There's a new post about Simon & Schuster below this one, but first I had a bad scare this morning.
Woke up out of a deep sleep around 4:00 this morning to one of the most god-awful sounds in the world: the noise of a full-out catfight.
I've had cats for the majority of my life. Occasionally one of mine will get into a fight with a strange cat outdoors. My little cowards run straight home, screaming for reinforcements as they retreat. I run outside and drive the intruder off. I've never had to deal with anything more than a scratched ear (on the cats, I mean).
Lately, now that Bob is moving toward twenty pounds (eek!), he doesn't tolerate any strange cat setting foot on grass within two houses in either direction of mine.
In my experience, cats simply don't engage in the kind of prolonged to-the-death fights that dogs do. They tend to posture, scream warnings and retreat when both feel they've satisfied their personal honor.
The noise at 4:00 AM INSIDE my home was terrifying. I could hear bodies rolling and lots of screaming. I stumbled out of bed and raced to the front of the house.
Some background. Tribble, my calico Manx, is working on age twenty-two. She has some age-related issues, including arthritis, excessive water drinking and an inability to retract her claws.
I don't know what the claw thing is about, but it's mostly an annoyance. She gets caught on the fabric of a chair and cries until I come release her. She will walk across my laptop keyboard and sometimes pop a cap off a key because her claw will get caught. I spent hours one day searching for the top of my letter "e".
For the last few months, every time I've returned home, I've expected to find her tiny dead body, but she just keeps going. Tim, my marvelous vet, assures me she's in no pain; her body is just gradually wearing out.
Tribble has taken up a post on the right side of my laptop. She spends almost all day and night there except for the occasions--once or twice a week--when she asks to go outdoors. There she stays on my front porch on a pillow on the glider.
She avoids the other two cats who are increasingly hostile toward her. However, Tribble is enough of the grande dame that she can still force them to back down. I've seen her hit the kitten hard enough to send Dinah flying. When she swats Bob, who is now three times her weight, he respectfully backs off even though I've no doubt he could wipe the floor up with her. It appears to me that they are testing her to see if she's still got it.
When I reached my entry hall and switched on the overhead light, at first it looked like Tribble was swatting Bob. However, they were both screaming bloody murder. As I approached, Bob backed off and I realized he was dragging Tribble with him across my faux marble hall floor.
That's when it dawned on me. Her right claw was hooked into his cat collar. They were linked together, and neither could get free.
Both were so hysterical that they hissed at me as I approached. Soothing words didn't help. I had to shout to get them to freeze. While they were still in that Oh-my-god-did-you-hear-what-she-just-did frozen state, I unhooked Tribble. Her claw was actually caught in the little round hook that holds Bob's name tag.
The minute they were free, both went flying in different directions
--Bob toward the dining room table; his favorite retreat is under the tablecloth. Tribble ran for her litter box in the hall bathroom.
I followed Trib and peeked inside the covered top of the litter box. She was just sitting there, trembling. Not wanting to intrude upon her safe place, I sat on the edge of the bathtub and cooed nonsense at her for nearly four minutes until she came out to me, seeking comfort.
She continued to tremble so I brought her back into bed with me. She lay on my chest--small, bony and shaking--for another few minutes before pulling herself together. She left, going down the steps to the side of my tall bed, passing Bob who was now sitting there watching us.
I heard her return to my study, hop up on my chair and then onto the desk.
Bob made one big leap and landed on top of my mattress beside me. He whimpered, "What about me? I was scared, too." I cooed over him until he let out a big sigh and settled down under my arm.
We fell into an exhausted, relieved sleep.
Today--as much as she hates it--I need to trim Tribble's claws.
Read on for part two of my Simon & Schuster post.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Apology To My Readers
When I'm writing my posts, I sometimes publish them while they're still unfinished so I can proof them. I find it hard to proof in the editing mode.
While I was doing so with the following post, my computer froze, leaving an unfinished post on the screen for nearly two hours.
The problem is now corrected, and you have my apologies.
Maya
While I was doing so with the following post, my computer froze, leaving an unfinished post on the screen for nearly two hours.
The problem is now corrected, and you have my apologies.
Maya
Simon & Schuster, Part II
I ended my post about Simon & Schuster last night saying that I believe publishers are going to have to start offering BETTER deals to writers, not worse ones.
Regular readers of this blog will remember that I've talked about this before.
In the traditional business model, the writer provides the artistic talent and the publisher provides the capital to turn the writer's work into a printed book. All the power is in the hands of the publisher since most writers don't have the financial resources to produce the printed book themselves. The game belongs to the publisher.
However, the Internet and POD technology is changing that dynamic. Instead of one publishing business model, the new technologies have splintered the market into three models. I'm going to call them: traditional print, e-publishing and self-publishing.
We already know how the traditional print model works. Let's talk about e-publishing next.
E-publishing is only about ten years old. Compared to traditional print, it is much less expensive to become an e-publisher. An investment in a website and web designer is relatively cheap. There's also no shipping, warehousing, and bookstore returns to mess with. Because of this, the royalties paid to writers are much higher than in traditional print. Writers working for e-publishers expect to receive a minimum of 33% in royalties.
The problem for writers is that the e-publishing market is still new and developing. Attracting enough readers to build a name is the challenge.
E-publishing found its first readers among the sci-fi and romance markets. But e-books are still enjoying double digit increases in sales. In February, 2007, e-book sales rose by 44.7% with sales of $2.5 million for the period.
Still, the lack of a viable e-reading device (inexpensive, easy on the eyes and simple to operate) has slowed the growth of e-publishing. Once an e-reading device captures the public's imagination the way the iPod did for the music industry, I'm betting e-publishing will take off.
Traditional publishers have finally begun to take notice. As more and more people become comfortable buying print books on the Internet, publishing houses began to realize two things: (1) They could market their print books via the Worldwide Web, and (2) Younger readers were beginning to move away from print copies to digitized downloads.
The big seven publishers are actively digitizing their stock and demanding e-publishing rights in their contracts. However, there's a problem here.
The traditional print houses have become so accustomed to "owning the game" that they have not yet realized the Internet and POD technology may mean the end of their control over publishing. The move by Simon & Schuster to demand indefinite rights to books is a perfect example of that arrogance.
Giant printing presses are no longer the key to the kingdom of publishing. The large houses face competition on two fronts: from the Internet giants and from the e-publishing industry.
When I say Internet giants, I'm talking about Google, Amazon.com, Yahoo, eBay and Microsoft. Of the five, I suspect the biggest direct competition will come from either Google or Amazon.com. My money is on Amazon. The biggest dark horse IMHO is eBay.
As I mentioned last night, the Internet companies were the first to realize the power the Internet had to change the face of publishing. Both Google and Amazon started by offering to help traditional print houses market their print books. However, I don't think that either company will stop there. It is not a big stretch from marketing other companies' books to marketing original content yourself.
Amazon already owns a POD company and is developing an e-reading device capable of using different formats. Google already has its search engine for marketing and digitizing equipment. Either one could easily produce both print and e-books.
Remember, the reason traditional publishing gained all that power was because they were the only game in town.
That's changing. In addition to the Internet giants, there are already dozens of tiny e-publishers. While e-publishing is still in its infancy, it's probable that one company will move ahead of the pack.
Moving to electronic publishing offers other powerful financial incentives to traditional publishers beyond merely keeping up with its migrating reader base. E-publishing frees them from costly print runs, warehousing and shipping expenses, and the headache of bookstore returns.
Up until now the big houses have used the Internet only for marketing. But that's already changing. On April 13, I reported that Penguin, Random House, HarperCollins and Mills & Boon have all signed up with ICUE, a British company that can transfer books into mobile phone-friendly content. See here for the story.
I'm not convinced that traditional print publishers understand that, as they continue to move toward e-publishing, they lose their competitive edge and, more importantly, their bargaining power. On the electronic playing field, they face lots of competition. Competition that offer higher royalties.
If the big seven aren't going to offer higher royalty percentages, they need to offer writers other incentives--more promotion, more marketing, more service, more formats. If they don't, they're going to find those writers deserting them for other companies who WILL sweeten the pot. The question is whether those companies will include an Internet giant like Amazon or Google.
The unknown for me in the equation is the impact of self-publishing. In November, 1999, Barnes & Noble bought a 49% stake in iUniverse. Borders is now talking about offering self-publishing services. Other companies are bound to jump into the business.
The two biggest obstacles self-publishing faces are its poor image and the lack of a filtering system. Vanity presses polluted the pool by printing any crap that came along as long as it was accompanied by cash. Until the self-publishing industry develops a filter system to weed out the poorly written stuff, every self-published writer, even the ones writing good material, will bear a stigma.
I've said it before: I suspect the lines between publisher, distributor, bookstore and author are going to start blurring. Unusual agreements among the different parties are likely to emerge. It's possible for an Internet bookseller or marketer to sign a contract with a writer, leaving the traditional publisher out of the picture altogether. And what's to stop a group of authors who already have name brand recognition from joining together to market their e-books?
That's why Simon & Schuster's posturing doesn't bother me. They're standing on shifting soil.
It will be interesting to see what does happen.
Regular readers of this blog will remember that I've talked about this before.
In the traditional business model, the writer provides the artistic talent and the publisher provides the capital to turn the writer's work into a printed book. All the power is in the hands of the publisher since most writers don't have the financial resources to produce the printed book themselves. The game belongs to the publisher.
However, the Internet and POD technology is changing that dynamic. Instead of one publishing business model, the new technologies have splintered the market into three models. I'm going to call them: traditional print, e-publishing and self-publishing.
We already know how the traditional print model works. Let's talk about e-publishing next.
E-publishing is only about ten years old. Compared to traditional print, it is much less expensive to become an e-publisher. An investment in a website and web designer is relatively cheap. There's also no shipping, warehousing, and bookstore returns to mess with. Because of this, the royalties paid to writers are much higher than in traditional print. Writers working for e-publishers expect to receive a minimum of 33% in royalties.
The problem for writers is that the e-publishing market is still new and developing. Attracting enough readers to build a name is the challenge.
E-publishing found its first readers among the sci-fi and romance markets. But e-books are still enjoying double digit increases in sales. In February, 2007, e-book sales rose by 44.7% with sales of $2.5 million for the period.
Still, the lack of a viable e-reading device (inexpensive, easy on the eyes and simple to operate) has slowed the growth of e-publishing. Once an e-reading device captures the public's imagination the way the iPod did for the music industry, I'm betting e-publishing will take off.
Traditional publishers have finally begun to take notice. As more and more people become comfortable buying print books on the Internet, publishing houses began to realize two things: (1) They could market their print books via the Worldwide Web, and (2) Younger readers were beginning to move away from print copies to digitized downloads.
The big seven publishers are actively digitizing their stock and demanding e-publishing rights in their contracts. However, there's a problem here.
The traditional print houses have become so accustomed to "owning the game" that they have not yet realized the Internet and POD technology may mean the end of their control over publishing. The move by Simon & Schuster to demand indefinite rights to books is a perfect example of that arrogance.
Giant printing presses are no longer the key to the kingdom of publishing. The large houses face competition on two fronts: from the Internet giants and from the e-publishing industry.
When I say Internet giants, I'm talking about Google, Amazon.com, Yahoo, eBay and Microsoft. Of the five, I suspect the biggest direct competition will come from either Google or Amazon.com. My money is on Amazon. The biggest dark horse IMHO is eBay.
As I mentioned last night, the Internet companies were the first to realize the power the Internet had to change the face of publishing. Both Google and Amazon started by offering to help traditional print houses market their print books. However, I don't think that either company will stop there. It is not a big stretch from marketing other companies' books to marketing original content yourself.
Amazon already owns a POD company and is developing an e-reading device capable of using different formats. Google already has its search engine for marketing and digitizing equipment. Either one could easily produce both print and e-books.
Remember, the reason traditional publishing gained all that power was because they were the only game in town.
That's changing. In addition to the Internet giants, there are already dozens of tiny e-publishers. While e-publishing is still in its infancy, it's probable that one company will move ahead of the pack.
Moving to electronic publishing offers other powerful financial incentives to traditional publishers beyond merely keeping up with its migrating reader base. E-publishing frees them from costly print runs, warehousing and shipping expenses, and the headache of bookstore returns.
Up until now the big houses have used the Internet only for marketing. But that's already changing. On April 13, I reported that Penguin, Random House, HarperCollins and Mills & Boon have all signed up with ICUE, a British company that can transfer books into mobile phone-friendly content. See here for the story.
I'm not convinced that traditional print publishers understand that, as they continue to move toward e-publishing, they lose their competitive edge and, more importantly, their bargaining power. On the electronic playing field, they face lots of competition. Competition that offer higher royalties.
If the big seven aren't going to offer higher royalty percentages, they need to offer writers other incentives--more promotion, more marketing, more service, more formats. If they don't, they're going to find those writers deserting them for other companies who WILL sweeten the pot. The question is whether those companies will include an Internet giant like Amazon or Google.
The unknown for me in the equation is the impact of self-publishing. In November, 1999, Barnes & Noble bought a 49% stake in iUniverse. Borders is now talking about offering self-publishing services. Other companies are bound to jump into the business.
The two biggest obstacles self-publishing faces are its poor image and the lack of a filtering system. Vanity presses polluted the pool by printing any crap that came along as long as it was accompanied by cash. Until the self-publishing industry develops a filter system to weed out the poorly written stuff, every self-published writer, even the ones writing good material, will bear a stigma.
I've said it before: I suspect the lines between publisher, distributor, bookstore and author are going to start blurring. Unusual agreements among the different parties are likely to emerge. It's possible for an Internet bookseller or marketer to sign a contract with a writer, leaving the traditional publisher out of the picture altogether. And what's to stop a group of authors who already have name brand recognition from joining together to market their e-books?
That's why Simon & Schuster's posturing doesn't bother me. They're standing on shifting soil.
It will be interesting to see what does happen.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Finally!!!
Today was the monthly meeting for my RWA chapter. I sat at a table with fellow writer Shelley Bradley. Shelley and I met two years ago when we were involved in helping to found the Passionate Ink chapter of RWA. Her website is here.
I mentioned that the placeholder was up for my forthcoming book on the Amazon and Borders websites, but not Barnes & Noble. Shelley said, "Oh, your placeholder is up on B&N, too. I checked earlier this week. I'm waiting for yours to go up because my next book is due out thirty days after yours."
I came home to check, and there it was here.
Can the cover be far behind?
Shelley also told me to encourage pre-orders to B&N rather than Amazon or Borders because it will force my ratings up.
Going out to dinner. I'll be back later tonight with tomorrow's post.
I mentioned that the placeholder was up for my forthcoming book on the Amazon and Borders websites, but not Barnes & Noble. Shelley said, "Oh, your placeholder is up on B&N, too. I checked earlier this week. I'm waiting for yours to go up because my next book is due out thirty days after yours."
I came home to check, and there it was here.
Can the cover be far behind?
Shelley also told me to encourage pre-orders to B&N rather than Amazon or Borders because it will force my ratings up.
Going out to dinner. I'll be back later tonight with tomorrow's post.
Odds and Ends
This is a two-post day. As promised, I've given further comment on the Simon & Schuster debacle below.
Miss Snark has announced her retirement here. After almost two years of reading her blog every day, I'm feeling lost. She was kind enough to send me an email beforehand, but it still hasn't really sunk in yet.
A friend, Michael Richardson, a 15-year-old bluegrass guitar prodigy, is playing in the Fire on the Strings competition in Houston this weekend during the Bay Area Bluegrass Association Festival here. Michael first played on the stage at the Grand Ole Opry at age six, and I'm sending good wishes his way. His mother, Julie, a good friend, has promised to call me from Houston when the judging finishes around 1:00 PM today.
And I just had to open my big mouth. Earlier this week, I said that Dinah, my black-and-white kitten has been losing her collar and nametag on an average of once every six weeks. Well, she achieved a new personal best by losing her latest collar and tag in F*I*V*E days. Guess that will teach me. And I'll be making another trip to Petco this weekend.
Keep reading below.
Miss Snark has announced her retirement here. After almost two years of reading her blog every day, I'm feeling lost. She was kind enough to send me an email beforehand, but it still hasn't really sunk in yet.
A friend, Michael Richardson, a 15-year-old bluegrass guitar prodigy, is playing in the Fire on the Strings competition in Houston this weekend during the Bay Area Bluegrass Association Festival here. Michael first played on the stage at the Grand Ole Opry at age six, and I'm sending good wishes his way. His mother, Julie, a good friend, has promised to call me from Houston when the judging finishes around 1:00 PM today.
And I just had to open my big mouth. Earlier this week, I said that Dinah, my black-and-white kitten has been losing her collar and nametag on an average of once every six weeks. Well, she achieved a new personal best by losing her latest collar and tag in F*I*V*E days. Guess that will teach me. And I'll be making another trip to Petco this weekend.
Keep reading below.
Authors Guild and Simon & Schuster
I was out Thursday evening and got home late. I saw the emails about the Authors Guild press release and had an immediate negative response. I finished the post I had started in the morning and added a second one on the Authors Guild alert before going to bed around 1 AM.
