Archive

Archive for October, 2010

Do You Need a Publisher to be Published?

October 21st, 2010 No comments

So much of recent discussion about the tumult in the publishing world has focused on the challenge for publishers to find new business models in the face of rapidly changing technology and customer habits.  Quite a bit less attention has been devoted, however, to the effects of those trends on authors themselves, without whom the publishers would have no content to actually print.  As the industry continues to thrash around, grasping for quick solutions while also cutting costs frantically, authors less popular than Rowling or Franzen can find themselves essentially abandoned by their supposed advocates in large publishing houses.

Noted technology writer Douglas Rushkoff shares his recent experiences with publishers and how those disappointments drove him to make the radical step of leaving his publisher and embracing an entirely new model of 21st century authorship.  What could have inspired such a move?  Shouldn’t authors desperately grab for the security of a big publisher, especially in uncertain times like now?  Won’t the sheer size and expertise of the big companies provide an essential lifesaver in the rather choppy waters of the book marketplace currently?

Well, actually no, at least according to Rushkoff.  In his view, “Authors and readers no longer need Big Publishing to find and engage one another. The sooner we all realize this, the better off we’ll all be.”  Based on his experience, publishers now utterly fail at the two roles authors have traditionally relied upon them for, editing and marketing.  As just about any author can tell you, having an intelligent and engaged reader critique your work is incredibly helpful.  But editors can no longer play that role anymore, as they must now focus entirely on new content acquisition.  Even worse in Rushkoff’s view, publishers no longer provide either necessary resources or expertise in marketing.  If anything, they tend to get in the way of the authors’ own attempts to publicize their work.  The writers, after all, usually know far more about their subject matter and the likely audience for their own books, and what the best methods of outreach might be.

Absent their ability to edit and market, Rushkoff just does not see a valuable role for publishers any more, and has decided to eliminate these middlemen (and their not insubstantial costs) for his latest book.  It is a new very journey, without the usual signposts, but 21st century authorship does open up vast new potential audiences and opportunities to engage with ones readers.  As Rushkoff says, the new methods he now embraces are daunting, but writers today really have no other choice, “The good news and bad news here is that we must create new ways of doing things that meet our real needs.”

BackMyBook is excited to help authors of all kinds discover their own paths to success, that meet their own particular needs.  They won’t be the same as Douglas Rushkoff’s, nor Stephen King’s, but they will be what works for you.

(This article is also published at BackMyBook)

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

An Experiment in “Red”

October 21st, 2010 No comments

One of the frustrating issues for analysts of the file-sharing phenomenom is that so much of what we know, or think we know, about it rests not on any real numbers but on our beliefs and suppositions.  Statistics thrown around by the rights-holding organizations like the MPAA, the RIAA or the BSA are notoriously unreliable, while the illegal and highly fragmented nature of P2P networks themselves makes it impossible to get any dependable numbers from the sharers themselves.

Each side of the argument have their own facts and ideologies, ranging from “you can’t compete with free” or “each download is a lost sale” to “P2P users buy more than any other fans” or “file-sharing increases awareness.”  Nonetheless, it is always interesting when a situation arises that allows for some real-world testing.

On Friday October 15 the film “Red” was released, a relatively big budget action film starring Bruce Willis.  Unusually, earlier in the week a “screener” copy of the film had appeared on popular P2P networks.  Normally, the major film studios go to great lengths to prevent this kind of leak.  In their view, the availability of a film “for free” inevitably means that no one will pay to see it in theaters.  However, in this specific case, that proved incorrect, as Red did reasonably well at the box office, earning $22.5 million for the weekend, with a per-theater average of almost $7,000, coming in second to the surprisingly strong Jackass 3-D.

As we said above, there is no real way of knowing how many people downloaded the free copy of Red in the week leading up to its release.  The evidence suggests, however, that it was a large number.  According to the well-respected TorrentFreak, Red was the number one downloaded movie for the week of October 10-17on Bittorrent.  And a quick peek at the Pirate Bay shows that just one of the many competing versions of Red available currently has over 10,000 seeders right now.  So, while we may not know how many people could have seen Red for free, it is likely to in the tens of thousands at least.

Is there anything compelling we can take from this unintended experiment with the film Red?  For one thing, it is clear that the studios are still quite capable of competing with free, as Red’s decent box office does demonstrate.  According to the LA Times analysis of Red’s opening weekend, the movie did especially well with older audiences, and the word of mouth for the film was strong, as shown by a 26% increase from Friday to Saturday sales.  Of course, we have no way of knowing what the box office might have been without the leak, but it seems that the film did about what was expected of it, irrespective of the leak’s existence.

Ultimately, even with a unique case like Red, though, what we don’t know far outnumbers what we do.  Are there people out there that might have gone to see the movie in theaters if the option of watching it at home for free did not exist?  Are there viewers who watched the free copy but enjoyed it enough to go see it in theaters anyway?  Did home viewers help to spread the good word of mouth about the film, which may have resulted in higher box office?  Is a film with an older skewing audience more immune to P2P effects?

None of these questions are easily answered, even if they seem to fit into widely-held “common sense” suppositions about file-trading, as we just don’t have the necessary hard data to clearly prove things one way or the other.  We should definitely be very wary of what data we do see, and be even more careful about any conclusions that are drawn from those numbers.

(This article is also published at Zeropaid)

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Change of Venue

October 13th, 2010 No comments

I have started doing some blogging over at Zeropaid, so if you are interested, please check out some of my work over there:

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/author/bruce/

Categories: About This Blog Tags: