e-books. This goes back to my theory that, over the next ten years, the industry will see a lot of consolidation; I see no reason why indies can't offer e-books as well as the age-old experience of browsing physical shelves.
The independent book store of tomorrow will be able to cheaply print copies of books that it doesn't have in stock, will be able to offer access to e-books, will promote local authors and host events, and will actively participate in on-line discussions about literature via social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. They will adapt to changes in culture and technology, and they will continue to be relevant so long as reading remains relevant.
And despite all the doom and gloom surrounding this industry, remember: reading has been relevant for thousands of years, mes auteurs. That's not about to change anytime soon.
A Little History
For those who don't remember (though I suspect many of you do), before the late 1970s, independent stores were the primary retailers of books. Where chains (such as Walden Books or B. Dalton) existed, they were mall operations that generally didn't stock a large number of titles; for used, rare, or non-commercial books, independent stores were the way to go.
The '70s saw the purchase of Barnes & Noble by Len Riggio, however, and within a decade he had converted the company into a retail chain. Barnes & Noble bought B. Dalton in 1987, and by the 1990s, Barnes & Noble was the largest book retailer in the United States. Borders Books (which now, more often than not, is accompanied in print mentions by the adjective "beleaguered") evolved more or less contemporaneously, acquiring Walden after itself being acquired by K-Mart.
All this to say: by the 1990s, independent stores had lost their dominance in the market and were being replaced left and right by outlets of the rapidly expanding book store chains. The chains could offer title selections and deep discounts that the indies couldn't, and as a result, the number of independent booksellers has decreased by over 60% over the past twenty years.
On average, that's an independent book store closing every two days.
The Rise of On-Line Retailing
Granted, on-line retailers like Amazon didn't exactly help the situation. Although Amazon didn't become the monolithic book retailer it is today until the early 2000s, the convenience of on-line shopping and deep discounts similar to those offered by the brick-and-mortar chains (not to mention great deals on shipping and, later, aggressive bestseller and e-book pricing) set the stage for phenomenal growth. They are now the largest book retailer in the world and the largest on-line retailer in the United States.
Needless to say, the combination of lower prices, greater selection, and increased convenience offered by chain book stores and on-line retailers took a significant bite out of independent booksellers' bottom lines. Many closed; others contracted. Several that had planned to invest in their businesses by opening additional locations were unable to do so.
The Fall of the Chains
As I mentioned yesterday, right now I'm predicting that the major brick-and-mortar chains will, without significant reallocation of their business to the Internet, be all but gone within a decade. The decrease in physical print runs coupled with the increasing cost of warehousing, shipping, and rent for physical storefronts has already caused store closures for both Borders and Barnes & Noble. As e-books replace physical copies as the go-to format for mass production and consumption, the sprawling physical presence of brick-and-mortar chain retailers will become unnecessary and unsustainable. That is to say: easy come, easy go.
While some think that this will lead to the complete domination of the market by electronic retailers like Amazon or Barnes & Noble's .com operation, I think that consumer demand for physical books (albeit reduced) will remain strong, and physical store locations offering in-person browsing, readings, community events, book signings, and immediate access to used/rare books will ensure the survival of independent book stores. Moreover—if they play their cards right and participate as much as possible in the new media and formats—they could see something of a renaissance.
The Independent Renaissance
Again, as mentioned yesterday (and above), I think independent book stores offer experiences and benefits that are simply unavailable from e-retailers like Amazon. Amazon cannot host authors for readings or signings; it cannot function as a community center; it cannot grant you a quiet space to read or meet friends for coffee.
As the economy begins to recover and the e-revolution continues, I think it's pretty unavoidable that 1.) the chains will continue to close underperforming stores, 2.) existing indepedent book stores will begin to see their sales recover, and 3.) more money will be available for the creation of new small businesses (indie booksellers included).
Beyond this, however, independent stores can take advantage of social networking sites (like Twitter), electronic ordering systems for quick acquisition of new titles from publishers (instead of relying on paper catalogs), and potentially even in-house distribution of POD titles and e-books. This goes back to my theory that, over the next ten years, the industry will see a lot of consolidation; I see no reason why indies can't offer e-books as well as the age-old experience of browsing physical shelves.
The independent book store of tomorrow will be able to cheaply print copies of books that it doesn't have in stock, will be able to offer access to e-books, will promote local authors and host events, and will actively participate in on-line discussions about literature via social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. They will adapt to changes in culture and technology, and they will continue to be relevant so long as reading remains relevant.
And despite all the doom and gloom surrounding this industry, remember: reading has been relevant for thousands of years, mes auteurs. That's not about to change anytime soon.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
World of Tomorrow Week, Part 3 of 4: The Future
And now, mes auteurs, you're about to embark on a journey through another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Next stop: The Twiligh— I mean, publishing world of tomorrow!
(Also, dear readers, please don't think I'm ignoring you by not responding to recent comments on this series. First, it's conference season in the Land of Publishing, so I'm short on time; second, I want to foster as much of a debate between you folks as possible, and it gets complicated if I keep gallivanting into the comment arena to clarify or expound.)
That said—on to the exciting and terrifying future!
The Big Shrink (Publishers)
Over the next decade, I expect publishing to become smaller. Not in the sense that there will be fewer retailers and publishers; on the contrary, I think there will be more (see Consolidation and The Independent Renaissance, below). What I mean to say is: the giants (that is, the Big Six) will need to scale back their operations in order to remain profitable, and this will probably result in a net loss of jobs in the industry.
As the shift to e-books continues, there is/will be a temporary need for more employees at large publishing houses (chiefly for e-book conversion and on-line marketing). As publishers streamline their process, however, not only will they no longer need additional staff for the sale of electronic media, they'll actually need fewer personnel as the print runs and sales of physical books decline. Increases in overall title count may counteract this to some extent, but as everything from production to warehousing scales back, fewer people will be necessary overall.