Friday morning I awoke, refreshed, with that press release on my mind. I remembered how badly the Authors Guild mishandled the Google Book Search initative in 2005. On 9/5/05, they filed suit against Google, claiming copyright infringement. You can find an independent analysis of that lawsuit here.
The last I heard on that lawsuit, Authors Guild v. Google had been pushed back to January, 2008. I just checked with Justia.com here and found this: "Motions for Summary Judgment, if any, shall be filed Tuesday, March 11, 2008. The pretrial conference previously scheduled for 3/12/07 is adjourned. (Signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo on 1/3/07)."
In the event you don't agree with that analysis and would prefer a viewpoint from a layman, take a look at this article dated 11/8/05 from USA Today here. Kevin Maney, the technology expert for USA Today , had this to say about the lawsuits brought against Google: "The misinformation and misguided attempts to stop these projects are mind-blowing. The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) have sued to shut them down. Writers have been pounding out angry op-ed pieces."
Sound familiar?
I remembered all that Friday morning, and also remembered the posts I'd written in the two years since. I sat down at my laptop and wrote a short post at 7:30 AM, saying I needed more time to think about this whole matter.
Item: Up until very recently, books that were not bestsellers had a very short shelf life and, once they were removed from retailers' bookshelves, the only way to buy them was from used bookstores.
And, with the advent of the Internet, locating and buying used books got a whole lot easier. You can find a used book online and purchase it in less than five minutes without ever leaving your house.
The Book Industry Study Group (BISG) did an exhaustive study on used books about 18 months ago. They projected that, within five years, the number of used books sold will be one out of every eleven books sold.
As every writer knows, a used book purchase might eventually win you a new fan, but it doesn't put money in your pocket immediately.
Item: Then the Internet came along. Think of it as a virtual bookstore with unlimited shelf space. A book never needs to go out of print in this virtual store.
Item: Beside the Internet, another advance came along that offers to revolutionize publishing. Print-on-Demand, a digital printing technology, offers publishers an economic way to publish as few as one or two books at a time instead of having to invest in costly print runs.
Despite the vanity presses' attempts to co-op the term "Print-on-Demand" in an effort to make it synonomous with self-publishing, POD is simply a technology, not a business model. All publishers are waking up to the fact that POD can save them a LOT of money.
Not only were the old printing methods costly, there was the additional expense of warehousing the books and then dealing with all the returns when bookstores failed to sell them.
Of course, the Internet conglomerates were the first to realize the enormous potential the Worldwide Web and POD technology offered to the publishing industry. Google jumped to position itself with its Book Partners program. Read Google's invitation to publishers here.
Although some publishers screamed copyright infringement in a companion case to that of Authors Guild, a check on Justia.com here indicates there hasn't been a filing in the case in more than six months.
And, more interesting to me, less than eighteen months after filing suit, all five of the publishers listed in that second lawsuit have given permission for books to be listed with the Google Book Partners program.
Business makes strange bedfellows.
In an aside, Publishers Lunch announced on Friday that Google now has over a million full-text searchable books on display.
Amazon.com has also been positioning itself to make inroads on the publishing industry. Amazon purchased a POD company, BookSurge, in 2005. Exactly a year ago today Amazon began talking about a new service for publishers here. Amazon announced the program this way: "Books are printed as they are ordered, providing publishers an easy and economical way to bring back out-of-print titles and introduce new, lower-volume titles."
This is Chris Anderson's The Long Tail at work. Anderson argued that, over time, a mid-list book on the Internet could sell as many copies as a best seller does in a couple of weeks. To read more about Anderson, go here.
Amazon is saying, "List your book with us instead of doing a costly print run, having to warehouse the books, and then wait for bookstores to return half of them to you for disposal. We will only print and ship a book when an order comes in for it. You'll have a 100% sell-through."
And don't forget eBay. By its purchases of PayPal, Skype and a dozen auction sites, eBay has been very direct in describing its role in Internet commerce: "eBay CEO Meg Whitman told investors in a conference call that she hoped a power trio of eBay, Paypal and Skype would deliver an 'unparalleled e-commerce and communications engine'." (C/Net News)
Many readers now go to eBay first when seeking to buy a used book. eBay hasn't made the kind of direct approach to publishers that Google and Amazon have. Frankly, I suspect eBay could turn the self-publishing world on its ear by offering marketing services to self-pubbed writers.
Item: Although it took them a while to catch on, the seven largest publishers are quickly making up ground. Both Random House and HarperCollins have developed widgets to allow them to offer their own versions of the "Search Inside" program. Over the last year, I've reported on many other upgrades and plans to move into other forms of media by all the big publishing house.
Item: Friday's Publishers Lunch (PL) had an interesting statement in its post about the Author Guild/Simon & Schuster issue:
The practical question for agents and authors, yet to be given a thorough test from agents we spoke to, is whether this is a revision of starting contract language or a firm move towards a new policy. Indeed the standard S&S boilerplate agreement did not include minimum sales thresholds, though this clause was readily negotiated.
In other words, PL is saying the current S&S contract doesn't include the minimum sales language either. It's negotiated on a case-by-case basis as authors and authors' representatives are smart enough to bring it up.
I believe this because my contract also did not contain that language. My agent had it added.
I'm not an agent or an attorney, but it strikes me that, so far, this affair has been a tempest in a teapot. Sure, Simon & Schuster would be advantaged to keep control of your rights as long as possible. But that's why writers have agents. To negotiate these things.
I also think it's a great idea that authors are being warned about the need to read their contracts carefully--the whole contract. And to pay special care to the issue of reversion of rights. I've been saying the same thing for at least a year, most recently four days ago here.
I've spent twenty years reading contracts in a variety of jobs, but I still had an attorney vet my agent's contract, and I'm grateful to have my agent vetting my publisher's contract. No one should sign a contract without due diligence.
I'm going to stop here. I'll return to this subject tomorrow with why I believe publishers are going to have to start offering BETTER deals to writers, not worse ones.
Friday morning I awoke, refreshed, with that press release on my mind. I remembered how badly the Authors Guild mishandled the Google Book Search initative in 2005. On 9/5/05, they filed suit against Google, claiming copyright infringement. You can find an independent analysis of that lawsuit here.
The last I heard on that lawsuit, Authors Guild v. Google had been pushed back to January, 2008. I just checked with Justia.com here and found this: "Motions for Summary Judgment, if any, shall be filed Tuesday, March 11, 2008. The pretrial conference previously scheduled for 3/12/07 is adjourned. (Signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo on 1/3/07)."
In the event you don't agree with that analysis and would prefer a viewpoint from a layman, take a look at this article dated 11/8/05 from USA Today here. Kevin Maney, the technology expert for USA Today , had this to say about the lawsuits brought against Google: "The misinformation and misguided attempts to stop these projects are mind-blowing. The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) have sued to shut them down. Writers have been pounding out angry op-ed pieces."
Sound familiar?
I remembered all that Friday morning, and also remembered the posts I'd written in the two years since. I sat down at my laptop and wrote a short post at 7:30 AM, saying I needed more time to think about this whole matter.
Item: Up until very recently, books that were not bestsellers had a very short shelf life and, once they were removed from retailers' bookshelves, the only way to buy them was from used bookstores.
And, with the advent of the Internet, locating and buying used books got a whole lot easier. You can find a used book online and purchase it in less than five minutes without ever leaving your house.
The Book Industry Study Group (BISG) did an exhaustive study on used books about 18 months ago. They projected that, within five years, the number of used books sold will be one out of every eleven books sold.
As every writer knows, a used book purchase might eventually win you a new fan, but it doesn't put money in your pocket immediately.
Item: Then the Internet came along. Think of it as a virtual bookstore with unlimited shelf space. A book never needs to go out of print in this virtual store.
Item: Beside the Internet, another advance came along that offers to revolutionize publishing. Print-on-Demand, a digital printing technology, offers publishers an economic way to publish as few as one or two books at a time instead of having to invest in costly print runs.
Despite the vanity presses' attempts to co-op the term "Print-on-Demand" in an effort to make it synonomous with self-publishing, POD is simply a technology, not a business model. All publishers are waking up to the fact that POD can save them a LOT of money.
Not only were the old printing methods costly, there was the additional expense of warehousing the books and then dealing with all the returns when bookstores failed to sell them.
Of course, the Internet conglomerates were the first to realize the enormous potential the Worldwide Web and POD technology offered to the publishing industry. Google jumped to position itself with its Book Partners program. Read Google's invitation to publishers here.
Although some publishers screamed copyright infringement in a companion case to that of Authors Guild, a check on Justia.com here indicates there hasn't been a filing in the case in more than six months.
And, more interesting to me, less than eighteen months after filing suit, all five of the publishers listed in that second lawsuit have given permission for books to be listed with the Google Book Partners program.
In an aside, Publishers Lunch announced on Friday that Google now has over a million full-text searchable books on display.
Amazon.com has also been positioning itself to make inroads on the publishing industry. Amazon purchased a POD company, BookSurge, in 2005. Exactly a year ago today Amazon began talking about a new service for publishers here. Amazon announced the program this way: "Books are printed as they are ordered, providing publishers an easy and economical way to bring back out-of-print titles and introduce new, lower-volume titles."
This is Chris Anderson's The Long Tail at work. Anderson argued that, over time, a mid-list book on the Internet could sell as many copies as a best seller does in a couple of weeks. To read more about Anderson, go here.
Amazon is saying, "List your book with us instead of doing a costly print run, having to warehouse the books, and then wait for bookstores to return half of them to you for disposal. We will only print and ship a book when an order comes in for it. You'll have a 100% sell-through."
And don't forget eBay. By its purchases of PayPal, Skype and a dozen auction sites, eBay has been very direct in describing its role in Internet commerce: "eBay CEO Meg Whitman told investors in a conference call that she hoped a power trio of eBay, Paypal and Skype would deliver an 'unparalleled e-commerce and communications engine'." (C/Net News)
Many readers now go to eBay first when seeking to buy a used book. eBay hasn't made the kind of direct approach to publishers that Google and Amazon have. Frankly, I suspect eBay could turn the self-publishing world on its ear by offering marketing services to self-pubbed writers.
Item: Although it took them a while to catch on, the seven largest publishers are quickly making up ground. Both Random House and HarperCollins have developed widgets to allow them to offer their own versions of the "Search Inside" program. Over the last year, I've reported on many other upgrades and plans to move into other forms of media by all the big publishing house.
Item: Friday's Publishers Lunch (PL) had an interesting statement in its post about the Author Guild/Simon & Schuster issue:
The practical question for agents and authors, yet to be given a thorough test from agents we spoke to, is whether this is a revision of starting contract language or a firm move towards a new policy. Indeed the standard S&S boilerplate agreement did not include minimum sales thresholds, though this clause was readily negotiated.
In other words, PL is saying the current S&S contract doesn't include the minimum sales language either. It's negotiated on a case-by-case basis as authors and authors' representatives are smart enough to bring it up.
I believe this because my contract also did not contain that language. My agent had it added.
I'm not an agent or an attorney, but it strikes me that, so far, this affair has been a tempest in a teapot. Sure, Simon & Schuster would be advantaged to keep control of your rights as long as possible. But that's why writers have agents. To negotiate these things.
I also think it's a great idea that authors are being warned about the need to read their contracts carefully--the whole contract. And to pay special care to the issue of reversion of rights. I've been saying the same thing for at least a year, most recently four days ago here.
I've spent twenty years reading contracts in a variety of jobs, but I still had an attorney vet my agent's contract, and I'm grateful to have my agent vetting my publisher's contract. No one should sign a contract without due diligence.
I'm going to stop here. I'll return to this subject tomorrow with why I believe publishers are going to have to start offering BETTER deals to writers, not worse ones.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Simon & Schuster Takes A Bold Step
7:30 AM--I wrote this post at midnight last night. Since then, it has occurred to me that the Authors Guild were the ones who sued Google for its Book Search program. And, quite frankly, they had NO idea what they were talking about. See my explanation here.
As I think about it now, it's probable that they are knee-jerking again. I'll explain more later today after I have time to think about it.
-----------------------------
The Authors Guild, which bills itself as "the nation's largest and oldest society of published authors," issued a press release today.
The release said, in part:
NEW YORK-- Simon & Schuster [S&S], one of the largest book publishers in the U.S., has altered its standard contract with authors in an effort to retain control of books even after they have gone out of print. Until now, Simon & Schuster, like all other major trade publishers, has followed the traditional practice in which rights to a work revert to the author if the book falls out of print or if its sales are low.
The new contract would allow Simon & Schuster to consider a book in print, and under its exclusive control, so long as it’s available in any form, including through its own in-house database -- even if no copies are available to be ordered by traditional bookstores.
With the new contract language, the publisher would be able stop printing a book and prevent the author from publishing it with any other house. "A publisher is meant to publish, to get out there and sell our books,” said Authors Guild president Roy Blount Jr. "A publishing house is not supposed to be a place where our books are permanently squirreled away.”
All major trade publishers have been willing to acknowledge the requirement of some minimum level of economic activity in order for them to retain exclusive rights to a manuscript. Typically, such clauses obligate a publisher to sell a few hundred books a year. Simon & Schuster has been signaling, however, that it will no longer accept a minimum sales threshold.
This is huge. Now, when you sign a contact with S&S, you are essentially giving them ownership of your work. You can no longer place it with other publishers--EVER.
In my present contract, my agent inserted a clause indicating that--unless my publisher sells a certain number of books per year--the rights revert to me upon my written request for their return.
I can understand S&S's thinking (without agreeing with them). I've been talking about the concept for nearly a year. What it boils down to is: With the Internet, a book can remain "in print" forever. They're simply trying to take advantage of that and use their new contract to lock in a right they're not entitled to. AND by removing the requirement that they sell a certain number of books a year, they're making it impossible for you to ever get your rights back.
This approach even removes any requirement that they include your book in an online catalog of their offerings to encourage readers to find and purchase the book. That's a crock.
IMHO, reality is that the Internet has the capacity to make publishers redundant, meaning, the Internet may make it possible for writers to be in a position to publish their work without the assistance of a publisher.
I'll talk about that more tomorrow.
In the meantime, read on. This is a two-post day.
As I think about it now, it's probable that they are knee-jerking again. I'll explain more later today after I have time to think about it.
-----------------------------
The Authors Guild, which bills itself as "the nation's largest and oldest society of published authors," issued a press release today.
The release said, in part:
NEW YORK-- Simon & Schuster [S&S], one of the largest book publishers in the U.S., has altered its standard contract with authors in an effort to retain control of books even after they have gone out of print. Until now, Simon & Schuster, like all other major trade publishers, has followed the traditional practice in which rights to a work revert to the author if the book falls out of print or if its sales are low.
The new contract would allow Simon & Schuster to consider a book in print, and under its exclusive control, so long as it’s available in any form, including through its own in-house database -- even if no copies are available to be ordered by traditional bookstores.
With the new contract language, the publisher would be able stop printing a book and prevent the author from publishing it with any other house. "A publisher is meant to publish, to get out there and sell our books,” said Authors Guild president Roy Blount Jr. "A publishing house is not supposed to be a place where our books are permanently squirreled away.”
All major trade publishers have been willing to acknowledge the requirement of some minimum level of economic activity in order for them to retain exclusive rights to a manuscript. Typically, such clauses obligate a publisher to sell a few hundred books a year. Simon & Schuster has been signaling, however, that it will no longer accept a minimum sales threshold.
This is huge. Now, when you sign a contact with S&S, you are essentially giving them ownership of your work. You can no longer place it with other publishers--EVER.
In my present contract, my agent inserted a clause indicating that--unless my publisher sells a certain number of books per year--the rights revert to me upon my written request for their return.
I can understand S&S's thinking (without agreeing with them). I've been talking about the concept for nearly a year. What it boils down to is: With the Internet, a book can remain "in print" forever. They're simply trying to take advantage of that and use their new contract to lock in a right they're not entitled to. AND by removing the requirement that they sell a certain number of books a year, they're making it impossible for you to ever get your rights back.
This approach even removes any requirement that they include your book in an online catalog of their offerings to encourage readers to find and purchase the book. That's a crock.
IMHO, reality is that the Internet has the capacity to make publishers redundant, meaning, the Internet may make it possible for writers to be in a position to publish their work without the assistance of a publisher.
I'll talk about that more tomorrow.
In the meantime, read on. This is a two-post day.
Woman, Thy Name Is Frailty (Sorry, Will S)
I am not among those snobs who denigrate television. I regard my television the same way I view my microwave, Mp3 player, gas grill and stereo--tools to make life easier or more pleasant.
Having said that, my television viewing is limited, simply because I consider it a huge suck-hole for time--time I can put to better use by writing.
Apart from the 7 AM news and the 10 PM news, I confine my viewing to specific shows, which I faithfully watch EVERY week:
Tuesdays: NCIS, House, and Boston Legal
Wednesday: Criminal Minds
Saturday: SNL and Ebert and Roeper
Sunday: Meet the Press, The McLaughlin Group, Nature and Masterpiece Theater
I'm not a fan of reality shows or comedies. Both type of shows leave me cold although I have caught and enjoyed episodes of Earl and Two and a Half Men.
