Tag Archives: ipad

What is a Mere Book? Twitter Conversation #6

16 May
For this week’s twitter conversation, I’m going to take a statement made by @ColleenLindsay, former agent and bookish bon vivant, in a brief about books vs. content.  Warning: I go far beyond any implications the original context would justify.
***

ColleenLindsayI’m not sentimental about books as objects; I’m only sentimental about the content contained in those books. #sosueme

johnandrewhall@ColleenLindsay Well the content of a book is its object. Anycase what about something like this … http://twitpic.com/4y4xkv

ColleenLindsay@johnandrewhall Illuminated manuscripts are a work of art and a piece of history; not just mere books.


So, as you may have guessed from the title, Colleen’s last statement got me wondering: what is a mere book?  Is the content in a book equally transferable to all forms, or “containers”? Is an eBook intrinsically less satisfying because of it’s digital format: can it present a more fulfilling experience than it’s printed counterpart? Is the printed book, in it’s tree consuming, space eating, wrist strain inducing form, ever preferable over electronic books?

First, I have to admit, I’m a bit of a paper fetishist.  Which is ironic, as I make my living marketing books, both “p” and “e”, almost exclusively via an online, digital platform.

That said, I think many books have little relationship to their format… a beach book, whether romance or thriller, will seldom be kept or remembered for the paper it’s printed on, and is more likely to be find it’s way to a garage sale bin than onto a book shelf.

Similarly, many eBooks, produced as a series of static, .pdf like pages, are not creating a unique digital experience.

These sorts of books, their formats and the marriage of the two is once of convenience and availability, determined by the tastes and access of the reader.

But while the illustrated manuscript is indeed historical and a work of art, it must be noted that when it was produced, it was a just a book… all books were to some degree artful, as they were copies, illustrated and bound by hand.  None were historical when they were originally read.  That perspective only comes with the passing of decades and, in the case of illustrated manuscripts, centuries.

But it’s true, you can’t have the same experience of this book digitally, even in the best electronic simulation.

Conversely, Alice for the iPad provides is a unique experience, with no corollary to a standard print book, no matter how well illustrated, no matter what quality the paper, or beauty of the binding.  An enhanced cookbook with video demonstrations will provide a different experience than the most beautifully photographed print version.

We’ve all seen movies that didn’t provide anything close to the books they were adapted from, and some excellent movies have become mediocre books.  I make this point because there are many sorts of media, and while certain content may be duplicated in both print and digital, they are different media, have different strengths and weaknesses, as with film, audio, television, digital and print.

None is necessarily superior, though for specific projects, they may provide a uniquely superior containers for their specific content.

Content, and the experience of its consumer, changes with the format in which it is expressed.
While I agree that content and form are not the same thing, I have observed that when a concept is artfully explored, content and from can be inextricably melded to produce a format specific experience that could not be duplicated in other media.

What do you think?  Do you have examples of media/platform specific narratives?

Let me know…

Advertisements

Do Bound Books, eReaders, iPads Determine Content? Twitter Chat #5

10 May

I drew inspiration for this week’s Twitter Chat post from a conversation I followed a while back between my friend, (and one of the most forward thinking about all things bookish) Guy LeCharles Gonzalez, repeat offender Susan Doerr (indeed a smart girl/reader/publisher) and Peter Turner (at the tail end, but with an insightful point of view).

The conversation began with Guy’s assertion that print vs. digital is an irrelevant argument, and implying that digital devices were merely containers for content.  As ever, I both agree and disagree with each participant in the conversation:  my comments appear after the end of the conversation.

@glecharles The container is NOT a business model. The print vs. digital debate is tiresome. Content + Context = Value. #fullstop #dbw

@susanmpls @glecharles Disagree. Content is what people want, yes, but containers can be a biz model, i.e. Amazon & it’s Kindle.

@glecharles @susanmpls The container’s nothing w/o content. Kindle wasn’t first ereader; Amazon’s success was value to readers via content + context.

@susanmpls @glecharles Disagree. Content is what people want, yes, but containers can be a biz model, i.e. Amazon & it’s Kindle.

@glecharles @susanmpls If it were all about containers, Smashwords would be Amazon. Or Apple.

@susanmpls @glecharles I didn’t say it’s all abt containers, just that containers are a biz model, though, as @brianoleary says, not for publishers.

@glecharles @susanmpls If your workflow is container-centric, so is your business model. @brianoleary‘s advocacy of “agile workflows” is where it’s at.

@PeterTurner @glecharles Agree: content+context=value but container can and should shape content. #dbw

@glecharles @peterturner Yes, the container shapes (contextualizes) content but it shouldn’t define it; ideal content flows into multiple containers.

***

So I have to say, it was Guy’s comment that got my attention.  I only follow Guy on Twitter, so it took me a minute to find the conversation that followed.  But I do think that Guy’s statement that Content + Context = Value.

And I do not believe that the “container”, in this case eReaders, iPads or even printed bound books are synonymous with a a business model. Though I think we can agree that the container will influence the business model… Amazon dominates the eBook model not only due to the low cost, high service sales model they champion, but because of it’s strong online presence, and the early introduction of Kindle to the market.  It’s a different model than the traditional publisher to printer to warehouse to distributer to retail store to reader model.

So far, so good.  But here’s where I’d interject my own assertion.  The container not only contextualizes content, but content must be shaped for the unique capabilities of the container.  Because when you’re talking about something like the iPad, or even a smart phone (cell phone novels are big in Japan, for instance), you have a different set of capabilities (and limitations) than you’ll find with the beloved print book which was one of the only devices through which long form content could be delivered.