Additionally, I'm predicting that the industry will consolidate somewhat (see below), meaning that jobs previously offered by publishers may increasingly be available with agencies and retailers.
Consolidation
As print runs decrease and e-books become the norm, it will 1.) be increasingly fiscally feasible for smaller operations to turn out a greater number of books, and 2.) no longer require that there be so much specialization and segmentation within the industry. A new, "boutique" literary enterprise employing a few literary agents, editors, tech gurus, and a small staff of on-line marketing and sales folks will be able to do the e-work currently undertaken by individual agencies, publishers, and retailers. Why sign with an agent, have him/her pitch to a house, and have that house deal with the logistics of selling it through myriad channels (often requiring greatly varied and/or incompatible information and file types) when you can get it all in one place?
Amazon already maintains in-house editors, and the Wylie Agency's Odyssey Editions fiasco telegraphed the intention of (at least some) literary agencies to take on roles that were previously the province of publishers and/or retailers. I think this signals a shift toward greater consolidation in the industry over the next ten years. Whether this means Amazon will be taking unsolicited mss or Simon & Schuster will open their own e-book store remains to be seen, but I think this niche will be filled by companies that already have a strong toehold in the digital market.
The Big Shrink (Retailers)
With the rise of electronic media and on-line retailers like Amazon, brick-and-mortar chains are under enormous pressure to adapt. I've previously likened the current environment to the Cretaceous era immediately preceding the mass extinction event: smaller/independent retailers are the scrappy mammals, brick-and-mortar chains are the dinosaurs, and Amazon (or Internet book retailing in general) is the comet. I don't think this is too hyperbolic.
Unless big chains like Borders—which, according to Publishers Lunch, will be seeing another round of layoffs and store closures—and Barnes & Noble can move a sufficiently large percentage of their business to the Internet, they won't (Ã mon avis) be around ten years from now. Eventually their operations will shrink to the point where their offering of a physical storefront is outmatched by independent stores' ambience, personality, and community involvement (see below), and they'll likely transform into an all e-operation, selling physical books via the Internet. Since Amazon already does this better than they do, I imagine they'll simply go out of business.
The Independent Renaissance
Finally, meine Autoren, I believe that the combined effects of e-book popularity and brick-and-mortar chain downsizing will lead to a resurgence of the independent book store. Offering everything you can't get from Amazon (locality, community involvement/events, readings, rare or limited edition physical books, &c), they'll expand to fill the roles they lost with the rise of the major chains in the early 1990s. But! More on this tomorrow.
Questions, (dis)agreement, conspiracy theories? To the comments!
(Also, dear readers, please don't think I'm ignoring you by not responding to recent comments on this series. First, it's conference season in the Land of Publishing, so I'm short on time; second, I want to foster as much of a debate between you folks as possible, and it gets complicated if I keep gallivanting into the comment arena to clarify or expound.)
That said—on to the exciting and terrifying future!
The Big Shrink (Publishers)
Over the next decade, I expect publishing to become smaller. Not in the sense that there will be fewer retailers and publishers; on the contrary, I think there will be more (see Consolidation and The Independent Renaissance, below). What I mean to say is: the giants (that is, the Big Six) will need to scale back their operations in order to remain profitable, and this will probably result in a net loss of jobs in the industry.
As the shift to e-books continues, there is/will be a temporary need for more employees at large publishing houses (chiefly for e-book conversion and on-line marketing). As publishers streamline their process, however, not only will they no longer need additional staff for the sale of electronic media, they'll actually need fewer personnel as the print runs and sales of physical books decline. Increases in overall title count may counteract this to some extent, but as everything from production to warehousing scales back, fewer people will be necessary overall.
Additionally, I'm predicting that the industry will consolidate somewhat (see below), meaning that jobs previously offered by publishers may increasingly be available with agencies and retailers.
Consolidation
As print runs decrease and e-books become the norm, it will 1.) be increasingly fiscally feasible for smaller operations to turn out a greater number of books, and 2.) no longer require that there be so much specialization and segmentation within the industry. A new, "boutique" literary enterprise employing a few literary agents, editors, tech gurus, and a small staff of on-line marketing and sales folks will be able to do the e-work currently undertaken by individual agencies, publishers, and retailers. Why sign with an agent, have him/her pitch to a house, and have that house deal with the logistics of selling it through myriad channels (often requiring greatly varied and/or incompatible information and file types) when you can get it all in one place?
Amazon already maintains in-house editors, and the Wylie Agency's Odyssey Editions fiasco telegraphed the intention of (at least some) literary agencies to take on roles that were previously the province of publishers and/or retailers. I think this signals a shift toward greater consolidation in the industry over the next ten years. Whether this means Amazon will be taking unsolicited mss or Simon & Schuster will open their own e-book store remains to be seen, but I think this niche will be filled by companies that already have a strong toehold in the digital market.
The Big Shrink (Retailers)
With the rise of electronic media and on-line retailers like Amazon, brick-and-mortar chains are under enormous pressure to adapt. I've previously likened the current environment to the Cretaceous era immediately preceding the mass extinction event: smaller/independent retailers are the scrappy mammals, brick-and-mortar chains are the dinosaurs, and Amazon (or Internet book retailing in general) is the comet. I don't think this is too hyperbolic.
Unless big chains like Borders—which, according to Publishers Lunch, will be seeing another round of layoffs and store closures—and Barnes & Noble can move a sufficiently large percentage of their business to the Internet, they won't (Ã mon avis) be around ten years from now. Eventually their operations will shrink to the point where their offering of a physical storefront is outmatched by independent stores' ambience, personality, and community involvement (see below), and they'll likely transform into an all e-operation, selling physical books via the Internet. Since Amazon already does this better than they do, I imagine they'll simply go out of business.