All this is a lead-up to a story in the May 5th edition of The New York Times (NYT) titled "The New Modern Woman, Ambitious and Feeble."
The article states that there's been "a turning point in the devolution of women’s roles in television comedy — the moment when competent-but-flaky hardened into basket case."
To support this contention, the NYT points to the women of Ally McBeal and Grey's Anatomy. The article claims "it is troubling that even in escapist fantasies, today’s heroines have to be weak, needy and oversexed to be liked by women and desired by men."
Let me say at the outset, I'm not a prude. For heaven's sake, I write erotic thrillers. An over-sexed heroine doesn't even register on my alarm scale. At the same time, after watching a couple of episodes of both shows--Ally McBeal and Grey's Anatomy--I crossed them off my viewing list.
Why?
Neurotic women annoy me. Self-absorbed drama queens send me screaming into the night. Watching a show where the female characters are dizzy, chatty, "ever confused and self-doubting" is not entertainment to me; it's torture.
The article also reminded me of a post I did last year about my history with the film Pretty Woman. Read it here.
To paraphrase, I agree with the Times: Self-deprecation should not be replaced with self-denigration.
Having said that, my television viewing is limited, simply because I consider it a huge suck-hole for time--time I can put to better use by writing.
Apart from the 7 AM news and the 10 PM news, I confine my viewing to specific shows, which I faithfully watch EVERY week:
Tuesdays: NCIS, House, and Boston Legal
Wednesday: Criminal Minds
Saturday: SNL and Ebert and Roeper
Sunday: Meet the Press, The McLaughlin Group, Nature and Masterpiece Theater
I'm not a fan of reality shows or comedies. Both type of shows leave me cold although I have caught and enjoyed episodes of Earl and Two and a Half Men.
All this is a lead-up to a story in the May 5th edition of The New York Times (NYT) titled "The New Modern Woman, Ambitious and Feeble."
The article states that there's been "a turning point in the devolution of women’s roles in television comedy — the moment when competent-but-flaky hardened into basket case."
To support this contention, the NYT points to the women of Ally McBeal and Grey's Anatomy. The article claims "it is troubling that even in escapist fantasies, today’s heroines have to be weak, needy and oversexed to be liked by women and desired by men."
Let me say at the outset, I'm not a prude. For heaven's sake, I write erotic thrillers. An over-sexed heroine doesn't even register on my alarm scale. At the same time, after watching a couple of episodes of both shows--Ally McBeal and Grey's Anatomy--I crossed them off my viewing list.
Why?
Neurotic women annoy me. Self-absorbed drama queens send me screaming into the night. Watching a show where the female characters are dizzy, chatty, "ever confused and self-doubting" is not entertainment to me; it's torture.
The article also reminded me of a post I did last year about my history with the film Pretty Woman. Read it here.
To paraphrase, I agree with the Times: Self-deprecation should not be replaced with self-denigration.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Cussler Lawsuit Ends
After nearly fourteen weeks, the cross lawsuits between novelist Clive Cussler and Philip Anschutz (and his production company Crusader Entertainment) have come to an end.
Following eight days of deliberation, the jury returned verdicts--although they reported coming close to telling the judge they were hung.
For background on this case, go here.
Here's what the jury decided:
1) They found that Cussler had breached his contract and must pay Crusader Entertainment (now Bristol Bay Productions) $5 million.
2) They found that Crusader still owed Cussler for the second book in his $20 million two-book deal. However, instead of awarding Cussler the $40 million he was seeking, they gave him $8.5 million.
3) They found that Cussler had fraudulently misrepresented the number of books he's sold during negotiations, but that no harm had been done. Therefore, the jury did not award either actual or punitive damages. Anschutz was asking for $115 million.
Of course, both sides are claiming victory. According to the Los Angeles Times, Cussler's attorney said, "We feel like Cussler is the clear winner."
Meanwhile, Anschutz' lawyer said, "It's a complete victory" for his client.
It sounds like the jury didn't have any sympathy for Anchutz' claims to have lost over $100 million on the movie Sahara. When you make a stupid deal, you can expect to pay.
At the same time Anschutz can take comfort in having seen Cussler thoroughly embarrassed day after day during his testimony on the stand.
Read on. It's a two-post day.
Following eight days of deliberation, the jury returned verdicts--although they reported coming close to telling the judge they were hung.
For background on this case, go here.
Here's what the jury decided:
1) They found that Cussler had breached his contract and must pay Crusader Entertainment (now Bristol Bay Productions) $5 million.
2) They found that Crusader still owed Cussler for the second book in his $20 million two-book deal. However, instead of awarding Cussler the $40 million he was seeking, they gave him $8.5 million.
3) They found that Cussler had fraudulently misrepresented the number of books he's sold during negotiations, but that no harm had been done. Therefore, the jury did not award either actual or punitive damages. Anschutz was asking for $115 million.
Of course, both sides are claiming victory. According to the Los Angeles Times, Cussler's attorney said, "We feel like Cussler is the clear winner."
Meanwhile, Anschutz' lawyer said, "It's a complete victory" for his client.
It sounds like the jury didn't have any sympathy for Anchutz' claims to have lost over $100 million on the movie Sahara. When you make a stupid deal, you can expect to pay.
At the same time Anschutz can take comfort in having seen Cussler thoroughly embarrassed day after day during his testimony on the stand.
Read on. It's a two-post day.
An Archeology Dig, Metaphorically Speaking
I save every receipt I'm given--every grocery purchase, every clothing purchase, every restaurant meal and every gas station receipt.
Why? There's a deduction to be had for the sales tax. As an example, in Texas, every gallon of gas comes with a twenty cent sales tax.
Over time, I've found that I can deduct more than $500 a year for sales taxes, depending on how faithfully I've collected those receipts. A couple of times a year, I sit down to run a calculator tape on a batch of receipts.
The task would go much faster if I would just total the sales tax numbers. But I frequently find myself stopping to look at the items purchased. With the distance offered by several months of not having seen the receipts, the exercise is almost like looking at items unearthed during an archeological dig. You also note patterns you don't pick up on while you're making the purchases.
Some of my discoveries:
1) An inordinate amount of money spent on dental floss. I'm a passionate flosser. To this day, I've never had a crown or root canal, and I'd like to shuck off this mortal coil forty years from now in the same condition.
2) Since Dinah's arrival at my house, I've replaced her collar and name tag on an average of once every six weeks. When she first came to live with me, based on lots of experience with kittens, I purchased three collars and tags at once. I buy break-away collars so that the cat doesn't end up strangled by a tree or fence post when the collar snags. And, like their lost mittens, kittens never bring their collars home.
Dinah lost all three of her new collars in two months. Each collar plus engraved name tag costs $16 ($1.30 in sales tax).
The good news: If Dinah runs true to form, by the time she is two years old, she'll stop losing her collars, meaning she'll learn to crawl through only those holes that her whiskers can clear. Tribble's twenty-one and has worn the same collar for the past ten years.
3) Seafood. Until I looked at the receipts, I hadn't realized how much seafood I eat. If I'm eating alone at home, I'll toss shrimp in a pan and sautee it with green peas, green onions, water chestnuts, pine nuts and spinach and eat it over fettucine. I don't eat fast food--with the exception of Long John Silver's. I love their fish fillets. When I go out to dinner with friends, invariably we eat seafood at Pappadeux's or Joe's Crab Shack. My poor body has probably accumulated enough mercury to make me glow in the dark.
4) Books. Big surprise. I spend A LOT of money on books (both new and used) every month. Fortunately, now that I'm writing professionally, in addition to the sales tax, I can now deduct the cost of some of the books.
5) And, finally, there's the soup. If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you know about my obsession with soup. If not, read here.
Some day an archeologist is going to review my pile of receipts and conclude that I was a lonely librarian with gorgeous teeth, sitting home alone eating soup and fish and abusing pets to the point that they constantly ran away.
Why? There's a deduction to be had for the sales tax. As an example, in Texas, every gallon of gas comes with a twenty cent sales tax.
Over time, I've found that I can deduct more than $500 a year for sales taxes, depending on how faithfully I've collected those receipts. A couple of times a year, I sit down to run a calculator tape on a batch of receipts.
The task would go much faster if I would just total the sales tax numbers. But I frequently find myself stopping to look at the items purchased. With the distance offered by several months of not having seen the receipts, the exercise is almost like looking at items unearthed during an archeological dig. You also note patterns you don't pick up on while you're making the purchases.
Some of my discoveries:
1) An inordinate amount of money spent on dental floss. I'm a passionate flosser. To this day, I've never had a crown or root canal, and I'd like to shuck off this mortal coil forty years from now in the same condition.
2) Since Dinah's arrival at my house, I've replaced her collar and name tag on an average of once every six weeks. When she first came to live with me, based on lots of experience with kittens, I purchased three collars and tags at once. I buy break-away collars so that the cat doesn't end up strangled by a tree or fence post when the collar snags. And, like their lost mittens, kittens never bring their collars home.
Dinah lost all three of her new collars in two months. Each collar plus engraved name tag costs $16 ($1.30 in sales tax).
The good news: If Dinah runs true to form, by the time she is two years old, she'll stop losing her collars, meaning she'll learn to crawl through only those holes that her whiskers can clear. Tribble's twenty-one and has worn the same collar for the past ten years.
3) Seafood. Until I looked at the receipts, I hadn't realized how much seafood I eat. If I'm eating alone at home, I'll toss shrimp in a pan and sautee it with green peas, green onions, water chestnuts, pine nuts and spinach and eat it over fettucine. I don't eat fast food--with the exception of Long John Silver's. I love their fish fillets. When I go out to dinner with friends, invariably we eat seafood at Pappadeux's or Joe's Crab Shack. My poor body has probably accumulated enough mercury to make me glow in the dark.
4) Books. Big surprise. I spend A LOT of money on books (both new and used) every month. Fortunately, now that I'm writing professionally, in addition to the sales tax, I can now deduct the cost of some of the books.
5) And, finally, there's the soup. If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you know about my obsession with soup. If not, read here.
Some day an archeologist is going to review my pile of receipts and conclude that I was a lonely librarian with gorgeous teeth, sitting home alone eating soup and fish and abusing pets to the point that they constantly ran away.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Time Picks The 100 Most Influential People
It's been about a year since my rant over Time's picks for the most influential people of 2006. You can read it here.
Once again, Time gamely tries to convince me that they know the 100 people who shape MY world. And, once again, I have a bone to pick with them. But first, I want to mention an interesting article in the May 13th edition of the Christian Science Monitor. Here's a quote talking about Time:
A few months ago, the venerable newsmagazine announced that it will cut the number of paying readers that it guarantees to advertisers from 4 million to 3.25 million. Publicly, at least, Time doesn't care if 750,000 subscribers throw all those pesky renewal notices in the trash.
On the other hand, Time is reaching out to its most loyal readers through a beefed-up website, a new arrival date on newsstands, and a stable of spotlighted writers who fill its pages with commentary instead of traditional news reporting.
Why the extreme makeover? While the magazine industry is doing well as a whole, Time and its rival newsweeklies are struggling to stay afloat. Gutted by staff cuts and suffering from sluggish circulation, they're trying to figure out how to avoid the grim future facing the newspaper industry.
Time's solution is to adopt the philosophy that's ruled the wider magazine industry for years: Don't try to please all readers all of the time. Instead, just make some readers happy most of the time.
You can read the entire article here.
In thinking about the above quote, I realized that Time is hedging its bets in their choices for the 100 people that shape the world. While it includes some very righteous choices, it also includes a sprinkling of celebrities sure to please the readers of People magazine.
As we did last year, let's start with the Artists and Entertainers. Twenty-two people are listed under that category. Let's look at the demographics, shall we?
Eighteen white (82%), three black (14%), and one Hispanic (4%). Thirteen male and nine female. Twelve (more than half) are involved in the television or movie industry as stars, producers or directors. Six musicians, two writers, two in the clothing industry (designer and model). Not a single visual artist. No painter, no sculptor, no architect.
But here's the best part: the picks.
Kate Moss. Yes, that undernourished waif who has appeared on over 300 magazine covers as well as some newspapers (where she was pictured doing coke). Yeah, that's influential on a cosmic scale. The reason Time gives for her inclusion: "Her kind of prolonged cool takes not just hard work and great bones, but also an infallible chic-tracking system." Sweet mercy.
But I can top that. Another of the entertainers who shape my world: Justin Timberlake. Time's justification: "It's as if Justin had been born 26 years ago to deliver music to the world."
I kid you not.
Words fail.
Let's move on to the Heroes and Pioneers before I commit hara-kiri with a rusty spoon.
Demographics first. Nineteen total. Eleven white (58%), five black (26%) and three Asians (16%). Thirteen men and six females.
This is a little bit of a funky category because Scientists and Thinkers have their own category. So you don't have any scientist or philosopher pioneers here. What you do have are five heroes: an American military officer; the man who threw himself over another man on the New York subway tracks; two people (Michael J. Fox and Elizabeth Edwards) who are handling progressive, fatal diseases; and a man sent to Syria by the U.S. government to be tortured as a potential terrorist.
There are also four obligatory sports heroes, plus a crusader against tobacco use, a Chinese blogger, a man documenting the genocide of Cambodians and an Egyptian urging Muslims to live in peace with the west.
Oh, by the way, Tyra Banks has been promoted from her standing as an Artist and Entertainer in 2006 to a Hero and Pioneer in 2007. The reason: Her willingness to "speak out to girls and young women about embracing their bodies in all sizes."
I look forward to seeing her listed as a Scientist and Thinker next year.
If you want to read the whole 2007 list, go here.
Once again, Time gamely tries to convince me that they know the 100 people who shape MY world. And, once again, I have a bone to pick with them. But first, I want to mention an interesting article in the May 13th edition of the Christian Science Monitor. Here's a quote talking about Time:
A few months ago, the venerable newsmagazine announced that it will cut the number of paying readers that it guarantees to advertisers from 4 million to 3.25 million. Publicly, at least, Time doesn't care if 750,000 subscribers throw all those pesky renewal notices in the trash.
On the other hand, Time is reaching out to its most loyal readers through a beefed-up website, a new arrival date on newsstands, and a stable of spotlighted writers who fill its pages with commentary instead of traditional news reporting.
Why the extreme makeover? While the magazine industry is doing well as a whole, Time and its rival newsweeklies are struggling to stay afloat. Gutted by staff cuts and suffering from sluggish circulation, they're trying to figure out how to avoid the grim future facing the newspaper industry.
Time's solution is to adopt the philosophy that's ruled the wider magazine industry for years: Don't try to please all readers all of the time. Instead, just make some readers happy most of the time.
You can read the entire article here.
In thinking about the above quote, I realized that Time is hedging its bets in their choices for the 100 people that shape the world. While it includes some very righteous choices, it also includes a sprinkling of celebrities sure to please the readers of People magazine.
As we did last year, let's start with the Artists and Entertainers. Twenty-two people are listed under that category. Let's look at the demographics, shall we?
Eighteen white (82%), three black (14%), and one Hispanic (4%). Thirteen male and nine female. Twelve (more than half) are involved in the television or movie industry as stars, producers or directors. Six musicians, two writers, two in the clothing industry (designer and model). Not a single visual artist. No painter, no sculptor, no architect.
But here's the best part: the picks.
Kate Moss. Yes, that undernourished waif who has appeared on over 300 magazine covers as well as some newspapers (where she was pictured doing coke). Yeah, that's influential on a cosmic scale. The reason Time gives for her inclusion: "Her kind of prolonged cool takes not just hard work and great bones, but also an infallible chic-tracking system." Sweet mercy.
But I can top that. Another of the entertainers who shape my world: Justin Timberlake. Time's justification: "It's as if Justin had been born 26 years ago to deliver music to the world."
I kid you not.
Words fail.
Let's move on to the Heroes and Pioneers before I commit hara-kiri with a rusty spoon.
Demographics first. Nineteen total. Eleven white (58%), five black (26%) and three Asians (16%). Thirteen men and six females.
This is a little bit of a funky category because Scientists and Thinkers have their own category. So you don't have any scientist or philosopher pioneers here. What you do have are five heroes: an American military officer; the man who threw himself over another man on the New York subway tracks; two people (Michael J. Fox and Elizabeth Edwards) who are handling progressive, fatal diseases; and a man sent to Syria by the U.S. government to be tortured as a potential terrorist.
There are also four obligatory sports heroes, plus a crusader against tobacco use, a Chinese blogger, a man documenting the genocide of Cambodians and an Egyptian urging Muslims to live in peace with the west.
Oh, by the way, Tyra Banks has been promoted from her standing as an Artist and Entertainer in 2006 to a Hero and Pioneer in 2007. The reason: Her willingness to "speak out to girls and young women about embracing their bodies in all sizes."
I look forward to seeing her listed as a Scientist and Thinker next year.
If you want to read the whole 2007 list, go here.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Witching Hour Approaches
There's a deadline looming for Hollywood.
On October 31, the three-year contract between the studios and the writers expires. Then, next year, the contract between the studios and actors and directors also runs out.
According to the Associated Press, "Both the WGA (Writers Guild of America) and Screen Actors Guild elected new leaders after the current contracts were signed who have promised to get tougher with studios."