A bound book requires no power source, it’s easy on the eyes when reading by daylight, and is ideal for engraved illustrations. A backlit screen requires a battery, makes reading long chapters more difficult, but you can incorporate illustrations that move (video, animation).  While a Kindle emulates the functionality of a book (Instapaper and inanimate graphics), it still has enhanced capabilities that might shape the formation of content (annotation for example) in new and interesting ways (book clubs? school based reading initiatives?).

These containers mean nothing without content… but the funny thing is, we’ve never really wanted to pay for content.  We’ve always paid for the container, ro means of distribution: the paper a book is printed on, the cable service that delivers TV, the cinema that allows for a giant screen and a group experience).

So while I agree that content is what gives value to a container, the container will promote the success of different kinds of content.  And content should be created with the method of distribution in mind.  This is how containers and content succeed… in that differentiated, symbiotic way.

New containers allow for new and more varied kinds of content.

Those are my thoughts, anyway.  What do you think?  I’d love to know.

Take the E-book, Turn It on Its End, and Shake Vigorously

18 Apr

I originally wrote this article for my friends at Digital Book World.  You can see it there, as well as a bunch of other useful information about what happens at the intersection of publishing and the digital revolution by clicking here.

Market an ebook with its enhancements

I market new books through social media channels, and I’m going to tell you why I think ebooks should be produced very differently from the current model.

Right now, an author writes a book and secures an agent, after which an editor negotiates the rights and purchases that book, after which revisions and edits are made, after which fonts are chosen and a cover design created, after which an ebook is fashioned (most likely text only) and a release date determined….

Then after all of these things are finished, someone like me might or might not be brought in the help market the book online.

As we market a book on the internet, my company will almost certainly create video segments designed to create interest in the book: videos are more likely to show up early in search pages and more likely to be clicked on when they do.

But, these video segments are created after all the previous production steps have been accomplished and the book is on its way to market.

And that’s the problem.

Any additional media created, which might include websites, animation, video, games and contests, will be built on top of already secured rights.

This limits what can be done to market the book, especially if the film rights have been secured. Also, when creating video content to advertise a book, we are very conscious that the visual aspects, the actors, costumes, sets, etc., are not directly representative of the book they promote. They are not a part of the book and may not even relate to the cover design.

Creating content like this, after the novel is fully realized, is like making a movie and then hiring a new set of actors, dressing them in similar costumes and placing them in a different setting to create the trailer, and then telling the audience that the trailer looks something like the movie being promoted, rather than parsing the trailer from elements of the film itself.

Of course, the reason we love movie trailers is that they give us a taste of what we will actually experience in the movie itself. Trailers are great ways to generate interest.

And that’s why I think we’ve got the whole ebook thing backwards.

I’ve always maintained that marketing strategy is most important in the product development stage. That means the marketing should be built into the product itself. For books, we need to reverse the order by which books are currently created, negotiated and sold.

We should produce an enhanced ebook first.

Ideally, these multimedia pieces inform the actual writing of the book. The book would be written into existing media capabilities, the way a screenplay is written to capitalize on the visual and sound capabilities of film or TV. With enhanced ebooks, it would help if some forethought was given to potential interactive capabilities, but for the sake of this article, I’ll limit myself to the video/animation elements.

That means that dynamic multimedia ebook content would be created before the physical book. In the months before the physical book is released, this dynamic content could be parsed and re-edited for distribution over the web, as well as through TV and even film. This newly edited content would be representative of the actual experience a user will have with the enhanced ebook. That makes better marketing, which means better findability.

In a best case scenario, the content is created at the same time as the book is written. While in most cases that may not be possible, I believe that the agent should package both the content creator and the author when bringing the book to market, supplying a demo of the intended ebook.

Of course, this would require a new rights model: literary agents would negotiate digital rights to include paying the content creators, much as illustrators are paid out of the advance and later through royalties.

I believe that the ebook will eventually lead the market, rather than the hardcover book: it’s easier and cheaper to sell and distribute. Edited ebook content can be used for marketing through social media. If this content is unique and interesting in and of itself, it is innately viral. By “viral,” I mean that the content is voluntarily passed on by a user to her network (not that the content will be viewed millions of times overnight; that would be more like a pandemic than a simple virus).

Ebooks have gained a significant share of the overall market in a very short time. While some of those sales may cannibalize the traditional print market, numbers suggest that the availability of ebooks Is creating whole new markets.

Ebook sales could actually undergird and support sales of print books. This would allow for more effective and authentic marketing, where the marketing is actually an extension of the product itself (the ebook, in this case). It also gives users the option to purchase the book at their preferred price point; the inexpensive ebook, the more expensive paperback, or the high-end elite hard cover.

Most customers are going to buy in their preferred format anyway. Why not create more interest upfront with ebook content?

Of course, I’m talking about specific types of books—the books that are suitable for enhanced viewing on a tablet like the iPad. Children’s picture books are a natural choice for this kind of model. While nonfiction offerings like cookbooks and home improvement books are also obvious choices, here at Diabolical Toy, we work mostly with fiction, especially paranormal, speculative and historical narratives.

I’m betting that turning the model on its end would not only allow for more effective integration of traditional and ebook marketing efforts, which is a cost saver in itself, but sell more books in both formats.