The Independent Renaissance
Finally, meine Autoren, I believe that the combined effects of e-book popularity and brick-and-mortar chain downsizing will lead to a resurgence of the independent book store. Offering everything you can't get from Amazon (locality, community involvement/events, readings, rare or limited edition physical books, &c), they'll expand to fill the roles they lost with the rise of the major chains in the early 1990s. But! More on this tomorrow.
Questions, (dis)agreement, conspiracy theories? To the comments!
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
World of Tomorrow Week, Part 2 of 4: Self-Publishing
It's no secret how I feel about self-publishing, mes auteurs. Granted, the publishing world of tomorrow is fast approaching, and with the rapid and pervasive transformations currently occurring in the industry, it's not surprising that the arena of self-publishing is also undergoing some changes. Ultimately, however, I still don't think it's a good idea to self-publish your work in an attempt to make money or establish yourself as a legitimate author. Here's why—
Faster ≠ Better
These days, nothing stops you from converting your beloved ms to a .pdf and posting it on your blog for the world to see. Not that many people do this; I'm just saying that if you're looking for quick and dirty, you can self-publish your work in a matter of minutes.
If you want your book to look a little more slick and reach a wider audience, there's a panoply of options open to you, including—but not limited to—Lulu, iUniverse, Xlibris, Trafford, and (increasingly) Amazon (via CreateSpace). Be forewarned, however, that the vast majority of titles produced via these self-publishers do not compare to their traditionally pusblished counterparts: they are not as well-written, they contain significantly more grammatical errors, and their overall design (typesetting, cover image, &c) are not as good. They also don't sell very well at all (almost all sell fewer than 100 copies).
I'm not blaming the printing technology for the general inferiority of self-published books; devices like the Espresso Book Machine can produce copies virtually identical in quality to mass-produced, traditionally published books in a matter of minutes. Frankly, I'm blaming the self-publishing authors.
You're authors, folks. You're not graphic artists, you're not marketing gurus, you're not salespeople, you're not copywriters. (At least, most of you aren't.) If you're all these things and you've written a very niche book that publishers won't touch, go ahead and self-publish. As usual, I'm not aiming this advice at the outliers: I'm aiming it at the vast majority.
So, by all means, eschew the traditional method of publication and save 18 months (minimum) if you'd rather produce a sub-standard text that no one except your friends and family will read.
This Goes for E-books, Too
More on this below the next header, but just because you're not creating a physical book doesn't mean you should skip traditional publishing altogether (so long as you're writing something you believe will appeal to a wide audience; your family's genealogy or a book that will only appeal to Kazakh agronomists living in Indonesia are good candidates for self-publishing).
As e-books become a larger and larger component of the market, more and more people will flock to e-self-publication as a means of getting their words out there. The more voices there are competing for attention, the more difficult it becomes for any one voice to succeed on its own merits. Not only does your e-book have to be phenomenal, it has to command attention in some way; in other words, someone has to vet it. (More on this under Brand Management and The Democratization of Publishing is a Myth.)
Every Author Needs an Editor
When you write a book for publication, you're creating a text for someone (generally many someones) besides yourself. This means, mes auteurs, that the presentation of your story that seems optimal to you may not be optimal for the greatest number of readers; there are probably a myriad grammatical, typographical, and stylistic errors/problems to which you are blind; and the aspects of your work that you find most clever/entertaining/engaging might distract or turn off a large number of potential fans.
That is to say: you need someone else to read your work before it goes to press.
Not only that, you need (Ã mon avis) someone who is familiar with the current market, someone who knows the ins and outs of your genre and can speak to what is effective and what isn't, someone with whom to collaborate to produce the best piece of art of which you're capable.
Brand Management
In the world of publishing, meine Autoren, you are the brands. As a début author, your goal is to establish yourself as a brand in your chosen field or genre; you want people to say, "Guys! The next Francisco Battlebro thriller is out!" Or, "Oh man, I just got the new Sylvia P. Conundra mystery from Amazon!" Your reputation as a writer, your name or pseudonym, are social currency in the Land of Books; you need to establish yourself if you want to succeed as a working writer.
Here's where publishing houses come in. When your book comes out from a publisher (big or small, venerable or brand-spanking-new), it says that someone besides you has read your work and loves it. (Or, at the very least, can sell it.) Further, that house is investing in your talent (they paid you instead of the other way 'round, remember?) and wants you to succeed! They want the world to know your name and buy your books and make them (and you) money. That house uses their team of professionals to design, market, and sell your book, and it's their job to help brand you and make you a household name.
When you're flying solo, that's all up to you. And the vast, vast, vast majority of the time, the author who attempts to do this on his or her own does not succeed.
Past Sales Affect Future Sales
Remember BookScan? Well, if you decide to self-publish in any meaningful way and receive an ISBN, BookScan will be able to track your sales. And, as I've mentioned before, a poor sales history can scare off an otherwise interested agent or editor.
If your poor sales are the result of publication through a previous (legitimate) house, you can at least explain to your new agent or editor that those sales were, at least in part, the fault of said publisher (poor positioning, little or no marketing money or co-op, mishandling of stock, &c). If those poor sales are the result of your efforts at self-publication, you've got no one to blame but yourself. Yourself, and the reading masses who you tried to reach directly because agents and editors were keeping you from your adoring public.
The Democratization of Publishing is a Myth
Finally, there seems to be this rumor floating around that the rise of the e-book and the sophistication of current POD systems (where physical books are concerned) will not only make editors, literary agents, and publishing houses obsolete, but will usher in a Golden Age of Publishing where a true merit-based democracy will rule, and the reading public will determine, by show of electronic hands clutching electronic dollars, who will succeed and who won't. No more gatekeepers; no more insiders and outsiders.
Alas, mes auteurs, this myth has existed since the time of Gutenberg (and probably before) and is no closer to reality than it was six hundred years ago.
As I said earlier, the sheer volume of voices competing for attention guarantees that a system of separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff will be necessary. Consumer recommendation systems (like those employed by Amazon) are helpful, but insufficient; people often give five-star and one-star ratings to books for nepotistic, spiteful, or downright bizarre reasons, and while this might not affect titles with large followings (read: established brands), it can wreak havoc on lesser-reviewed titles. Which, if branding is determined by consumer review, will be all of them.
All this to say: there has to be a way of identifying, cultivating, and branding talent such that the fresh, engaging, and important voices are heard, and the rest are left to their own devices. While word of mouth is a necessary condition for this to occur in a free market, I don't think it's sufficient. Another filter is necessary, and that filter is the publisher.
That's all for today, bros and she-bros. Tomorrow: what I think the publishing landscape will look like by the year 2020!
Faster ≠ Better
These days, nothing stops you from converting your beloved ms to a .pdf and posting it on your blog for the world to see. Not that many people do this; I'm just saying that if you're looking for quick and dirty, you can self-publish your work in a matter of minutes.
If you want your book to look a little more slick and reach a wider audience, there's a panoply of options open to you, including—but not limited to—Lulu, iUniverse, Xlibris, Trafford, and (increasingly) Amazon (via CreateSpace). Be forewarned, however, that the vast majority of titles produced via these self-publishers do not compare to their traditionally pusblished counterparts: they are not as well-written, they contain significantly more grammatical errors, and their overall design (typesetting, cover image, &c) are not as good. They also don't sell very well at all (almost all sell fewer than 100 copies).
I'm not blaming the printing technology for the general inferiority of self-published books; devices like the Espresso Book Machine can produce copies virtually identical in quality to mass-produced, traditionally published books in a matter of minutes. Frankly, I'm blaming the self-publishing authors.
You're authors, folks. You're not graphic artists, you're not marketing gurus, you're not salespeople, you're not copywriters. (At least, most of you aren't.) If you're all these things and you've written a very niche book that publishers won't touch, go ahead and self-publish. As usual, I'm not aiming this advice at the outliers: I'm aiming it at the vast majority.
So, by all means, eschew the traditional method of publication and save 18 months (minimum) if you'd rather produce a sub-standard text that no one except your friends and family will read.
This Goes for E-books, Too
More on this below the next header, but just because you're not creating a physical book doesn't mean you should skip traditional publishing altogether (so long as you're writing something you believe will appeal to a wide audience; your family's genealogy or a book that will only appeal to Kazakh agronomists living in Indonesia are good candidates for self-publishing).
As e-books become a larger and larger component of the market, more and more people will flock to e-self-publication as a means of getting their words out there. The more voices there are competing for attention, the more difficult it becomes for any one voice to succeed on its own merits. Not only does your e-book have to be phenomenal, it has to command attention in some way; in other words, someone has to vet it. (More on this under Brand Management and The Democratization of Publishing is a Myth.)
Every Author Needs an Editor
When you write a book for publication, you're creating a text for someone (generally many someones) besides yourself. This means, mes auteurs, that the presentation of your story that seems optimal to you may not be optimal for the greatest number of readers; there are probably a myriad grammatical, typographical, and stylistic errors/problems to which you are blind; and the aspects of your work that you find most clever/entertaining/engaging might distract or turn off a large number of potential fans.
That is to say: you need someone else to read your work before it goes to press.
Not only that, you need (Ã mon avis) someone who is familiar with the current market, someone who knows the ins and outs of your genre and can speak to what is effective and what isn't, someone with whom to collaborate to produce the best piece of art of which you're capable.
Brand Management
In the world of publishing, meine Autoren, you are the brands. As a début author, your goal is to establish yourself as a brand in your chosen field or genre; you want people to say, "Guys! The next Francisco Battlebro thriller is out!" Or, "Oh man, I just got the new Sylvia P. Conundra mystery from Amazon!" Your reputation as a writer, your name or pseudonym, are social currency in the Land of Books; you need to establish yourself if you want to succeed as a working writer.
Here's where publishing houses come in. When your book comes out from a publisher (big or small, venerable or brand-spanking-new), it says that someone besides you has read your work and loves it. (Or, at the very least, can sell it.) Further, that house is investing in your talent (they paid you instead of the other way 'round, remember?) and wants you to succeed! They want the world to know your name and buy your books and make them (and you) money. That house uses their team of professionals to design, market, and sell your book, and it's their job to help brand you and make you a household name.
When you're flying solo, that's all up to you. And the vast, vast, vast majority of the time, the author who attempts to do this on his or her own does not succeed.
Past Sales Affect Future Sales
Remember BookScan? Well, if you decide to self-publish in any meaningful way and receive an ISBN, BookScan will be able to track your sales. And, as I've mentioned before, a poor sales history can scare off an otherwise interested agent or editor.
If your poor sales are the result of publication through a previous (legitimate) house, you can at least explain to your new agent or editor that those sales were, at least in part, the fault of said publisher (poor positioning, little or no marketing money or co-op, mishandling of stock, &c). If those poor sales are the result of your efforts at self-publication, you've got no one to blame but yourself. Yourself, and the reading masses who you tried to reach directly because agents and editors were keeping you from your adoring public.
The Democratization of Publishing is a Myth
Finally, there seems to be this rumor floating around that the rise of the e-book and the sophistication of current POD systems (where physical books are concerned) will not only make editors, literary agents, and publishing houses obsolete, but will usher in a Golden Age of Publishing where a true merit-based democracy will rule, and the reading public will determine, by show of electronic hands clutching electronic dollars, who will succeed and who won't. No more gatekeepers; no more insiders and outsiders.
Alas, mes auteurs, this myth has existed since the time of Gutenberg (and probably before) and is no closer to reality than it was six hundred years ago.
As I said earlier, the sheer volume of voices competing for attention guarantees that a system of separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff will be necessary. Consumer recommendation systems (like those employed by Amazon) are helpful, but insufficient; people often give five-star and one-star ratings to books for nepotistic, spiteful, or downright bizarre reasons, and while this might not affect titles with large followings (read: established brands), it can wreak havoc on lesser-reviewed titles. Which, if branding is determined by consumer review, will be all of them.