One sign of that toughness was the WGA's refusal to yield to the studios' request to start talks at the start of this year in January. The WGA refused to meet until July--three months before the end of the contract.
As a result, the studios are taking defensive action. They are speeding up production on television programs and movies and also looking for unscripted programs (like reality and game shows) that don't require writers.
By stockpiling shows, the studios hope to innoculate themselves against the possibility of a writers' strike.
"The last time writers struck was in 1988, a bitter five-month walkout. In 2001, studios also stockpiled scripts and accelerated production in anticipation of a strike."
NBC's Las Vegas started shooting three months early, hoping to get as many as 24 episodes filmed before the end of the contract. This would be three times the number of episodes the show would normally expect to have completed by October 31.
Part of the problem is the feeling that writers have that they have been cut out of profits from emerging technologies--"how much TV and film writers should be paid when their work is distributed on new media platforms, including the Internet, cell phones, digital media players and other devices. The writers argue the payments--modeled after the structures used for DVD rights--are too low."
Steve Bochco--creator of NYPD Blue--believes the writers and actors' guilds feel they got the short end of the stick in their contracts when it came to new technologies.
Like publishing houses, most studios are now owned by mega-corporations with deep pockets. These conglomerates can hold out longer in a strike than the studios of old.
However, at a time when viewers are deserting network television, neither side wants to risk losing loyal viewers by a prolonged strike that could antagonize fans.
There's a lesson here for all writers. What does your contract say with respect to video and audio rights? How about when the rights revert back to you? Do you have language that sets specific benchmarks for the revision of those rights?
My agent paid particular attention to these matters.
Don't accept the argument that "this is a standard contract." Everything is subject to negotiation. EVERYTHING.
On October 31, the three-year contract between the studios and the writers expires. Then, next year, the contract between the studios and actors and directors also runs out.
According to the Associated Press, "Both the WGA (Writers Guild of America) and Screen Actors Guild elected new leaders after the current contracts were signed who have promised to get tougher with studios."
One sign of that toughness was the WGA's refusal to yield to the studios' request to start talks at the start of this year in January. The WGA refused to meet until July--three months before the end of the contract.
As a result, the studios are taking defensive action. They are speeding up production on television programs and movies and also looking for unscripted programs (like reality and game shows) that don't require writers.
By stockpiling shows, the studios hope to innoculate themselves against the possibility of a writers' strike.
"The last time writers struck was in 1988, a bitter five-month walkout. In 2001, studios also stockpiled scripts and accelerated production in anticipation of a strike."
NBC's Las Vegas started shooting three months early, hoping to get as many as 24 episodes filmed before the end of the contract. This would be three times the number of episodes the show would normally expect to have completed by October 31.
Part of the problem is the feeling that writers have that they have been cut out of profits from emerging technologies--"how much TV and film writers should be paid when their work is distributed on new media platforms, including the Internet, cell phones, digital media players and other devices. The writers argue the payments--modeled after the structures used for DVD rights--are too low."
Steve Bochco--creator of NYPD Blue--believes the writers and actors' guilds feel they got the short end of the stick in their contracts when it came to new technologies.
Like publishing houses, most studios are now owned by mega-corporations with deep pockets. These conglomerates can hold out longer in a strike than the studios of old.
However, at a time when viewers are deserting network television, neither side wants to risk losing loyal viewers by a prolonged strike that could antagonize fans.
There's a lesson here for all writers. What does your contract say with respect to video and audio rights? How about when the rights revert back to you? Do you have language that sets specific benchmarks for the revision of those rights?
My agent paid particular attention to these matters.
Don't accept the argument that "this is a standard contract." Everything is subject to negotiation. EVERYTHING.
Monday, May 14, 2007
What Did I Tell You?
It's been less than 24 hours since they went on sale, and over a quarter of the seats for the Passionate Ink luncheon at RWA National are already gone.
Last year's luncheon was such a success, I'm guessing word-of-mouth is pushing this year's sales.
Back later . . .
Last year's luncheon was such a success, I'm guessing word-of-mouth is pushing this year's sales.
Back later . . .
The Business of Best Sellers
The New York Times had an article on Sunday titled "The Greatest Mystery: Making a Best Seller."
Any writer reading it is likely to shake his/her head in frustration because the bottom line of the story can be summed up in two quotes:
From William Strachan, editor in chief at Carroll & Graf Publishers: "It's an accidental profession, most of the time . . . Nobody has the key."
From an anonymous editor: "People think publishing is a business, but it's a casino."
Well, that's encouraging.
There were some interesting observations, comparing publishing to other industries, which use consumer feedback and the latest technology to understand their customers. The article's author, Shira Boss, claims that information mostly flows one way--from publishers to readers via announcements of forthcoming releases. Rarely does feedback go from the reader to the publisher.
There have been a couple of exceptions to this one-way information flow: Amazon.com's initiative to allow readers to comment on books they've read was a novelty for the industry.
The other exception the article mentions is the research collected by the Romance Writers of America (RWA) that is regularly reported in a market study of the romance readership.
The article explains that the advance payment to the author is often "an estimate of the first year's royalties, usually ten percent to fifteen percent of expected sales." The advance does not have to be repaid by the author if the expected sales don't materialize.
The story was filled with anecdotes of overestimated royalties (the author of Cold Mountain was paid more than eight million dollars for his second novel, which probably has earned less than one million dollars to date).
On the other hand, the author of Prep was paid a mere $40,000 advance, and Random House ran only 13,000 copies of the novel in its initial print run. The hardcover sold more than 133,000 copies while the paperback has sold 329,000 copies to date. The author was then paid a hefty advance for her second book, which hasn't done nearly as well as Prep did.
The Times claims there are "two ways for a book to become a best seller. One is to make it on to a best-seller list by selling many copies in a week. Other books sell steadily over months and years, eventually outselling many official best sellers."
In the case of the first method, the publisher helped Prep by giving it "a catchy title and book cover and creative marketing and publicity. A team of four publicists made belts that matched the cover for giveaways, and sent splashy gift bags (holding pink and green flip-flops, the belt, notebooks, lip gloss) with the galleys to magazines. The pitch letter included photocopies of the publicists' own high school yearbook photos."
That second method is, of course, reminiscent of Chris Anderson's The Long Tail. If you've forgotten it, go back and read my three-part series for the middle of July, 2006. I'll link you to Part II here.
Until a better method is developed, publishers will continue to use the tried-and-true one: "In estimating value, editors rely heavily on an author's previous sales or on sales of similar titles. Based on those figures and some analysis--about the popularity of the genre, the likely audience, the possible newsworthiness of the topic . . .--they work up profit and loss projections."
Or, as a professor at Fordham University says, "It's the way this business has run since 1640 . . . ever since then, it has been a crap shoot."
Any writer reading it is likely to shake his/her head in frustration because the bottom line of the story can be summed up in two quotes:
From William Strachan, editor in chief at Carroll & Graf Publishers: "It's an accidental profession, most of the time . . . Nobody has the key."
From an anonymous editor: "People think publishing is a business, but it's a casino."
Well, that's encouraging.
There were some interesting observations, comparing publishing to other industries, which use consumer feedback and the latest technology to understand their customers. The article's author, Shira Boss, claims that information mostly flows one way--from publishers to readers via announcements of forthcoming releases. Rarely does feedback go from the reader to the publisher.
There have been a couple of exceptions to this one-way information flow: Amazon.com's initiative to allow readers to comment on books they've read was a novelty for the industry.
The other exception the article mentions is the research collected by the Romance Writers of America (RWA) that is regularly reported in a market study of the romance readership.
The article explains that the advance payment to the author is often "an estimate of the first year's royalties, usually ten percent to fifteen percent of expected sales." The advance does not have to be repaid by the author if the expected sales don't materialize.
The story was filled with anecdotes of overestimated royalties (the author of Cold Mountain was paid more than eight million dollars for his second novel, which probably has earned less than one million dollars to date).
On the other hand, the author of Prep was paid a mere $40,000 advance, and Random House ran only 13,000 copies of the novel in its initial print run. The hardcover sold more than 133,000 copies while the paperback has sold 329,000 copies to date. The author was then paid a hefty advance for her second book, which hasn't done nearly as well as Prep did.
The Times claims there are "two ways for a book to become a best seller. One is to make it on to a best-seller list by selling many copies in a week. Other books sell steadily over months and years, eventually outselling many official best sellers."
In the case of the first method, the publisher helped Prep by giving it "a catchy title and book cover and creative marketing and publicity. A team of four publicists made belts that matched the cover for giveaways, and sent splashy gift bags (holding pink and green flip-flops, the belt, notebooks, lip gloss) with the galleys to magazines. The pitch letter included photocopies of the publicists' own high school yearbook photos."
That second method is, of course, reminiscent of Chris Anderson's The Long Tail. If you've forgotten it, go back and read my three-part series for the middle of July, 2006. I'll link you to Part II here.
Until a better method is developed, publishers will continue to use the tried-and-true one: "In estimating value, editors rely heavily on an author's previous sales or on sales of similar titles. Based on those figures and some analysis--about the popularity of the genre, the likely audience, the possible newsworthiness of the topic . . .--they work up profit and loss projections."
Or, as a professor at Fordham University says, "It's the way this business has run since 1640 . . . ever since then, it has been a crap shoot."
Dorchester Is Having a Paranormal Contest
I just read on Shannon Canard's blog for Saturday here about a contest sponsored by Dorchester Publishing for unpublished paranormal writers. The deadline is short--June 1.
If you have a 80,000 to 90,000 word paranormal already finished, you might want to read the details for the contest here.
Good luck.
If you have a 80,000 to 90,000 word paranormal already finished, you might want to read the details for the contest here.
Good luck.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
RWA Is Having A Party
All kinds of things going on in the blogosphere so today will be a multi-post day.
Some of you may already be aware that the Romance Writers of America (RWA) are holding their National Conference in Dallas from July 11 to 14 this year.
To appreciate the event, you need to understand the scope of RWA. Founded in 1980 in Houston, the organization now has 9,500 members and 144 chapters. Last year's conference, which was held in Atlanta, broke attendance records with over 2,100 writers and readers in attendance.
Just in case any of you are sneering at romance, take a look at these statistics regarding romance novels:
$1.2 billion in sales each year
54.9% of all popular mass-market fiction sold
39.3% of all fiction sold
RWA reports: "With the expansion of romance novels into science fiction and military tales, . . . male readership jumped from 7 percent of romance readers in 2002 to 22 percent in 2004."
I'm just guessing here, but I'd be willing to bet that most of those male readers are reading the erotic romance sub-genre {grin}.
As you may know, I was one of the founders of the RWA erotic romance chapter, Passionate Ink (PI). Passionate Ink will be hosting its second annual luncheon at the Hyatt Regency on Friday during the conference--RWA is hosting a box lunch that same day, but the cost of the box lunch is NOT included in the conference registration fee.
Seats at the PI luncheon are limited to the first 200 paid reservations, with Inkers paying $15 for lunch and non-Inkers paying $30. I handled registrations for the lunch last year. We sold out in less than a month and ran a waiting list right up until the morning of the luncheon.
My agent is Jacky Sach of BookEnds Literary Agency (see their blog here). Jacky's partner, Jessica Faust, will be one of the speakers at the PI luncheon.
I'll be attending the conference this year--my first--along with my good friend, Marie Tuhart. The conference isn't cheap. Early bird registration (good until May 27) is $325 for RWA members and $405 for non-members. The cost jumps by $50 after May 27. And that doesn't include your hotel room. Even though I live in the area, I'll be staying at the Hyatt Regency that week.
These folk know how to throw a party. To read a copy of the program supplement, go here.
If you're planning to attend RWA National, drop me a line at mayareynoldswriter@sbcglobal.net. I'd love to meet you.
Read on for the other post for today.
Some of you may already be aware that the Romance Writers of America (RWA) are holding their National Conference in Dallas from July 11 to 14 this year.
To appreciate the event, you need to understand the scope of RWA. Founded in 1980 in Houston, the organization now has 9,500 members and 144 chapters. Last year's conference, which was held in Atlanta, broke attendance records with over 2,100 writers and readers in attendance.
Just in case any of you are sneering at romance, take a look at these statistics regarding romance novels:
$1.2 billion in sales each year
54.9% of all popular mass-market fiction sold
39.3% of all fiction sold
RWA reports: "With the expansion of romance novels into science fiction and military tales, . . . male readership jumped from 7 percent of romance readers in 2002 to 22 percent in 2004."
I'm just guessing here, but I'd be willing to bet that most of those male readers are reading the erotic romance sub-genre {grin}.
As you may know, I was one of the founders of the RWA erotic romance chapter, Passionate Ink (PI). Passionate Ink will be hosting its second annual luncheon at the Hyatt Regency on Friday during the conference--RWA is hosting a box lunch that same day, but the cost of the box lunch is NOT included in the conference registration fee.
Seats at the PI luncheon are limited to the first 200 paid reservations, with Inkers paying $15 for lunch and non-Inkers paying $30. I handled registrations for the lunch last year. We sold out in less than a month and ran a waiting list right up until the morning of the luncheon.
My agent is Jacky Sach of BookEnds Literary Agency (see their blog here). Jacky's partner, Jessica Faust, will be one of the speakers at the PI luncheon.
I'll be attending the conference this year--my first--along with my good friend, Marie Tuhart. The conference isn't cheap. Early bird registration (good until May 27) is $325 for RWA members and $405 for non-members. The cost jumps by $50 after May 27. And that doesn't include your hotel room. Even though I live in the area, I'll be staying at the Hyatt Regency that week.
These folk know how to throw a party. To read a copy of the program supplement, go here.
If you're planning to attend RWA National, drop me a line at mayareynoldswriter@sbcglobal.net. I'd love to meet you.
Read on for the other post for today.
Ready, Set, Go
Yesterday, I reported on the first of two conferences held in New York this week to discuss emerging digital technologies. Today we'll talk about the second conference: "Making Information Pay," which was sponsored by the Book Industry Study Group (BISG).
I've mentioned the BISG more than once on this blog in the past. The BISG website describes the organization as "the U.S. book industry's leading trade association for research and supply chain standards and policies." They report on annual sales in the publishing industry every spring and did that study on used books I've talked about previously.
Nicole Poindexter of Hachette Group gave the keynote address. The Friday edition of Shelf Awareness provided a report from the conference: "Consumers are reading more and more online and want pieces of information, not full texts. As a result, making chapters and other parts of traditional books available is more important. 'Consumers don't want to read a whole finance book when they're only concerned with mortgages,' Nicole Poin-
dexter . . . said."
John Rubin followed Poindexter to the podium. He reported that for every 1% drop in the returns rate, the U.S. book trade could bank $22.7 million. His talk focussed on using the Web to manage book inventory.
For the last few years, I've paid particular attention to comments made by Mike Shatzkin, a frequent consultant to the book industry. The BISG introduction to his comments said:
In recent months, about a dozen companies have moved to become the content distributors in a digital world, where consolidation appears to be even more pronounced than in physical distribution. These companies are becoming known as DADs -- Digital Asset Distributors -- and understanding their services will be essential not only for exploiting new economic models like ebooks or page pay-per-view, but also for facilitating online marketing of physical books. It is obvious to publishers that their markets are moving into large online communities like MySpace and Second Life, beyond the reach of traditional print, broadcast marketing and in-store appearances. In fact, targeted book buyers are moving into thousands of smaller, niche-oriented online communities as well.
Shatzkin is saying that publishers online will need Internet distributors in exactly the same way they now use distributors when publishing traditional books.
According to Publishers Lunch (PL), Shatzkin has identified ten or twelve DADs, including Accenture, Bibliovault, CodeMantra, CPI, Donnelly, Harper/Libre Digital, the Bookstore (Holtzbrinck/
Macmillan), Ingram Digital, Random House and Value Chain International (Gardners).
Shatzkin also introduced a whole new vocabulary of acronyms. Beside DAD for the distributors, he uses DAR for the digital asset recipients like Amazon, Google, MySpace and blogs. Publishers are now DAPs or digital asset producers.
Remember the comment from the keynote address. This is not just about whole books; it's also about parts of books. Instead of having to pay $25 to buy an entire non-fiction book, in the new digital economy, a consumer will be able to purchase just the section of the book that he needs.
Christopher Hart, a vice president from Random House, spoke after Shatzkin and said: This is "not a move against Google and Amazon" and it's "not about DRM (digital rights management), and not about e-books." It's about "having books in the Internet conversation, and it's about books versus every other media possible." (PL)
This reasoning is what led Random House to develop Insight, Random House's new widget. Shelf Awareness quoted Hart: "It's very important to think differently inhouse. We have to start talking about new products online." Random House is encouraging its writers to look at other ways to disseminate information, beyond just their books.
A marketing expert at O'Reilly Media offered this anecdote: An honors computer student said to him, "Books? You mean those things you older people use?"
It's a whole new world out there.
I've mentioned the BISG more than once on this blog in the past. The BISG website describes the organization as "the U.S. book industry's leading trade association for research and supply chain standards and policies." They report on annual sales in the publishing industry every spring and did that study on used books I've talked about previously.
