Many writers and industry analysts are debating if e-publishing will conquer print publishing (various article links below). If is not debatable. When and how are. In other words, think about when print will be conquered and, especially for aspiring writers with no backup plan, how to make money in the future of publishing.
Keep in mind that, simply by being active in this online forum, you are statistically among the earlier adopters of digital technology. History has yet to run its course and digital habits have yet to go fully mainstream (consider the computer literacy of the 2008 Republican presidential candidate).
Historically, the automobile was an economic game-changer (an industry disrupter, if you will) for transportation just as digital technology is for reading. The method is irrelevant to the purpose. Transportation involves going from Point A to Point B. While people had grown up with and were accustomed to the horse fulfilling this need, horses aren't actually critical to the basic need of transportation just as paper is no longer critical to the basic need of reading. Aside from the paper milling industry, there are other unnecessary middlemen operations (lumber, shipping and storage, printing, binding, brick and mortar retailing via Barnes & Noble, Borders, etc.) that make the economics of print publishing unviable in the long-term when competing with e-publishing.
The resistance to abandoning paper is like the resistance to abandoning horses. Arguments to preserve paper – the feel of the book, the durability, less risk of reading in the tub – will seem as ridiculous in 100 years as arguments to preserve horses for transportation seem now. There were surely people who felt horses would never be replaced. After all, the automobile can't go everywhere a horse can go. Not everybody liked cars. Horses were the standard everybody grew up on. They used to call common sense "horse sense." There surely are virtues to printed copies of text just as there surely were virtues to keeping horses. On a different note and more personal level, I hold great affinity for the cassette tape. I still own dozens of mixtapes and can make strong arguments in favor of the cassette over the compact disc (although those don't hold water against digital music). Unfortunately for the tape, economics trump virtue. In other words: money talks, bullshit walks.
While we internet-savvy consumers from industrialized countries are early adopters, we are also fossils historically in that we even have some attachment to printed reading. How strong is that attachment among the youth in
To better understand where print is going, watch the newspaper industry. 50 years ago, every bumfuck town needed a hard copy paper to publish the same world news and a few local stories. But in the 21st century and beyond, how many letters of record are needed past the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and niche pubs like The Guardian and The Economist? Do people really need a hard copy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch? People are already going online for news while the industry scrambles for revenue. Who needs the local classified section when there are superior digital sources like craigslist and eBay? Printed book publishers will eventually run into financial woes as well.
Determining when print will die is difficult.
Determining how to make money is also difficult. I'm not going to pretend to have an idea how this angle will play out, but I'm confident that capitalism and the profit motive will find a way. I whole-heartedly disagree that the quality of literature will suffer. I imagine that argument was made by musicians complaining about the emergence of the phonograph record in the early 20th century. If people can buy our music once and listen to it forever, they won't pay to see us perform. How will we make money? All the good musicians will quit making music. Present day musicians revived that fear when downloading technology came in the picture, but society has managed to monetize that as well. While the kinds of art found in museums may need a government subsidy, music and reading have always demanded a high premium. There will always be a market. Does anybody honestly foresee a shortage of writers someday?
Then again, published content will certainly change. I converted from the Times hard copy to the Internet about a year ago and there is a clear difference in what I choose to read. With a hard copy, you are almost compelled to read all the articles. While I thoroughly enjoyed a 3000 word article about the growing exports from Brazil of HPC products featuring exotic ingredients from the Amazon rainforest, I probably wouldn't have clicked on it if I were getting my news online. On the other hand, should the mainstream public be subsidizing that article if nobody cares about it? Or should it be featured in a niche publication? Nicholas Carr in The Atlantic on how reading online may change what we read and how we think: "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"
What's my point? Don't think if. Think when and how.
Marketing guru Seth Godin on the future of publishing
Samir Husni on the power of print
Bob Sacks says "It's a Digital World Now"
0 Comments:
Post a Comment