All this to say: there has to be a way of identifying, cultivating, and branding talent such that the fresh, engaging, and important voices are heard, and the rest are left to their own devices. While word of mouth is a necessary condition for this to occur in a free market, I don't think it's sufficient. Another filter is necessary, and that filter is the publisher.
That's all for today, bros and she-bros. Tomorrow: what I think the publishing landscape will look like by the year 2020!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
NaNoWriMOhNotAgain
It's that time of year, mes auteurs! Small flaming gourds, people extorting you for food on your very doorstep, and ghoulish apparitions in the night can only mean one thing: NaNoWriMo is (almost) here.
In case you're not familiar, NaNoWriMo (or "National Novel Writing Month") is a project created by Chris Baty just over ten years ago that dedicates the month of November to writing novels: simply, if you compose 50,000 words between 12:00 am on November 1st and 11:59 pm on November 30th, you "win." And who doesn't love winning?
I wrote about NaNoWriMo last year and got an interesting array of comments and responses. Many were to disabuse me of the notion that a large number of NaNoWriMoErs send queries regarding their 50,000-word mss (hint: 50,000 words does not an adult novel make) to agents, thereby contributing to the global surplus of form rejections. And perhaps they were right; if you, dear readeurs, are any indication, virtually nobody does this.
And yet people do do this. For every few people NaNo-ing just to have fun, or to get a start on that novel they've been putting off, or just to see if they can do it, there's probably someone (based on the anecdotal evidence in which I've been awash for the past few years) who just queries with what they've got. Or, I imagine, sometimes just sends the whole ms along, since if their mentality predisposes them toward sending unfinished/inadequate work to industry professionals, they're probably not super good at following directions (i.e. query before sending a partial or full).
This is a bit of a muddled post, meine Autoren, so in kid-tested, mother-approved Bullet-O-Vision™—
What I am saying:
· NaNoWriMo is fun, entertaining, and a good way to get yourself writing on a regular schedule.
· While this is neither Chris Baty's nor NaNoWriMo's fault, the project encourages a lot of terrible writers with too much time on their hands to churn out dreadful Frankensteinian monsters with which they proceed to pester literary agents, editors, friends, and family. Being literate does not make one a good writer. Not everyone is or can be a good writer. Sad, but (Ã mon avis) true.
· Granted, a lot of these people are probably writing terrible novels anyway, but anything that encourages them further gives me heartburn.
· Just because you can write 50,000 words that more or less make sense in a month does not mean you're cut out to be a writer.
I realize I'm very much preaching to the choir here.
What I am not saying:
· That NaNoWriMo is terrible. (Because it's not!)
· That you shouldn't participate in NaNoWriMo. (Because, if you've got the time, why not?)
· That you shouldn't use ideas/passages/chapters written via NaNoWriMo in future works. (Good ideas are good ideas!)
· That you should submit the entirety of your NaNoWriMo work to agents. (See above!)
· That no one has ever sold a novel they wrote during NaNoWriMo (but the numbers are small indeed).
What think ye, gentle readers/writers/viewers/collaborators?
In case you're not familiar, NaNoWriMo (or "National Novel Writing Month") is a project created by Chris Baty just over ten years ago that dedicates the month of November to writing novels: simply, if you compose 50,000 words between 12:00 am on November 1st and 11:59 pm on November 30th, you "win." And who doesn't love winning?
I wrote about NaNoWriMo last year and got an interesting array of comments and responses. Many were to disabuse me of the notion that a large number of NaNoWriMoErs send queries regarding their 50,000-word mss (hint: 50,000 words does not an adult novel make) to agents, thereby contributing to the global surplus of form rejections. And perhaps they were right; if you, dear readeurs, are any indication, virtually nobody does this.
And yet people do do this. For every few people NaNo-ing just to have fun, or to get a start on that novel they've been putting off, or just to see if they can do it, there's probably someone (based on the anecdotal evidence in which I've been awash for the past few years) who just queries with what they've got. Or, I imagine, sometimes just sends the whole ms along, since if their mentality predisposes them toward sending unfinished/inadequate work to industry professionals, they're probably not super good at following directions (i.e. query before sending a partial or full).
This is a bit of a muddled post, meine Autoren, so in kid-tested, mother-approved Bullet-O-Vision™—
What I am saying:
· NaNoWriMo is fun, entertaining, and a good way to get yourself writing on a regular schedule.
· While this is neither Chris Baty's nor NaNoWriMo's fault, the project encourages a lot of terrible writers with too much time on their hands to churn out dreadful Frankensteinian monsters with which they proceed to pester literary agents, editors, friends, and family. Being literate does not make one a good writer. Not everyone is or can be a good writer. Sad, but (Ã mon avis) true.
· Granted, a lot of these people are probably writing terrible novels anyway, but anything that encourages them further gives me heartburn.
· Just because you can write 50,000 words that more or less make sense in a month does not mean you're cut out to be a writer.
I realize I'm very much preaching to the choir here.
What I am not saying:
· That NaNoWriMo is terrible. (Because it's not!)
· That you shouldn't participate in NaNoWriMo. (Because, if you've got the time, why not?)
· That you shouldn't use ideas/passages/chapters written via NaNoWriMo in future works. (Good ideas are good ideas!)
· That you should submit the entirety of your NaNoWriMo work to agents. (See above!)
· That no one has ever sold a novel they wrote during NaNoWriMo (but the numbers are small indeed).
What think ye, gentle readers/writers/viewers/collaborators?
Thursday, October 7, 2010
It's Who You Know
There's something I've learned in my time on the sales floor, mes auteurs, that I think not only applies to sales, publishing, and/or writing in general, but to life: up until a certain point, it's all about what you know. After that (and I think most people cross this line earlier than they think), it's all about who you know.