Nicole Poindexter of Hachette Group gave the keynote address. The Friday edition of Shelf Awareness provided a report from the conference: "Consumers are reading more and more online and want pieces of information, not full texts. As a result, making chapters and other parts of traditional books available is more important. 'Consumers don't want to read a whole finance book when they're only concerned with mortgages,' Nicole Poin-
dexter . . . said."
John Rubin followed Poindexter to the podium. He reported that for every 1% drop in the returns rate, the U.S. book trade could bank $22.7 million. His talk focussed on using the Web to manage book inventory.
For the last few years, I've paid particular attention to comments made by Mike Shatzkin, a frequent consultant to the book industry. The BISG introduction to his comments said:
In recent months, about a dozen companies have moved to become the content distributors in a digital world, where consolidation appears to be even more pronounced than in physical distribution. These companies are becoming known as DADs -- Digital Asset Distributors -- and understanding their services will be essential not only for exploiting new economic models like ebooks or page pay-per-view, but also for facilitating online marketing of physical books. It is obvious to publishers that their markets are moving into large online communities like MySpace and Second Life, beyond the reach of traditional print, broadcast marketing and in-store appearances. In fact, targeted book buyers are moving into thousands of smaller, niche-oriented online communities as well.
Shatzkin is saying that publishers online will need Internet distributors in exactly the same way they now use distributors when publishing traditional books.
According to Publishers Lunch (PL), Shatzkin has identified ten or twelve DADs, including Accenture, Bibliovault, CodeMantra, CPI, Donnelly, Harper/Libre Digital, the Bookstore (Holtzbrinck/
Macmillan), Ingram Digital, Random House and Value Chain International (Gardners).
Shatzkin also introduced a whole new vocabulary of acronyms. Beside DAD for the distributors, he uses DAR for the digital asset recipients like Amazon, Google, MySpace and blogs. Publishers are now DAPs or digital asset producers.
Remember the comment from the keynote address. This is not just about whole books; it's also about parts of books. Instead of having to pay $25 to buy an entire non-fiction book, in the new digital economy, a consumer will be able to purchase just the section of the book that he needs.
Christopher Hart, a vice president from Random House, spoke after Shatzkin and said: This is "not a move against Google and Amazon" and it's "not about DRM (digital rights management), and not about e-books." It's about "having books in the Internet conversation, and it's about books versus every other media possible." (PL)
This reasoning is what led Random House to develop Insight, Random House's new widget. Shelf Awareness quoted Hart: "It's very important to think differently inhouse. We have to start talking about new products online." Random House is encouraging its writers to look at other ways to disseminate information, beyond just their books.
A marketing expert at O'Reilly Media offered this anecdote: An honors computer student said to him, "Books? You mean those things you older people use?"
It's a whole new world out there.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Two e-Publishing Conferences Held in New York
Yesterday, I said I wasn't particularly worried about HOW readers choose to read books. Whether they read traditional books,
e-books, or audio books isn't important to me.
I'm more concerned with the impact the increasing digitization of printed matter will have on the publishing world.
This week there were two conferences in New York that addressed this issue. Although the two conferences were not officially connected, they were both held in the McGraw-Hill Auditorium on consecutive days. The International Digital Publishing Forum's (IDPF) annual e-publishing conference was held on Wednesday, May 9th. The "Making Information Pay" seminar sponsored by the Book Industry Study Group was held May 10th.
Thursday, Publishers Weekly (PW) had an article on the IDPF conference, saying that while last year's focus was on smartphones, this year there was a debate over "when a breakthrough device or technology will make digital publishing a profitable business."
"The future is here," said Adobe System's Bill McCoy, . . . "but it's unevenly distributed." McCoy's point was that all publishers acknowledge the promise of digital distribution--they're just waiting for the 'digital tipping point,' a device, new software or a new standard to push digital distribution to the next level. (PW)
You may recall that the IDPF (formerly the Open eBook Forum) is working on a standardized format for digital content. Right now, one of the biggest problems facing e-reading devices is that they all use different formats. If a customer buys an e-reader, s/he is limited to purchasing books compatible with that reader. There are six popular formats out there at present. Rumors are that the new e-reader from Amazon.com will be a universal reader, but that device is not yet on the market.
Throughout the morning session, presenters from various companies demonstrated their e-reading devices for the audience. Sony's Ron Hawkins showcased the Sony Reader (see here for a previous blog on it). Willem Endhoven of the Dutch company iRex presented the iLiad (see here for a previous blog on it). Guiliano Muratore demonstrated Telecom Italia's Librofonino. According to Publishers Weekly, it's a "pocket-sized device with a large, flexible, rollup screen that is larger than the device when it is unfurled." See it here.
Publishers Weekly offered a second article talking about the IDPF afternoon sessions during which Google revealed that 13% of all books sold are now purchased online. Google also "discussed plans to roll out two features for Google Book Search, including paid online access to books; and a new feature called Full View . . . [p]aid online access could provide permanent access to an online edition, or consumers could rent access a week at a time . . . with publisher permission, the Full View option will allow 100% of the book to be available to consumers."
Also during the afternoon sessions, both Random House and HarperCollins talked about their widgets, "software applications that allow consumers to find book excerpts and other content."
You can see copies of the Random House slides giving stats for their Insight widget, a digital book distribution program launched February 27th, here.
The HarperCollins slide presentation is here. The HarperCollins representative "discussed the widget's role in viral marketing on the Web, noting how the Harper Browse Inside widget is being used for teen books on MySpace as well as on retailer Web sites and on all Harper e-newsletters."
Tomorrow we'll talk about the Book Industry Study Group (BISG) conference and the two themes that conference echoed from the IDPF conference.
e-books, or audio books isn't important to me.
I'm more concerned with the impact the increasing digitization of printed matter will have on the publishing world.
This week there were two conferences in New York that addressed this issue. Although the two conferences were not officially connected, they were both held in the McGraw-Hill Auditorium on consecutive days. The International Digital Publishing Forum's (IDPF) annual e-publishing conference was held on Wednesday, May 9th. The "Making Information Pay" seminar sponsored by the Book Industry Study Group was held May 10th.
Thursday, Publishers Weekly (PW) had an article on the IDPF conference, saying that while last year's focus was on smartphones, this year there was a debate over "when a breakthrough device or technology will make digital publishing a profitable business."
"The future is here," said Adobe System's Bill McCoy, . . . "but it's unevenly distributed." McCoy's point was that all publishers acknowledge the promise of digital distribution--they're just waiting for the 'digital tipping point,' a device, new software or a new standard to push digital distribution to the next level. (PW)
You may recall that the IDPF (formerly the Open eBook Forum) is working on a standardized format for digital content. Right now, one of the biggest problems facing e-reading devices is that they all use different formats. If a customer buys an e-reader, s/he is limited to purchasing books compatible with that reader. There are six popular formats out there at present. Rumors are that the new e-reader from Amazon.com will be a universal reader, but that device is not yet on the market.
Throughout the morning session, presenters from various companies demonstrated their e-reading devices for the audience. Sony's Ron Hawkins showcased the Sony Reader (see here for a previous blog on it). Willem Endhoven of the Dutch company iRex presented the iLiad (see here for a previous blog on it). Guiliano Muratore demonstrated Telecom Italia's Librofonino. According to Publishers Weekly, it's a "pocket-sized device with a large, flexible, rollup screen that is larger than the device when it is unfurled." See it here.
Publishers Weekly offered a second article talking about the IDPF afternoon sessions during which Google revealed that 13% of all books sold are now purchased online. Google also "discussed plans to roll out two features for Google Book Search, including paid online access to books; and a new feature called Full View . . . [p]aid online access could provide permanent access to an online edition, or consumers could rent access a week at a time . . . with publisher permission, the Full View option will allow 100% of the book to be available to consumers."
Also during the afternoon sessions, both Random House and HarperCollins talked about their widgets, "software applications that allow consumers to find book excerpts and other content."
You can see copies of the Random House slides giving stats for their Insight widget, a digital book distribution program launched February 27th, here.
The HarperCollins slide presentation is here. The HarperCollins representative "discussed the widget's role in viral marketing on the Web, noting how the Harper Browse Inside widget is being used for teen books on MySpace as well as on retailer Web sites and on all Harper e-newsletters."
Tomorrow we'll talk about the Book Industry Study Group (BISG) conference and the two themes that conference echoed from the IDPF conference.
Friday, May 11, 2007
April Retail Results Are In
This is a two-post day.
The April retailing results were reported early this morning by Media Post's Marketing Daily, and the title of the article said it all: "April Retail Sales Went From Worse to Wretched."
Low-cost mass marketers suffered declines: Wal-Mart had a stunning drop of 4.6% in comparable-stores sales (its worst month since it began reporting 28 years ago), Target dropped 6.1% and Kohl's took a dive of 10.5%.
The article described the teen retail category as "exceptionally gruesome" with Abercrombie & Fitch falling 15%, the Gap dropping 16% and Old Navy plunging 20%.
Department store sales were weak. J.C. Penney fell 4.7% while Federated Department Stores' same-store sales fell 2.2%.
Retail Forward, a consulting company that tracks retail sales, says its index of more than 50 retailers showed an overall decline of 1.5% in April from the prior month, compared to a 6.1% sales-weighted composite reported last month, and to a 6.7% composite reported in April of 2006, noting that warehouse clubs, dollar stores, and high-end department stores were the only retailers that managed increases.
Upscale retailer Nordstrom posted gains of 3.1% in same-store sales while Saks Fifth Avenue celebrated an 11.7% gain.
Multiple factors were listed for the disappointing April figures: Easter fell in March this year, and cool weather hurt spring apparel sales. However, the dichotomy between high-end retailers and low-end retailers indicates that that affluent are still buying. High gas prices, the slumping housing market and job losses are having an impact on lower-income shoppers.
The April retailing results were reported early this morning by Media Post's Marketing Daily, and the title of the article said it all: "April Retail Sales Went From Worse to Wretched."
Low-cost mass marketers suffered declines: Wal-Mart had a stunning drop of 4.6% in comparable-stores sales (its worst month since it began reporting 28 years ago), Target dropped 6.1% and Kohl's took a dive of 10.5%.
The article described the teen retail category as "exceptionally gruesome" with Abercrombie & Fitch falling 15%, the Gap dropping 16% and Old Navy plunging 20%.
Department store sales were weak. J.C. Penney fell 4.7% while Federated Department Stores' same-store sales fell 2.2%.
Retail Forward, a consulting company that tracks retail sales, says its index of more than 50 retailers showed an overall decline of 1.5% in April from the prior month, compared to a 6.1% sales-weighted composite reported last month, and to a 6.7% composite reported in April of 2006, noting that warehouse clubs, dollar stores, and high-end department stores were the only retailers that managed increases.
Upscale retailer Nordstrom posted gains of 3.1% in same-store sales while Saks Fifth Avenue celebrated an 11.7% gain.
Multiple factors were listed for the disappointing April figures: Easter fell in March this year, and cool weather hurt spring apparel sales. However, the dichotomy between high-end retailers and low-end retailers indicates that that affluent are still buying. High gas prices, the slumping housing market and job losses are having an impact on lower-income shoppers.
Feelings, Thoughts, and The Book
I'm a big fan of Nathan Bransford's blog, which you can find here. Nathan asks thought-provoking questions that, in turn, prompt interesting conversations.
On Wednesday, he asked about the future of books.
Reading the ensuing comment trail, I was struck by how intense people get when discussing this question. I've seen this dynamic again and again whenever the issue surfaces as to whether the physical book will be replaced by digital technology.
The only comparison I can make is to the sort of polarized debates that pop up whenever politics or religion are discussed. People immediately choose sides and then hurl verbal volleys at each other from their respective corners.
What's that about?
Both religion and politics are preoccupied with core values and moral codes. In other words, both deal with the questions of "What is right versus what is wrong?" and "How do I define my hierarchy of values; what's important to me?"
Most societies end up developing symbols for their value systems so that people who think alike can quickly identify each other. Followers of Islam have the star and crescent, Jews have the star of David and Christians have the cross. In like manner, in the U.S., the donkey is the symbol of the Democrats while the elephant is the symbol of the Republicans. These symbols become shorthand for what the individual believes in.
So what is it about the book and its place in society that prompts such fervent debate? What does the book represent to people?
Sometime back, I spent a couple of years in therapy. To this day, I think of therapy as the most luxurious thing a person can do for himself. I'd take an hour of therapy over an hour spent on a bubble bath, a manicure, or a full-body massage any day of the week.
Therapy wasn't easy. I was forced to drag things I'd rather forget out of the corners of my mind. But, in the process, I also came to understand my core values and my personal set of symbols.
I grew up in a chaotic, occasionally abusive household. Books represented stability, continuity and rationality to me. I could escape the unpredictability and sudden violence by losing myself on the printed page.
That's powerful mojo. Books became the personal charms of my childhood, the shield I used to ward off trouble. Holding a book in my hand was a comforting tactile experience, giving me the same solace a Christian might derive from holding a cross.
Although I'm now an adult, I still surround myself with books because the connection in my brain is permanent; there's an emotional association between books and "safe haven." But, intellectually, I now have some distance and can view the book as just another medium of delivery.
That's all it is--a medium of delivery. Any other importance we attach to the concept of "book" has more to do with the way we individually assign meaning to the book as a symbol than it does with the book itself.
The value of the book does not lie in its cover or its pages or its binding. The value of the book is in what it delivers--information, inspiration, entertainment, philosophy, whatever. But that same message can be delivered in multiple ways.
And the varying methods of delivery shouldn't matter. No medium of delivery is more valuable than another except insofar as individuals assign that value in terms of their convenience and personal taste. The material within will still be the same.
I said on Nathan's blog that this is not an "either/or" proposition. If you want to read your book in hardback, go for it. If Tom wants to read his in e-book format, more power to him. If Sally wants to listen to an audio book, way to go, Sally. IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Does your boss care whether you came to work on foot, by bus or in a car?
No.
Why?
Because it doesn't matter. The end result--that you arrived at work and are at your desk ready to begin the day--is the important thing.
This is about having more choices, not whether one choice is better than another. If I read Moby Dick on my PDA, I will still have read Moby Dick.
I've said before that I think ecology and economics will decide the issue of hard copy versus electronic. If a physical book is important to you and you're willing to pay the price, you'll still be able to buy one.
If you find yourself on one side or the other of the book/e-book debate and you can see nothing but your own position, I'd encourage you to think about what your choice represents to you. Do hard copy books represent tradition or authority? Do e-books represent change--either wanted or unwanted?
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer had an article on May 8 regarding Bill Gates' predictions for the future. He said:
Reading is going to go completely online . . . somewhere in the next five-year period we'll hit that transition point, and things will be even more dramatic than they are today.
While I think Mr. Gates is right, the issue is almost irrelevant to me these days.
I'm more interested in what the fallout will be.
On Wednesday, he asked about the future of books.
Reading the ensuing comment trail, I was struck by how intense people get when discussing this question. I've seen this dynamic again and again whenever the issue surfaces as to whether the physical book will be replaced by digital technology.
The only comparison I can make is to the sort of polarized debates that pop up whenever politics or religion are discussed. People immediately choose sides and then hurl verbal volleys at each other from their respective corners.
What's that about?
Both religion and politics are preoccupied with core values and moral codes. In other words, both deal with the questions of "What is right versus what is wrong?" and "How do I define my hierarchy of values; what's important to me?"
Most societies end up developing symbols for their value systems so that people who think alike can quickly identify each other. Followers of Islam have the star and crescent, Jews have the star of David and Christians have the cross. In like manner, in the U.S., the donkey is the symbol of the Democrats while the elephant is the symbol of the Republicans. These symbols become shorthand for what the individual believes in.
So what is it about the book and its place in society that prompts such fervent debate? What does the book represent to people?
Sometime back, I spent a couple of years in therapy. To this day, I think of therapy as the most luxurious thing a person can do for himself. I'd take an hour of therapy over an hour spent on a bubble bath, a manicure, or a full-body massage any day of the week.
Therapy wasn't easy. I was forced to drag things I'd rather forget out of the corners of my mind. But, in the process, I also came to understand my core values and my personal set of symbols.
I grew up in a chaotic, occasionally abusive household. Books represented stability, continuity and rationality to me. I could escape the unpredictability and sudden violence by losing myself on the printed page.
That's powerful mojo. Books became the personal charms of my childhood, the shield I used to ward off trouble. Holding a book in my hand was a comforting tactile experience, giving me the same solace a Christian might derive from holding a cross.
Although I'm now an adult, I still surround myself with books because the connection in my brain is permanent; there's an emotional association between books and "safe haven." But, intellectually, I now have some distance and can view the book as just another medium of delivery.
That's all it is--a medium of delivery. Any other importance we attach to the concept of "book" has more to do with the way we individually assign meaning to the book as a symbol than it does with the book itself.
The value of the book does not lie in its cover or its pages or its binding. The value of the book is in what it delivers--information, inspiration, entertainment, philosophy, whatever. But that same message can be delivered in multiple ways.
And the varying methods of delivery shouldn't matter. No medium of delivery is more valuable than another except insofar as individuals assign that value in terms of their convenience and personal taste. The material within will still be the same.
I said on Nathan's blog that this is not an "either/or" proposition. If you want to read your book in hardback, go for it. If Tom wants to read his in e-book format, more power to him. If Sally wants to listen to an audio book, way to go, Sally. IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Does your boss care whether you came to work on foot, by bus or in a car?
No.
Why?
Because it doesn't matter. The end result--that you arrived at work and are at your desk ready to begin the day--is the important thing.
This is about having more choices, not whether one choice is better than another. If I read Moby Dick on my PDA, I will still have read Moby Dick.
I've said before that I think ecology and economics will decide the issue of hard copy versus electronic. If a physical book is important to you and you're willing to pay the price, you'll still be able to buy one.
If you find yourself on one side or the other of the book/e-book debate and you can see nothing but your own position, I'd encourage you to think about what your choice represents to you. Do hard copy books represent tradition or authority? Do e-books represent change--either wanted or unwanted?
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer had an article on May 8 regarding Bill Gates' predictions for the future. He said:
Reading is going to go completely online . . . somewhere in the next five-year period we'll hit that transition point, and things will be even more dramatic than they are today.
While I think Mr. Gates is right, the issue is almost irrelevant to me these days.
I'm more interested in what the fallout will be.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The Cussler/Anschutz Battle Winds Down
It's been about three weeks since we last checked in with the Cussler trial out in Los Angeles. Closing arguments were held May 1 and 2, and then the case went to the jury one week ago today. They are still deliberating.
To quickly summarize what's been going on, this case is a series of cross lawsuits featuring novelist Clive Cussler and billionaire Phil Anschutz together with his film production company, Crusader Entertainment. Back in 2000, Anschutz agreed to pay Cussler $20 million for film rights to two of his novels, a deal intended to turn Cussler's hero, Dirk Pitt, into a movie star a la Indiana Jones.
The first film made under that deal, Sahara, released in the spring of 2005, reportedly lost Crusader Entertainment almost $105 million dollars. Cussler sued Anschutz, claiming he had been given contractual approval over the screenplay, but that Crusader reneged on the agreement. Anschutz cried foul and counter-sued, claiming that Cussler had committed fraud, deliberately lying about the number of books he'd sold in order to nail the film deal.
When last we checked in on the trial, Cussler was on the stand, where he admitted he'd been warned by his agent not to talk about the number of books he'd "sold." The agent told Cussler to talk instead about the number of books "in print." Of course, Cussler ignored the advice, repeatedly claiming sales of over 100 million books when, in reality, the number was closer to 42 million.
According to the LA Times, the movie made $122 million, which isn't shabby. However, it cost $160 million in production costs (twice the original budget of $80 million) and more than $81 million in distribution expense.
The link to my last post is here. The day after that post, Anschutz' attorney abruptly rested his case. Maybe I'm cynical, but it could have had something to do with a scathing article that morning by Steve Lopez in The Los Angeles Times. Lopez described the trial as "exasperating" and "torturous," keeping the jurors on "the edge of slumber" while attorneys asked the same questions again and again. A few hours later, after thirteen weeks of testimony, Anschutz' attorney unexpectedly rested his case. Probably the only people who were disappointed were those few souls who had been hoping to see Matthew McConaughey or Anschutz himself testify.
My favorite part of the case has been the line item budget for the film, which was made overseas. That budget included euphemistic explanations like "gratuity" and "courtesy payments" alongside the more honest "local bribes." Among those payments was one to halt a river improvement project in Morocco.
Neither Cussler nor Anschutz came off looking good in this trial. Cussler spent five long, ugly days on the stand during which a reporter described him looking "as as if he'd swallowed a small furry animal and had lockjaw." Anschutz didn't take the stand, but was described by the same reporter as making "the biggest boneheaded financial decision ever made by a billionaire," for giving Cussler $10 million per book and "control over things like the cast and script."
Stay tuned. I'll let you know as soon as the jury comes back.
To quickly summarize what's been going on, this case is a series of cross lawsuits featuring novelist Clive Cussler and billionaire Phil Anschutz together with his film production company, Crusader Entertainment. Back in 2000, Anschutz agreed to pay Cussler $20 million for film rights to two of his novels, a deal intended to turn Cussler's hero, Dirk Pitt, into a movie star a la Indiana Jones.
The first film made under that deal, Sahara, released in the spring of 2005, reportedly lost Crusader Entertainment almost $105 million dollars. Cussler sued Anschutz, claiming he had been given contractual approval over the screenplay, but that Crusader reneged on the agreement. Anschutz cried foul and counter-sued, claiming that Cussler had committed fraud, deliberately lying about the number of books he'd sold in order to nail the film deal.
When last we checked in on the trial, Cussler was on the stand, where he admitted he'd been warned by his agent not to talk about the number of books he'd "sold." The agent told Cussler to talk instead about the number of books "in print." Of course, Cussler ignored the advice, repeatedly claiming sales of over 100 million books when, in reality, the number was closer to 42 million.
According to the LA Times, the movie made $122 million, which isn't shabby. However, it cost $160 million in production costs (twice the original budget of $80 million) and more than $81 million in distribution expense.
The link to my last post is here. The day after that post, Anschutz' attorney abruptly rested his case. Maybe I'm cynical, but it could have had something to do with a scathing article that morning by Steve Lopez in The Los Angeles Times. Lopez described the trial as "exasperating" and "torturous," keeping the jurors on "the edge of slumber" while attorneys asked the same questions again and again. A few hours later, after thirteen weeks of testimony, Anschutz' attorney unexpectedly rested his case. Probably the only people who were disappointed were those few souls who had been hoping to see Matthew McConaughey or Anschutz himself testify.
My favorite part of the case has been the line item budget for the film, which was made overseas. That budget included euphemistic explanations like "gratuity" and "courtesy payments" alongside the more honest "local bribes." Among those payments was one to halt a river improvement project in Morocco.
Neither Cussler nor Anschutz came off looking good in this trial. Cussler spent five long, ugly days on the stand during which a reporter described him looking "as as if he'd swallowed a small furry animal and had lockjaw." Anschutz didn't take the stand, but was described by the same reporter as making "the biggest boneheaded financial decision ever made by a billionaire," for giving Cussler $10 million per book and "control over things like the cast and script."
Stay tuned. I'll let you know as soon as the jury comes back.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
A Fuddy-Duddy Speaks
Okay, the forecast is for more thunderstorms tonight. Therefore, I'm posting my Wednesday blog early in case I lose power again.
The romance industry has been on high gossip alert for the last ten days.
It started with one blogger's blistering online review of a romance writer's latest e-book release. While the review was amusing, I thought the blogger's comments went a bit further than I would have, perhaps stepping over the line into "harsh." However, learning to deal with tough reviewers is a part of every writer's job.
But that was only the beginning. Over the next few days, the comment trail to the review got really out of hand. Everyone and her brother dogpiled on top of the reviewer's critique. The tacky comments moved beyond the unfortunate writer to include her editor (by name) and her publisher. There were 71 comments to the first post and 106 comments to a follow-up post about the e-publisher the next day.
Some writers tried to deflect the stream of invective that followed. Others threw gasoline on the fire by preaching. The comment trail kept growing. Eventually, it even included one of the biggest names in romantic fiction, who added her two cents to the discussion.
I didn't finish reading the comment trails for either day. What had originally seemed amusing to me quickly deteriorated into something darker. I was particularly disturbed by the vicious glee of some of the commenters--especially those who hid behind the username "Anonymous."
Those comment trails started me thinking back to when I got serious about writing four years ago. At that time, my plan was to pen thrillers. My first efforts at networking came when I joined Sisters in Crime, thinking that was the right organization for me. Upon advice from another writer, I also checked out RWA where I was bowled over by the kindness and support I encountered. I ended up joining Romance Writers of America and have never regretted that decision. Over the last couple of years, I've decided my genre is probably romantic thrillers.
I'm firmly convinced that the help and encouragement I got from the published writers in RWA is a big part of the reason I was able to sell my first book. Multiple writers offered to critique my work. While many were tough on me, all were fair. And I never attributed their comments to anything other than a sincere desire to help my writing improve.
Bad reviews are a fact of life for artists of any stripe. However, I think it's important to distinguish "professional" critiques from "personal" attacks. A professional critique is about the work. A personal attack focuses on the artist himself.
A few days ago, during my post on networking, I quoted Howard Dean. He'd said something to the effect that the Internet was the greatest tool for democratization since the printing press.
I could not agree more. The beauty of the Internet is in the way in which it levels the playing field. Individuals now have the power to make themselves heard around the world.
There's been a lot of talk lately about newspapers dropping book reviews from their pages. While it's obviously a cost-cutting move for the papers, their editors point to the fact that readers are increasingly turning to other readers on the Internet for such reviews.
But that megaphone comes with a price. Stan Lee wrote, "With great power there must also come – great responsibility." I still remember learning that lesson as a little kid reading my first Spiderman comic.
Sure, I'm attracted to outrageous blogs. It's also human nature to slow down at trainwrecks. First, we summon help. Then we seek to give comfort to the survivors. And, somewhere deep in the recesses of our brains, we also celebrate the fact that the Grim Reaper didn't number us among his victims.
However, when stopping to rubberneck, we shouldn't choose to stomp on the exposed throats of the survivors, nor to stab the victims a couple of times ourselves.
Last month, I did a post about a new initiative to bring more civility to the blogosphere. You can read about it here. This is not a bad thing.
In closing, let me add that I am very aware I have not given the URL of the blog that prompted this post. This was a deliberate decision on my part. While I don't object to the original review, I do not choose to drive traffic to those comment streams.
Go ahead. Call me a fuddy-duddy. I'll wear the title proudly.
The romance industry has been on high gossip alert for the last ten days.
It started with one blogger's blistering online review of a romance writer's latest e-book release. While the review was amusing, I thought the blogger's comments went a bit further than I would have, perhaps stepping over the line into "harsh." However, learning to deal with tough reviewers is a part of every writer's job.
But that was only the beginning. Over the next few days, the comment trail to the review got really out of hand. Everyone and her brother dogpiled on top of the reviewer's critique. The tacky comments moved beyond the unfortunate writer to include her editor (by name) and her publisher. There were 71 comments to the first post and 106 comments to a follow-up post about the e-publisher the next day.
Some writers tried to deflect the stream of invective that followed. Others threw gasoline on the fire by preaching. The comment trail kept growing. Eventually, it even included one of the biggest names in romantic fiction, who added her two cents to the discussion.
I didn't finish reading the comment trails for either day. What had originally seemed amusing to me quickly deteriorated into something darker. I was particularly disturbed by the vicious glee of some of the commenters--especially those who hid behind the username "Anonymous."
Those comment trails started me thinking back to when I got serious about writing four years ago. At that time, my plan was to pen thrillers. My first efforts at networking came when I joined Sisters in Crime, thinking that was the right organization for me. Upon advice from another writer, I also checked out RWA where I was bowled over by the kindness and support I encountered. I ended up joining Romance Writers of America and have never regretted that decision. Over the last couple of years, I've decided my genre is probably romantic thrillers.
I'm firmly convinced that the help and encouragement I got from the published writers in RWA is a big part of the reason I was able to sell my first book. Multiple writers offered to critique my work. While many were tough on me, all were fair. And I never attributed their comments to anything other than a sincere desire to help my writing improve.
Bad reviews are a fact of life for artists of any stripe. However, I think it's important to distinguish "professional" critiques from "personal" attacks. A professional critique is about the work. A personal attack focuses on the artist himself.
A few days ago, during my post on networking, I quoted Howard Dean. He'd said something to the effect that the Internet was the greatest tool for democratization since the printing press.
I could not agree more. The beauty of the Internet is in the way in which it levels the playing field. Individuals now have the power to make themselves heard around the world.
There's been a lot of talk lately about newspapers dropping book reviews from their pages. While it's obviously a cost-cutting move for the papers, their editors point to the fact that readers are increasingly turning to other readers on the Internet for such reviews.
But that megaphone comes with a price. Stan Lee wrote, "With great power there must also come – great responsibility." I still remember learning that lesson as a little kid reading my first Spiderman comic.
Sure, I'm attracted to outrageous blogs. It's also human nature to slow down at trainwrecks. First, we summon help. Then we seek to give comfort to the survivors. And, somewhere deep in the recesses of our brains, we also celebrate the fact that the Grim Reaper didn't number us among his victims.
However, when stopping to rubberneck, we shouldn't choose to stomp on the exposed throats of the survivors, nor to stab the victims a couple of times ourselves.
Last month, I did a post about a new initiative to bring more civility to the blogosphere. You can read about it here. This is not a bad thing.
In closing, let me add that I am very aware I have not given the URL of the blog that prompted this post. This was a deliberate decision on my part. While I don't object to the original review, I do not choose to drive traffic to those comment streams.
Go ahead. Call me a fuddy-duddy. I'll wear the title proudly.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Messing With The Critics' Reviews
The New York Times had an interesting article last Sunday on critics being misquoted. It was titled "Literary Misblurbing."
A number of critics told stories in which their reviews had been deliberately twisted to give a different impression from the one they'd intended. The Time magazine critic, Lev Grossman, described an incident in which he had reviewed Charles Frazier's novel Thirteen Moons, saying "Frazier works on an epic scale, but his genius is in the details." A full-page newspaper ad for the book attributed the single word "Genius" to him.
Critic Bernard Cooper complained that a positive review of his had the word "Bravo!" added to it without his permission.
I was amused to find the article created a hierarchy of unethical practices. Here they are from worst to least offensive:
1) "Changing or adding words is the topmost offense."
2) "Taking words or sentences out of context is one level down."
3) "[E]xtracting the sole positive comment from a negative review is at the bottom."
Some people seem more perturbed than others about this subject. Here's one chilling incident:
At least one reviewer has taken an even more direct approach to the problem. Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, The Time's daily reviewer for 32 years and now an author himself, recalls being quoted in an advertisement for a book from the publisher
Donald I. Fine in a way he felt wasn't "kosher." He ran into Fine at a party and told him, "Back off if you want your books reviewed by me anymore." Lehmann-Haupt says, "He got the message."
You can read the entire article here.
Read on. It's a two-blog day.
A number of critics told stories in which their reviews had been deliberately twisted to give a different impression from the one they'd intended. The Time magazine critic, Lev Grossman, described an incident in which he had reviewed Charles Frazier's novel Thirteen Moons, saying "Frazier works on an epic scale, but his genius is in the details." A full-page newspaper ad for the book attributed the single word "Genius" to him.
Critic Bernard Cooper complained that a positive review of his had the word "Bravo!" added to it without his permission.
I was amused to find the article created a hierarchy of unethical practices. Here they are from worst to least offensive:
1) "Changing or adding words is the topmost offense."
2) "Taking words or sentences out of context is one level down."
3) "[E]xtracting the sole positive comment from a negative review is at the bottom."
Some people seem more perturbed than others about this subject. Here's one chilling incident:
At least one reviewer has taken an even more direct approach to the problem. Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, The Time's daily reviewer for 32 years and now an author himself, recalls being quoted in an advertisement for a book from the publisher
Donald I. Fine in a way he felt wasn't "kosher." He ran into Fine at a party and told him, "Back off if you want your books reviewed by me anymore." Lehmann-Haupt says, "He got the message."
You can read the entire article here.
Read on. It's a two-blog day.
Another Lawsuit Aimed At YouTube
The Sunday 10 PM news reported that electricity has been restored to the entire D/FW Metroplex. We missed another round of thunderstorms today by four degrees. The weatherman said if the temperature had heated up another four degrees, it would have burst through "the cap" and led to huge storms.
Thank you, God. I needed a respite. At least let me get my knee looked at before you hit us again [g].
In other news, Yahoo reports that "England's top soccer league and an indie music publisher sued YouTube on Friday, saying the online video pioneer was engaging in widespread copyright infringement to bring traffic to the site."
The Football Association Premier League Ltd. and music publisher, Bourne Co., filed a joint suit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The plaintiffs asked for unspecified damages AND YouTube's profits from the material posted. The lawsuit named YouTube and Google, YouTube's new owner, as defendants and also asked for class action status.
On May 2nd, I reported on the status of the lawsuit Viacom brought against YouTube and Google here.
Since Google's purchase of YouTube last October, the Internet giant has negotiated deals with a number of music and media companies to settle copyright infringement claims. However, with the billion dollar lawsuit filed by Viacom in mid-March, the stakes have gone up. Google cannot afford to lose a copyright infringement case against YouTube. If they do, the floodgates will open to other litigation.
Google's general counsel stuck to the party line: "These suits . . . threaten the way people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression over the Internet."
Stay tuned . . .
Thank you, God. I needed a respite. At least let me get my knee looked at before you hit us again [g].
In other news, Yahoo reports that "England's top soccer league and an indie music publisher sued YouTube on Friday, saying the online video pioneer was engaging in widespread copyright infringement to bring traffic to the site."
The Football Association Premier League Ltd. and music publisher, Bourne Co., filed a joint suit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The plaintiffs asked for unspecified damages AND YouTube's profits from the material posted. The lawsuit named YouTube and Google, YouTube's new owner, as defendants and also asked for class action status.