You do your research. You learn the basics and mechanics of writing. You write a terrible novel. You learn from it. You write a pretty good novel. Maybe you even write a stellar one.
You do more research. You learn how to craft a query letter. You figure out which literary agents represent the kind of work you're producing and you send them that query letter. You personalize your queries and you follow all directions to the letter.
At this point, you've more or less exhausted the what portion of your knowledge.
To be fair, this filters out a substantial number of people: you'd be surprised how many queries (or attempts at queries) agents receive from people who (1) are functionally illiterate, (2) know nothing about the publishing industry or how it works, (3) are crazy, (4) are unable to follow directions, (5) haven't actually finished the novel they're pitching, &c &c. You're reading this blog, though, so chances are slim that any of these apply to you.
The number of people trying to sell a novel these days, however, is so unimaginably huge that even with all the hacks and lunatics filtered out, you're still facing long odds. Knowing what can only get you halfway there, if that. Now you've got to know who.
Caveat: thousands of writers are discovered/find representation every year without knowing a soul in the industry. They've never attended a conference, workshop, or seminar in their lives; they're just truly fantastic writers who found agents with whom their work resonates. The odds of this, alas, are astronomical. You should, Ã mon avis, endeavor to improve them.
Maybe you have a great relationship with a professor and she offers to show your short stories to her agent; maybe your best friend has an agent and he thinks your work would interest her, too; maybe your uncle's former roommate is an agent and your uncle offers to hook you up; maybe an agent you pitched your novel to at that conference last month wants to see a full MS.
The possibilities are endless, and when you aren't writing or reading, you should be thinking about networking: specifically, think of people you know who can help you further your career. No one sells their book solo; take the time to cultivate relationships that can get your foot in the door down the road, and your odds of one day seeing your book in (e)print will rise more than you might think.
You do your research. You learn the basics and mechanics of writing. You write a terrible novel. You learn from it. You write a pretty good novel. Maybe you even write a stellar one.
You do more research. You learn how to craft a query letter. You figure out which literary agents represent the kind of work you're producing and you send them that query letter. You personalize your queries and you follow all directions to the letter.
At this point, you've more or less exhausted the what portion of your knowledge.
To be fair, this filters out a substantial number of people: you'd be surprised how many queries (or attempts at queries) agents receive from people who (1) are functionally illiterate, (2) know nothing about the publishing industry or how it works, (3) are crazy, (4) are unable to follow directions, (5) haven't actually finished the novel they're pitching, &c &c. You're reading this blog, though, so chances are slim that any of these apply to you.
The number of people trying to sell a novel these days, however, is so unimaginably huge that even with all the hacks and lunatics filtered out, you're still facing long odds. Knowing what can only get you halfway there, if that. Now you've got to know who.
Caveat: thousands of writers are discovered/find representation every year without knowing a soul in the industry. They've never attended a conference, workshop, or seminar in their lives; they're just truly fantastic writers who found agents with whom their work resonates. The odds of this, alas, are astronomical. You should, Ã mon avis, endeavor to improve them.
Maybe you have a great relationship with a professor and she offers to show your short stories to her agent; maybe your best friend has an agent and he thinks your work would interest her, too; maybe your uncle's former roommate is an agent and your uncle offers to hook you up; maybe an agent you pitched your novel to at that conference last month wants to see a full MS.
The possibilities are endless, and when you aren't writing or reading, you should be thinking about networking: specifically, think of people you know who can help you further your career. No one sells their book solo; take the time to cultivate relationships that can get your foot in the door down the road, and your odds of one day seeing your book in (e)print will rise more than you might think.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
44% is the New 50%
In case you're not following me on Twitter, mes auteurs (and why wouldn't you be?), the results of the Barnes and Noble shareholder vote are in, with preliminary results indicating 44% supporting Riggio and 39% supporting Burkle. Quel fromage.
Riggio is looking to sell the company to other bidders, with books on the company going out to at least 20 interested parties this week. Burkle, who immediately called for a "transparent auction that delivers the best possible outcome for investors," is rumored to be considering a bid himself. If his is the highest, I'm not sure on what grounds Riggio would refuse (although I expect he will, given the bad blood resulting from the proxy war). For the time being, the incumenbent management and board members will remain.
Although this battle is more or less decided (pending certification of the final results over the next few days), the war is far from over. Shareholders will again vote in mid-November on whether to ratify the "poison pill" plan that prevents any shareholder, save Riggio, from accumulating more than a 20% stake in the company. Should the poison pill be significantly altered (say, in accordance with Burkle's proposal of increasing the trigger to 30%), we could see a whole new round of these shenanigans.
In my opinion, the 44/39 split, though close, might have resulted from a point raised by investor Howard Tannenbaum: "Riggio and his brother built up the company. What does Burkle know about book selling?" I ask you, meine Autoren: does it matter to you whether the head of the largest brick-and-mortar trade book retailer in the country knows anything about selling books?
Riggio is looking to sell the company to other bidders, with books on the company going out to at least 20 interested parties this week. Burkle, who immediately called for a "transparent auction that delivers the best possible outcome for investors," is rumored to be considering a bid himself. If his is the highest, I'm not sure on what grounds Riggio would refuse (although I expect he will, given the bad blood resulting from the proxy war). For the time being, the incumenbent management and board members will remain.
Although this battle is more or less decided (pending certification of the final results over the next few days), the war is far from over. Shareholders will again vote in mid-November on whether to ratify the "poison pill" plan that prevents any shareholder, save Riggio, from accumulating more than a 20% stake in the company. Should the poison pill be significantly altered (say, in accordance with Burkle's proposal of increasing the trigger to 30%), we could see a whole new round of these shenanigans.
In my opinion, the 44/39 split, though close, might have resulted from a point raised by investor Howard Tannenbaum: "Riggio and his brother built up the company. What does Burkle know about book selling?" I ask you, meine Autoren: does it matter to you whether the head of the largest brick-and-mortar trade book retailer in the country knows anything about selling books?