On May 2nd, I reported on the status of the lawsuit Viacom brought against YouTube and Google here.
Since Google's purchase of YouTube last October, the Internet giant has negotiated deals with a number of music and media companies to settle copyright infringement claims. However, with the billion dollar lawsuit filed by Viacom in mid-March, the stakes have gone up. Google cannot afford to lose a copyright infringement case against YouTube. If they do, the floodgates will open to other litigation.
Google's general counsel stuck to the party line: "These suits . . . threaten the way people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression over the Internet."
Stay tuned . . .
Sunday, May 06, 2007
The Power of Networks
I don't often make a recommendation here, but I'm going to do it today. Forbes, the business magazine, put their 90th anniversary issue on the stands this week. I picked up my copy on Friday.
The entire issue is devoted to "The Power of Networks," and it contains 28 articles by cutting edge entrepreneurs on what we can expect in the future.
Quotes from a few of the contributors:
"The Internet is the most significant tool for building democracy since the invention of the printing press." Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee
"Social networking allows thinly distributed groups to discover one another and to make common cause." Vinton Cerf, one of the founding fathers of the Internet.
"Packages will become 'smarter.' That is, they'll be able to communicate to FedEx if their environments become too hot or too cold, or if light has penetrated the package, indicating a possible security breach." Frederick W. Smith, chairman and chief executive of FedEx.
"YouTube represents the first time media has become truly democratic for both the audience and the content creators. For the big established entertainment companies it's also an opportunity. It lowers the risk in taking on new talent. We believe YouTube is helping the big media companies expand their audience and stay relevant in a marketplace that is changing quickly. The site allows both sides to exploit a low-cost entry, a vast worldwide audience and an unlimited supply of entertaining content. It's the ultimate audition venue." Chad Hurley, cofounder and chief executive of You Tube.
"[U]ser-generated video puts political power back in the hands of everyday people. The defining ad of this upcoming political cycle may not be produced by a group of Beltway campaign hands or even this election's version of the Swift Boat Veterans--it will come from a young person with a $100 digital camera and Final Cut software." Chris DeWolfe, cofounder and chief executive of MySpace.
"This virtual world, where 3-D software and broadband networking let you download a small application that transports you to the surface of a new planet, is a digital re-creation of reality, where everything you see, like the Web, is owned and created by hundreds of thousands of people from around the world . . . It's a place where real companies and real entrepreneurs can try out new product designs, hold press conferences and get feedback from customers. You can go on to Second Life and test-drive a Toyota Scion." Philip Rosedale, founder and chief executive of Linden Lab, which produces Second Life.
"Old media can survive--and thrive--in this new environment, but they must adapt. We must learn how younger generations of consumers prefer to receive their news and entertainment, and we must meet those expectations." Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp.
You can sample the articles online here.
The entire issue is devoted to "The Power of Networks," and it contains 28 articles by cutting edge entrepreneurs on what we can expect in the future.
Quotes from a few of the contributors:
"The Internet is the most significant tool for building democracy since the invention of the printing press." Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee
"Social networking allows thinly distributed groups to discover one another and to make common cause." Vinton Cerf, one of the founding fathers of the Internet.
"Packages will become 'smarter.' That is, they'll be able to communicate to FedEx if their environments become too hot or too cold, or if light has penetrated the package, indicating a possible security breach." Frederick W. Smith, chairman and chief executive of FedEx.
"YouTube represents the first time media has become truly democratic for both the audience and the content creators. For the big established entertainment companies it's also an opportunity. It lowers the risk in taking on new talent. We believe YouTube is helping the big media companies expand their audience and stay relevant in a marketplace that is changing quickly. The site allows both sides to exploit a low-cost entry, a vast worldwide audience and an unlimited supply of entertaining content. It's the ultimate audition venue." Chad Hurley, cofounder and chief executive of You Tube.
"[U]ser-generated video puts political power back in the hands of everyday people. The defining ad of this upcoming political cycle may not be produced by a group of Beltway campaign hands or even this election's version of the Swift Boat Veterans--it will come from a young person with a $100 digital camera and Final Cut software." Chris DeWolfe, cofounder and chief executive of MySpace.
"This virtual world, where 3-D software and broadband networking let you download a small application that transports you to the surface of a new planet, is a digital re-creation of reality, where everything you see, like the Web, is owned and created by hundreds of thousands of people from around the world . . . It's a place where real companies and real entrepreneurs can try out new product designs, hold press conferences and get feedback from customers. You can go on to Second Life and test-drive a Toyota Scion." Philip Rosedale, founder and chief executive of Linden Lab, which produces Second Life.
"Old media can survive--and thrive--in this new environment, but they must adapt. We must learn how younger generations of consumers prefer to receive their news and entertainment, and we must meet those expectations." Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp.
You can sample the articles online here.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Update
The 10 PM news on Saturday reported there are still 1,400 households without electricity in Dallas County tonight.
I am so grateful I'm not among them.
I am so grateful I'm not among them.
Where Bookclubs Flourish
Things are back to normal in my household. I came home around 9 PM last night to E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C*I*T*Y--yes, that modern day miracle, which I promise never to take for granted again.
I was so thrilled, I tumbled into bed, slept my usual six hours and am now wide awake, happy to be at my re-charged laptop and back in business.
I love doing follow-up stories.
Almost exactly two months ago here, I reported on the seven large media companies that dominate the publishing universe. Among them was Bertelsmann, which owns Random House, the largest book publisher in the world.
Then, a month ago here, I reported that Bertelsmann had just announced its willingness to pay $150 million for a fifty-percent interest in Bookspan, the company that owns Book-of-the-Month Club and several other bookclubs. Since Bertelsmann already owned fifty percent of Bookspan, that purchase gives them complete ownership of the company.
Among the other bookclubs Bookspan owns are: American Compass, a club primarily aimed at American conservative readers; InsightOut, a book club featuring books of topical interest to gay and lesbian readers; and Mosaico and Circulo, two clubs offering Latin and Spanish-translated selections (Info courtesy of Wikipedia).
At the time of my April post, I said: "Bertelsmann is putting its money on a very old-fashioned business model--the traditional bookclub--at a time when Internet book sales continue to grow."
I was curious as to why a company that was so on the cutting edge of the publishing world would take such a seemingly backward step. Now I can offer you an answer.
BusinessWeek has a forthcoming article in its May 14th edition, titled "Where the Book Business Is Humming." The story describes "Bertelsmann's success with book clubs in the former Soviet bloc."
It turns out that, while conventional wisdom would indicate bookclubs in the United States are being replaced by online sales at Amazon.com along with a growing trend toward e-books, places like the Ukraine have "well-educated populations hungry for a good read but relatively few bookstores where they can indulge their passion. As a result, Bertelsmann has also become the biggest book publisher in the Czech Republic and has scored big successes in Poland, Russia, and elsewhere."
Don't you just love learning the rest of the story? At a time when the developed countries are going digital, BusinessWeek reports that the developing world is experiencing a "booming print media." The article cites places like India, Vietnam and China as well as Argentina, where the number of published books has more than doubled since 2002.
While American bookclubs target older consumers, nearly half of the 2 million members in Bertelsmann's Ukrainian bookclub venture are under thirty. "The secret: The Bertelsmann club recruits hot young Ukrainian authors and serves as their exclusive distributor, a smart strategy in a country with only about 300 bookstores."
Bertelsmann focuses on keeping its prices low in recognition of the lower incomes in the developing world. To help keep costs down, rather than delivering the bookclub shipments to a customer's door, deliveries are made to post offices where the customers come to pick up their books.
The BusinessWeek article was a great reminder to never assume that your reality and your experience are the reality and experience of everyone else in the world. My two days without electricity was a crash course in what it must be like for people living in developing countries or places like Iraq where utility disruptions are commonplace.
You can read the entire BusinessWeek article here.
I was so thrilled, I tumbled into bed, slept my usual six hours and am now wide awake, happy to be at my re-charged laptop and back in business.
I love doing follow-up stories.
Almost exactly two months ago here, I reported on the seven large media companies that dominate the publishing universe. Among them was Bertelsmann, which owns Random House, the largest book publisher in the world.
Then, a month ago here, I reported that Bertelsmann had just announced its willingness to pay $150 million for a fifty-percent interest in Bookspan, the company that owns Book-of-the-Month Club and several other bookclubs. Since Bertelsmann already owned fifty percent of Bookspan, that purchase gives them complete ownership of the company.
Among the other bookclubs Bookspan owns are: American Compass, a club primarily aimed at American conservative readers; InsightOut, a book club featuring books of topical interest to gay and lesbian readers; and Mosaico and Circulo, two clubs offering Latin and Spanish-translated selections (Info courtesy of Wikipedia).
At the time of my April post, I said: "Bertelsmann is putting its money on a very old-fashioned business model--the traditional bookclub--at a time when Internet book sales continue to grow."
I was curious as to why a company that was so on the cutting edge of the publishing world would take such a seemingly backward step. Now I can offer you an answer.
BusinessWeek has a forthcoming article in its May 14th edition, titled "Where the Book Business Is Humming." The story describes "Bertelsmann's success with book clubs in the former Soviet bloc."
It turns out that, while conventional wisdom would indicate bookclubs in the United States are being replaced by online sales at Amazon.com along with a growing trend toward e-books, places like the Ukraine have "well-educated populations hungry for a good read but relatively few bookstores where they can indulge their passion. As a result, Bertelsmann has also become the biggest book publisher in the Czech Republic and has scored big successes in Poland, Russia, and elsewhere."
Don't you just love learning the rest of the story? At a time when the developed countries are going digital, BusinessWeek reports that the developing world is experiencing a "booming print media." The article cites places like India, Vietnam and China as well as Argentina, where the number of published books has more than doubled since 2002.
While American bookclubs target older consumers, nearly half of the 2 million members in Bertelsmann's Ukrainian bookclub venture are under thirty. "The secret: The Bertelsmann club recruits hot young Ukrainian authors and serves as their exclusive distributor, a smart strategy in a country with only about 300 bookstores."
Bertelsmann focuses on keeping its prices low in recognition of the lower incomes in the developing world. To help keep costs down, rather than delivering the bookclub shipments to a customer's door, deliveries are made to post offices where the customers come to pick up their books.
The BusinessWeek article was a great reminder to never assume that your reality and your experience are the reality and experience of everyone else in the world. My two days without electricity was a crash course in what it must be like for people living in developing countries or places like Iraq where utility disruptions are commonplace.
You can read the entire BusinessWeek article here.
Friday, May 04, 2007
How About Some Fun?
Forty-nine hours after my electricity went out, I got a call from a neighbor telling me it was safe to come home again. I have power!!!
AND the weatherman predicts another thunderstorm for Sunday night. Oh, well.
Fifth Estate, the blog for HarperCollins UK, has a great book lover's contest. I entertained myself for an hour answering the 25 questions in their quiz and then checking my answers. There were a couple of interesting ones.
Go here to play.
Oh, by the way, the contest is only open to British and Irish citizens, but don't let that stop you from playing.
And keep reading. This was a three-blog day.
AND the weatherman predicts another thunderstorm for Sunday night. Oh, well.
Fifth Estate, the blog for HarperCollins UK, has a great book lover's contest. I entertained myself for an hour answering the 25 questions in their quiz and then checking my answers. There were a couple of interesting ones.
Go here to play.
Oh, by the way, the contest is only open to British and Irish citizens, but don't let that stop you from playing.
And keep reading. This was a three-blog day.
Wanna Buy a Hot Company?
Forty-five hours and still no electricity. It's supposed to go up to ninety degrees tomorrow. I'll be living in a sauna. A dark sauna.
Fortunately, there's plenty going on in the news to occupy my interest, including all sorts of financial to-doings this week. I count at least four stories in the works:
1) Readers of this blog know that I have repeatedly said I believe there are specific times when an author should consider going the self-publishing route. I described those times here.
I distinguish between the vanity presses such as PublishAmerica and the legitimate POD presses such as Lulu. Lulu's prices are closer to those of an actual printing company. While you can probably get a better price locally, Lulu is a reasonable alternative to the outrageous fees charged by the vanity presses who call themselves "POD publishers." For that reason, I paid particular attention to this story:
PR Newswire put out a press release on Thursday that announced Lulu.com was partnering with Universal Press Syndicate (UPS), the largest newspaper syndicate in the world. "UPS and Lulu will be working together to launch an online storefront as a new way for UPS to be able to produce and distribute their content to the vast audience of fans of their authors and creators."
Lulu's CEO said, "Giving Lulu users access to the many comic strip characters UPS manages, empowers our users to create amazing books and calendars for their own use and to sell globally through Lulu."
I'm unclear as to whether this means writers can license use of specific characters in order to write fan fiction. I'm sure more information will be forthcoming soon.
2) This morning, the Associated Press (AP) reported that Microsoft is once more pursuing Yahoo in order to obtain a search engine that will permit it to compete on a more even field with Google.
The Wall Street Journal said Microsoft and Yahoo were in the early stages of talks regarding a merger. This is not the first time these two companies have considered partnering up. However, the New York Post said this new approach appears to indicate "increased urgency" on the part of Microsoft. It may be that Google's proposed purchase of DoubleClick, an online advertising firm, is prompting this approchement.
3) On Tuesday, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., one of the largest media companies in the world, made an offer of $60 per share for Dow Jones, the owner of The Wall Street Journal, the Dow Jones Newswires and Barron's. That bid was 65% OVER the market close on Monday. Dow Jones, a stock that had been trading around $36/share prior to the offer, closed Friday around $56/share just on the power of Murdoch's interest.
News Corp. owns huge publishing interests. Among its holdings are HarperMorrow Publishers, which owns Avon, HarperCollins, and William Morrow.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) is controlled by the Bancroft family, which owns 52% of the voting stock. The family has made it clear that they are not interested in the offer. Stockholders undoubtedly feel different. It's likely that a bidding war will start. The Bancroft family may go looking for a white knight to save them from a raid by Murdoch. Murdoch is trying to set up a meeting with the family. So far, they've declined to meet with him.
Today's New York Times had Murdoch talking about the WSJ:
The editorial pages? He likes them but would like to see more political coverage in the news pages. "I might put more emphasis on Washington," he said. He's not a huge fan of the Saturday Journal begun in 2005, but he would continue it and look at converting its Pursuits section into a glossy weekend magazine to compete with the New York Times Sunday Magazine.
I doubt that comment did much to endear Murdoch to the Bancroft family.
Bloomberg News suggested that other possible bidders for the company might include General Electric, the Washington Post, Gannett or Google.
4) Probably because of Rupert Murdoch's bid for Dow Jones, it seems that Reuters, the news and financial data provider, is also now in play.
CNN announced this morning that "Reuters said it had received a takeover approach from an unidentified bidder, sending its shares up almost a third, with Canadian publisher Thomson widely touted as the suitor."
While both Reuters and Thomson refused to comment on the rumors, the Globe and Mail newspaper cited sources who said that Thomson was in talks with Reuters.
I've had a number of careers in my life--I have a short attention span [grin]. I started out intending to become a teacher, but soon went to work for a stock brokerage house. Three years later, the company asked me to transfer to either Dallas or Atlanta to help open regional offices. I opted to move to Dallas and have lived here ever since. Of course, before long, I quit my job and went to graduate school to become a social worker and eventually ended up in charge of operations for public mental health services in Dallas County. But I never forgot the lessons I'd learned about stocks and trading.
It's a truism in the brokerage industry that strong markets often prompt buyout offers and bidding wars. Another thing I learned was that there are a lot of lemmings out there--investors who blindly follow leaders wherever they may go. "If Rupert Murdoch wants to buy a financial reporting company, maybe I should buy a financial reporting company, too."
Look for more buyout news. 'Tis the season.
Fortunately, there's plenty going on in the news to occupy my interest, including all sorts of financial to-doings this week. I count at least four stories in the works:
1) Readers of this blog know that I have repeatedly said I believe there are specific times when an author should consider going the self-publishing route. I described those times here.
I distinguish between the vanity presses such as PublishAmerica and the legitimate POD presses such as Lulu. Lulu's prices are closer to those of an actual printing company. While you can probably get a better price locally, Lulu is a reasonable alternative to the outrageous fees charged by the vanity presses who call themselves "POD publishers." For that reason, I paid particular attention to this story:
PR Newswire put out a press release on Thursday that announced Lulu.com was partnering with Universal Press Syndicate (UPS), the largest newspaper syndicate in the world. "UPS and Lulu will be working together to launch an online storefront as a new way for UPS to be able to produce and distribute their content to the vast audience of fans of their authors and creators."
Lulu's CEO said, "Giving Lulu users access to the many comic strip characters UPS manages, empowers our users to create amazing books and calendars for their own use and to sell globally through Lulu."
I'm unclear as to whether this means writers can license use of specific characters in order to write fan fiction. I'm sure more information will be forthcoming soon.
2) This morning, the Associated Press (AP) reported that Microsoft is once more pursuing Yahoo in order to obtain a search engine that will permit it to compete on a more even field with Google.
The Wall Street Journal said Microsoft and Yahoo were in the early stages of talks regarding a merger. This is not the first time these two companies have considered partnering up. However, the New York Post said this new approach appears to indicate "increased urgency" on the part of Microsoft. It may be that Google's proposed purchase of DoubleClick, an online advertising firm, is prompting this approchement.