Monday, September 27, 2010
A Home for Your Tea Party Memoir
I was born in a red state. I was later raised in a state that, not unlike Lindsay Lohan, has been known to swing both ways (moreso when in a retaliatory mood). Needless to say, I know more than a few people who continually bemoan the state of publishing/print media in general and its relentless "liberal bias." If you're one of those people, you're in luck! HarperCollins has just announced their new conservative imprint, Broadside Books.
As the article notes, the addition of conservative imprints to major publishers is not uncommon, though it is a relatively new phenomenon. Random House has Crown Forum; Simon & Schuster has Threshold Editions; Penguin has Sentinel. Publishers can print Karl Marx and Sarah Palin side-by-side under different imprints, and as the Tea Party furor continues to mount over the next year or two, I expect publishers to begin printing a lot more of the latter.
There's a sizable minority in the publishing industry that says—or at least jokes—that conservative voters don't read, so publishing books that cater to them is a waste of time and money. I'm certain that the continued success of books by politicians/pundits/celebrities like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity, not to mention their perpetual presence on the New York Times bestseller list, fairly refutes this notion; there can't be that many liberals buying these books out of morbid curiosity.
So, with all the usual caveats that: I am not a seer; I am not speaking from any inside or non-public knowledge; I am not providing professional advice; I am not responsible for your lost time or money in the event you decide to go ahead and do this, &c: if you're writing conservative non-fiction, political analysis, or memoir, especially anything Tea Party-oriented, you might have more of a chance at representation and good sales than you think. Just, you know, try to avoid ranting.
My personal politics notwithstanding, I'm encouraged by this quote from Adam Bellow, son of Saul Bellow and head of Broadside Books: "What I intend to do is uphold a standard of intellectual seriousness on the right. [These books] should be written in a way that they are serious, soberly argued, well researched, and make a respectable case—agree or disagree." If your book is well-researched and well-written, I see no reason why you shouldn't give the Liberal Book Publishing Machine a try.
As the article notes, the addition of conservative imprints to major publishers is not uncommon, though it is a relatively new phenomenon. Random House has Crown Forum; Simon & Schuster has Threshold Editions; Penguin has Sentinel. Publishers can print Karl Marx and Sarah Palin side-by-side under different imprints, and as the Tea Party furor continues to mount over the next year or two, I expect publishers to begin printing a lot more of the latter.
There's a sizable minority in the publishing industry that says—or at least jokes—that conservative voters don't read, so publishing books that cater to them is a waste of time and money. I'm certain that the continued success of books by politicians/pundits/celebrities like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity, not to mention their perpetual presence on the New York Times bestseller list, fairly refutes this notion; there can't be that many liberals buying these books out of morbid curiosity.
So, with all the usual caveats that: I am not a seer; I am not speaking from any inside or non-public knowledge; I am not providing professional advice; I am not responsible for your lost time or money in the event you decide to go ahead and do this, &c: if you're writing conservative non-fiction, political analysis, or memoir, especially anything Tea Party-oriented, you might have more of a chance at representation and good sales than you think. Just, you know, try to avoid ranting.
My personal politics notwithstanding, I'm encouraged by this quote from Adam Bellow, son of Saul Bellow and head of Broadside Books: "What I intend to do is uphold a standard of intellectual seriousness on the right. [These books] should be written in a way that they are serious, soberly argued, well researched, and make a respectable case—agree or disagree." If your book is well-researched and well-written, I see no reason why you shouldn't give the Liberal Book Publishing Machine a try.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Sticking it to the Ban
In case you were unaware, liebe Autoren, this Saturday, September 25th through Sunday, October 3rd is Banned Books Week! I heartily recommend you select and read a title from this list of frequently challenged books (browsable by author, year, and decade!) sometime this month or next. I also encourage you, if you are Twitter-inclined, to tweet on the subject via use of the #SpeakLoudly hashtag (see below).
This month more than any, gentle readers, reminds us of the importance of our First Amendment rights:
(Emphasis mine.)
In particular, I'm thinking of the YA novel SPEAK, which I've learned from the author, Laurie Halse Anderson (via Janet Reid and Tahereh Mafi) has been called "pornography" by Wesley Scroggins, an associate professor of management at Missouri State University. (His original op-ed in the Springfield News-Leader can be found here.)
Challenging books with sexual or otherwise "questionable" content is nothing new; Joyce's Ulysses was branded pornography when it was first published serially in the United States in 1918 (a charge that wasn't dismissed until the Supreme Court case United States v. One Book Called Ulysses in 1933). Many profoundly important books—including several major works of Western literature—have been challenged or banned at some point in their histories, and it's due in large part to the First Amendment and individual teachers', librarians', and activists' commitment to free speech and opposition to censorship that these books have been made available to United States citizens, students included.
Scroggins maintains that not only should SPEAK be banned, but modern classics like Slaughter-House Five (which, according to Republic Superintendent Vern Minor, has been removed from all school libraries) should also be unavailable to students (mostly due to use of "the f-word"). For context, the district in question teaches abstinence-only sex education to all students, and Scroggins has also been involved in Reclaiming Missouri for Christ, a seminar whose purpose was "to educate... all citizens... to the role of fundamental, Biblical Christianity in the establishment... of our legal... system" (again, emphasis mine). The full quote is in Laurie's post.
I, like Laurie, fear that parents (and possibly even educators) reading Scroggins' op-ed will believe what Scroggins is saying, and will pressure schools to remove valuable books from their libraries as a result. I therefore propose the following, Concerned Parents of America: before you make a decision to remove a book from a library, read it yourself. If you find you disagree with the content, communicate this to your child. Be aware of what your children are reading, watching on television, or browsing on the Internet. Just because you determine a book is unacceptable for you or your child does not give you the right to deprive other people of the right to read that book. Period.
I urge you, mes auteurs, via Laurie's post, to comment on Scroggins' op-ed, write a letter to Superintendent Vern Minor, write a letter to the News-Leader, or simply tweet this post, Laurie's, Tahereh's, or Janet's, using the #SpeakLoudly hashtag.
The freedom to read what we wish is precious and protected in this country. We don't know what we have until it's taken away.
This month more than any, gentle readers, reminds us of the importance of our First Amendment rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(Emphasis mine.)
In particular, I'm thinking of the YA novel SPEAK, which I've learned from the author, Laurie Halse Anderson (via Janet Reid and Tahereh Mafi) has been called "pornography" by Wesley Scroggins, an associate professor of management at Missouri State University. (His original op-ed in the Springfield News-Leader can be found here.)
Challenging books with sexual or otherwise "questionable" content is nothing new; Joyce's Ulysses was branded pornography when it was first published serially in the United States in 1918 (a charge that wasn't dismissed until the Supreme Court case United States v. One Book Called Ulysses in 1933). Many profoundly important books—including several major works of Western literature—have been challenged or banned at some point in their histories, and it's due in large part to the First Amendment and individual teachers', librarians', and activists' commitment to free speech and opposition to censorship that these books have been made available to United States citizens, students included.
Scroggins maintains that not only should SPEAK be banned, but modern classics like Slaughter-House Five (which, according to Republic Superintendent Vern Minor, has been removed from all school libraries) should also be unavailable to students (mostly due to use of "the f-word"). For context, the district in question teaches abstinence-only sex education to all students, and Scroggins has also been involved in Reclaiming Missouri for Christ, a seminar whose purpose was "to educate... all citizens... to the role of fundamental, Biblical Christianity in the establishment... of our legal... system" (again, emphasis mine). The full quote is in Laurie's post.
I, like Laurie, fear that parents (and possibly even educators) reading Scroggins' op-ed will believe what Scroggins is saying, and will pressure schools to remove valuable books from their libraries as a result. I therefore propose the following, Concerned Parents of America: before you make a decision to remove a book from a library, read it yourself. If you find you disagree with the content, communicate this to your child. Be aware of what your children are reading, watching on television, or browsing on the Internet. Just because you determine a book is unacceptable for you or your child does not give you the right to deprive other people of the right to read that book. Period.
I urge you, mes auteurs, via Laurie's post, to comment on Scroggins' op-ed, write a letter to Superintendent Vern Minor, write a letter to the News-Leader, or simply tweet this post, Laurie's, Tahereh's, or Janet's, using the #SpeakLoudly hashtag.
The freedom to read what we wish is precious and protected in this country. We don't know what we have until it's taken away.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Battle for Barnes & Noble
Barnes & Noble (BKS) announced a first quarter loss today, falling short of the company's forecast and underscoring not only booksellers' ongoing struggles in a soft market, but Barnes & Noble's particular battle between Ron Burkle and Leonard Riggio.
First, some background. Leonard Riggio is the chairman and largest stockholder of the company, which has been trying to sell itself (on its own terms, more or less) for awhile now, given that their sales are declining and (in my opinion) they want to attract fresh capital for their reinvention as a cutting-edge digital media company. Ron Burkle is a mega-rich investor who has accumulated almost 20% of BKS's stock and, despite his comments to the contrary, is widely believed to be attempting a takeover of the company.
Barnes & Noble, however, has what's called a "poison pill" defense (named for a spy's last resort should he or she be captured by the enemy) that makes it prohibitively expensive for Burkle to reach 20% (Riggo himself owns almost 30%). (If you're interested, you can read the details here.) Long story short: Burkle wants Barnes & Noble, which comes with the ability to unseat Riggio and to add his own people to the company's board of directors. Riggio, of course, is fighting back.
Talks have repeatedly broken down this summer, culminating with a Delaware judge's ruling that BKS was not being unreasonable in its defense against Burkle. This resulted in a proxy fight that, if successful, will accomplish the same thing: eliminate Riggio and add Burkle to the board.
This doesn't mean a whole lot for Barnes & Noble in the short term (at least, not in an operational sense); business will continue as usual despite the mounting legal fees. While some have speculated that the battle against Burkle is partially responsible for BKS's 1Q decline, I'm more inclined to think it has to do with slumping hardcover sales and reduced consumer spending in general. In short: Barnes & Noble is, Ã mon avis, far from doomed, but they certainly have their work cut out for them.
What do you think, mes auteurs?
First, some background. Leonard Riggio is the chairman and largest stockholder of the company, which has been trying to sell itself (on its own terms, more or less) for awhile now, given that their sales are declining and (in my opinion) they want to attract fresh capital for their reinvention as a cutting-edge digital media company. Ron Burkle is a mega-rich investor who has accumulated almost 20% of BKS's stock and, despite his comments to the contrary, is widely believed to be attempting a takeover of the company.
Barnes & Noble, however, has what's called a "poison pill" defense (named for a spy's last resort should he or she be captured by the enemy) that makes it prohibitively expensive for Burkle to reach 20% (Riggo himself owns almost 30%). (If you're interested, you can read the details here.) Long story short: Burkle wants Barnes & Noble, which comes with the ability to unseat Riggio and to add his own people to the company's board of directors. Riggio, of course, is fighting back.
Talks have repeatedly broken down this summer, culminating with a Delaware judge's ruling that BKS was not being unreasonable in its defense against Burkle. This resulted in a proxy fight that, if successful, will accomplish the same thing: eliminate Riggio and add Burkle to the board.
This doesn't mean a whole lot for Barnes & Noble in the short term (at least, not in an operational sense); business will continue as usual despite the mounting legal fees. While some have speculated that the battle against Burkle is partially responsible for BKS's 1Q decline, I'm more inclined to think it has to do with slumping hardcover sales and reduced consumer spending in general. In short: Barnes & Noble is, Ã mon avis, far from doomed, but they certainly have their work cut out for them.
What do you think, mes auteurs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