3) On Tuesday, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., one of the largest media companies in the world, made an offer of $60 per share for Dow Jones, the owner of The Wall Street Journal, the Dow Jones Newswires and Barron's. That bid was 65% OVER the market close on Monday. Dow Jones, a stock that had been trading around $36/share prior to the offer, closed Friday around $56/share just on the power of Murdoch's interest.
News Corp. owns huge publishing interests. Among its holdings are HarperMorrow Publishers, which owns Avon, HarperCollins, and William Morrow.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) is controlled by the Bancroft family, which owns 52% of the voting stock. The family has made it clear that they are not interested in the offer. Stockholders undoubtedly feel different. It's likely that a bidding war will start. The Bancroft family may go looking for a white knight to save them from a raid by Murdoch. Murdoch is trying to set up a meeting with the family. So far, they've declined to meet with him.
Today's New York Times had Murdoch talking about the WSJ:
The editorial pages? He likes them but would like to see more political coverage in the news pages. "I might put more emphasis on Washington," he said. He's not a huge fan of the Saturday Journal begun in 2005, but he would continue it and look at converting its Pursuits section into a glossy weekend magazine to compete with the New York Times Sunday Magazine.
I doubt that comment did much to endear Murdoch to the Bancroft family.
Bloomberg News suggested that other possible bidders for the company might include General Electric, the Washington Post, Gannett or Google.
4) Probably because of Rupert Murdoch's bid for Dow Jones, it seems that Reuters, the news and financial data provider, is also now in play.
CNN announced this morning that "Reuters said it had received a takeover approach from an unidentified bidder, sending its shares up almost a third, with Canadian publisher Thomson widely touted as the suitor."
While both Reuters and Thomson refused to comment on the rumors, the Globe and Mail newspaper cited sources who said that Thomson was in talks with Reuters.
I've had a number of careers in my life--I have a short attention span [grin]. I started out intending to become a teacher, but soon went to work for a stock brokerage house. Three years later, the company asked me to transfer to either Dallas or Atlanta to help open regional offices. I opted to move to Dallas and have lived here ever since. Of course, before long, I quit my job and went to graduate school to become a social worker and eventually ended up in charge of operations for public mental health services in Dallas County. But I never forgot the lessons I'd learned about stocks and trading.
It's a truism in the brokerage industry that strong markets often prompt buyout offers and bidding wars. Another thing I learned was that there are a lot of lemmings out there--investors who blindly follow leaders wherever they may go. "If Rupert Murdoch wants to buy a financial reporting company, maybe I should buy a financial reporting company, too."
Look for more buyout news. 'Tis the season.
The Heart of Darkness
Thirty-eight hours without electricity and still counting. I'm deteriorating. Now limping (the result of tripping over a black cat in the darkness).
On my drive home last night around 8:30 (I wasn't motivated to leave the comfort of lights, a microwave and refrigerator), I saw a welcome sight on the highway. A caravan of tall power and light trucks--I counted twelve--coming into Dallas from the south. I'm assuming they are loaners from Waco or Houston.
This morning's news reported there are "only" 65,000 households still without electricity and they expect all will be back online by Sunday. Sunday????
I'll be back later with today's post. Lots of things going on in the larger world.
Later . . .
On my drive home last night around 8:30 (I wasn't motivated to leave the comfort of lights, a microwave and refrigerator), I saw a welcome sight on the highway. A caravan of tall power and light trucks--I counted twelve--coming into Dallas from the south. I'm assuming they are loaners from Waco or Houston.
This morning's news reported there are "only" 65,000 households still without electricity and they expect all will be back online by Sunday. Sunday????
I'll be back later with today's post. Lots of things going on in the larger world.
Later . . .
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Harlequin Had a Promising First Quarter
Twenty-three hours and counting: There's good news, bad news and worse news.
The good news is that TXU has restored electricity to 200,000 of the 300,000 households that lost power last night. The bad news is that I'm in the last 100,000 homeowners who still don't have power. And they're still saying it may take up to a week to restore power to that last third.
The worse news is they've just announced a thunderstorm is brewing in Tarrant County (Fort Worth), expected to arrive in Dallas County in the next thirty minutes. I'm in my office at the university and am so NOT moving. There's a tornado warning until 7:45 PM with rotation movement seen near Six Flags.
Torstar, the parent corporation of Harlequin, reported its results yesterday, and the news was very encouraging. According to the press release, "Book Publishing revenue was $124.5 million (Canadian) in the first quarter, up $6.2 million (Canadian) in the same period last year." Of that C$6.2 million, C$5.1 million was the result of favorable foreign exchange rates.
The book publishing operating profit was C$19.1 million in the first quarter, up $4 million for the same quarter last year. The company reported growth in the North American Retail division "with more books sold in both the series and single title businesses."
You'll recall that Harlequin's women's fiction operation has three divisions: North American Retail, North American Direct-to-Consumer (the famous bookclubs), and Overseas.
When we look at revenues by division, North American Retail was up C$3.8 million, North American Direct-to-Consumer was down C$.4 million and Overseas was up C$.3 million. Harlequin reported that the increase in eHarlequin (e-books) was more than offset by the decline in the traditional direct mail business.
"Overseas results were flat in the first quarter of 2007 with improved results in the Nordic group and Germany offset by lower results in several other markets."
Publishers Weekly reported: "Parent company Torstar reiterated that it expects Harlequin to have a "stable" 2007, as the positive trends in its North America retail business is offset by weakness in the direct mail business, while the international group is predicted to have a mixed year."
The good news is that TXU has restored electricity to 200,000 of the 300,000 households that lost power last night. The bad news is that I'm in the last 100,000 homeowners who still don't have power. And they're still saying it may take up to a week to restore power to that last third.
The worse news is they've just announced a thunderstorm is brewing in Tarrant County (Fort Worth), expected to arrive in Dallas County in the next thirty minutes. I'm in my office at the university and am so NOT moving. There's a tornado warning until 7:45 PM with rotation movement seen near Six Flags.
Torstar, the parent corporation of Harlequin, reported its results yesterday, and the news was very encouraging. According to the press release, "Book Publishing revenue was $124.5 million (Canadian) in the first quarter, up $6.2 million (Canadian) in the same period last year." Of that C$6.2 million, C$5.1 million was the result of favorable foreign exchange rates.
The book publishing operating profit was C$19.1 million in the first quarter, up $4 million for the same quarter last year. The company reported growth in the North American Retail division "with more books sold in both the series and single title businesses."
You'll recall that Harlequin's women's fiction operation has three divisions: North American Retail, North American Direct-to-Consumer (the famous bookclubs), and Overseas.
When we look at revenues by division, North American Retail was up C$3.8 million, North American Direct-to-Consumer was down C$.4 million and Overseas was up C$.3 million. Harlequin reported that the increase in eHarlequin (e-books) was more than offset by the decline in the traditional direct mail business.
"Overseas results were flat in the first quarter of 2007 with improved results in the Nordic group and Germany offset by lower results in several other markets."
Publishers Weekly reported: "Parent company Torstar reiterated that it expects Harlequin to have a "stable" 2007, as the positive trends in its North America retail business is offset by weakness in the direct mail business, while the international group is predicted to have a mixed year."
The Dogs of Thunder
Things are not good in north Texas today. I lost my electricity in a spring thunderstorm last night. It's now been fourteen hours and still counting. TXU, my electric company, says 300,000 households lost power last night. They got 100,000 up and running overnight, but estimate it will take a week before they get everyone back on line.
I've mentioned in the past that I live in a hilly, very heavily wooded area. Most of the time, it's heavenly. Right now, it looks like hell. There are dozens of trees across roofs, across cars and across roads. I could hear the chainsaws all night long.
I will try to resume posting later today, but right now am trying to deal with all the food in my refrigerator and freezer. AND I need more batteries for my battery-powered lanterns. The instructions never mentioned the batteries were only good for three hours.
One funny thing happened while I was driving home last night. It was dusk and already raining so it was hard to see. As I turned onto my street, about three houses from mine, I saw a black animal racing across lawns toward my car. I thought to myself, "Oh, Lord, a lost dog."
The "dog" got close enough to my car that I could no longer see it so I figured it was chasing my car. I slowed down and pulled into my driveway. I opened my car door cautiously, not wanting the dog to jump up on me.
There stood my cat Bob. I was appalled. I mean, I knew he was big, but big enough to be mistaken for a DOG??? The boy seriously needs to lose weight.
Later . . .
I've mentioned in the past that I live in a hilly, very heavily wooded area. Most of the time, it's heavenly. Right now, it looks like hell. There are dozens of trees across roofs, across cars and across roads. I could hear the chainsaws all night long.
I will try to resume posting later today, but right now am trying to deal with all the food in my refrigerator and freezer. AND I need more batteries for my battery-powered lanterns. The instructions never mentioned the batteries were only good for three hours.
One funny thing happened while I was driving home last night. It was dusk and already raining so it was hard to see. As I turned onto my street, about three houses from mine, I saw a black animal racing across lawns toward my car. I thought to myself, "Oh, Lord, a lost dog."
The "dog" got close enough to my car that I could no longer see it so I figured it was chasing my car. I slowed down and pulled into my driveway. I opened my car door cautiously, not wanting the dog to jump up on me.
There stood my cat Bob. I was appalled. I mean, I knew he was big, but big enough to be mistaken for a DOG??? The boy seriously needs to lose weight.
Later . . .
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Viacom vs. Google, Round One
Things are heating up in the Viacom vs. Google lawsuit.
In case you need to be brought up to speed: Last October, Google purchased the popular social networking site, YouTube.
Along with the benefits of owning the most popular video site on the Internet, Google purchased all the problems. Media companies have been complaining for months about the unauthorized downloading of music, movies and other copyrighted content. Since the purchase, Google has been the one trying to negotiate the peace. The companies complaining about unauthorized downloads include five of the seven biggest media conglomerates: Disney, GE, News Corp, Viacom and Time Warner.
In early February, talks broke down between Google, YouTube and Viacom. Six weeks later, on March 13th, Viacom sued both YouTube and Google in New York's U.S. District Court for more than $1 billion dollars, citing widespread copyright infringement.
According to the Associated press, "Viacom claims that YouTube has displayed nearly 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon." The media giant said that YouTube's business, "which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws."
On Monday, Google responded. An article in the May 1 edition of the Chicago Tribune reported that Google "has hired a Chicago law firm, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, with a reputation for courtroom battles."
According to Tech News World (TNW) "Google claimed that Viacom's allegations of copyright infringement were without merit because You Tube is protected by one or more of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions." The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was signed into law on October 28, 1998. It provides "safe harbor" for online service providers, including ISPs, against copyright liability if they block access or remove copyright-infringing material once they are notified of a copyright infringement claim.
Google claims that, not only did YouTube remove such material, they "instituted a number of tools to assist copyright owners to identify clips that may violate their rights. The tools . . . prevent YouTube users from repeatedly uploading a video once it has been removed from the site." (TNW)
Viacom responded that YouTube doesn't qualify for safe harbor protection. They claim that YouTube was set up to profit from copyright infringement.
Observers indicated that all this posturing is a negotiating tactic. The Chicago Tribune interviewed Brian Bolan of Jackson Securities who seems to believe that Google cannot afford to lose this case. He said, "Losing would have long-term repercussions . . . Other content-holders would have a strong position against Google."
This may be the case that prompts Congress to take another look at the issue of copyright. The Internet world has evolved in ways that the lawmakers who signed the DMCA could not have anticipated. It's time for them to go back to the table.
The next hearing in this case is scheduled for July.
In case you need to be brought up to speed: Last October, Google purchased the popular social networking site, YouTube.
Along with the benefits of owning the most popular video site on the Internet, Google purchased all the problems. Media companies have been complaining for months about the unauthorized downloading of music, movies and other copyrighted content. Since the purchase, Google has been the one trying to negotiate the peace. The companies complaining about unauthorized downloads include five of the seven biggest media conglomerates: Disney, GE, News Corp, Viacom and Time Warner.
In early February, talks broke down between Google, YouTube and Viacom. Six weeks later, on March 13th, Viacom sued both YouTube and Google in New York's U.S. District Court for more than $1 billion dollars, citing widespread copyright infringement.
According to the Associated press, "Viacom claims that YouTube has displayed nearly 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon." The media giant said that YouTube's business, "which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws."
On Monday, Google responded. An article in the May 1 edition of the Chicago Tribune reported that Google "has hired a Chicago law firm, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, with a reputation for courtroom battles."
According to Tech News World (TNW) "Google claimed that Viacom's allegations of copyright infringement were without merit because You Tube is protected by one or more of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions." The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was signed into law on October 28, 1998. It provides "safe harbor" for online service providers, including ISPs, against copyright liability if they block access or remove copyright-infringing material once they are notified of a copyright infringement claim.
Google claims that, not only did YouTube remove such material, they "instituted a number of tools to assist copyright owners to identify clips that may violate their rights. The tools . . . prevent YouTube users from repeatedly uploading a video once it has been removed from the site." (TNW)
Viacom responded that YouTube doesn't qualify for safe harbor protection. They claim that YouTube was set up to profit from copyright infringement.
Observers indicated that all this posturing is a negotiating tactic. The Chicago Tribune interviewed Brian Bolan of Jackson Securities who seems to believe that Google cannot afford to lose this case. He said, "Losing would have long-term repercussions . . . Other content-holders would have a strong position against Google."
This may be the case that prompts Congress to take another look at the issue of copyright. The Internet world has evolved in ways that the lawmakers who signed the DMCA could not have anticipated. It's time for them to go back to the table.
The next hearing in this case is scheduled for July.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Two-Thirds Of Us Shop Online First
Shelf Awareness had an article this morning that directed me to InternetRetailer.com for some intriguing statistics compiled by a consultant firm, Accenture, following a survey of 600 U.S. consumers.
A majority of consumers use the Internet to research products or retailers before making a purchase:
69% research product features online
68% compare prices online before shopping in a physical store
58% locate items online before going to a store to purchase
13% said the Internet has not improved their in-store shopping experience
“Instead of replacing bricks-and-mortar stores, the Internet is an extension of consumers’ in-store shopping experience providing a resource to research product and price,” says Jeff Smith, global managing director of Accenture’s Retail practice. 67% said they prefer to make purchases in physical stores.
Go here to read the article.
A majority of consumers use the Internet to research products or retailers before making a purchase:
69% research product features online
68% compare prices online before shopping in a physical store
58% locate items online before going to a store to purchase
13% said the Internet has not improved their in-store shopping experience
“Instead of replacing bricks-and-mortar stores, the Internet is an extension of consumers’ in-store shopping experience providing a resource to research product and price,” says Jeff Smith, global managing director of Accenture’s Retail practice. 67% said they prefer to make purchases in physical stores.
Go here to read the article.
What No One Ever Tells You
Think back to when you were twelve years old. If you were like me, you couldn't wait to be sixteen because then you'd have your license, and you'd be able to drive yourself wherever you wanted to go.
Of course, when I was sixteen, I couldn't wait to be eighteen because then I'd be a legal adult, and I could do whatever I wanted without anyone telling me what to do.
Then I turned eighteen. Suddenly, my only goal in life was to graduate from college because, of course, then I'd be able to start my "real" life.
What I'm saying is that to be human is to have goals and to always reach for what you don't have.
I was thinking about that today, in relation to my career as a writer. When I was first getting started, I thought if I could just sell a short story, I'd be happy.
When I sold my first short story, I thought if I could only finish a full-length manuscript, I'd be on my way.
After I finished that first manuscript, I started hoping for an agent.
Once I had my agent, I prayed that she'd sell my manuscript.
Of course, now that my first book has sold, I'm already looking ahead to building a readership. They say you have to publish at least a half dozen books before you can count on having name recognition.
The whole point of this post is that there's always one more thing to learn or to experience. The journey never ends; it just stretches out ahead of you--one new milestone after another.
I'm waxing philosophic as I review my proposal for Book Two and the suggestions my editor had for changing it.
Yup, just another opportunity to be dragged kicking and screaming toward growth :)
Of course, when I was sixteen, I couldn't wait to be eighteen because then I'd be a legal adult, and I could do whatever I wanted without anyone telling me what to do.
Then I turned eighteen. Suddenly, my only goal in life was to graduate from college because, of course, then I'd be able to start my "real" life.
What I'm saying is that to be human is to have goals and to always reach for what you don't have.
I was thinking about that today, in relation to my career as a writer. When I was first getting started, I thought if I could just sell a short story, I'd be happy.
When I sold my first short story, I thought if I could only finish a full-length manuscript, I'd be on my way.
After I finished that first manuscript, I started hoping for an agent.
Once I had my agent, I prayed that she'd sell my manuscript.
Of course, now that my first book has sold, I'm already looking ahead to building a readership. They say you have to publish at least a half dozen books before you can count on having name recognition.
The whole point of this post is that there's always one more thing to learn or to experience. The journey never ends; it just stretches out ahead of you--one new milestone after another.
I'm waxing philosophic as I review my proposal for Book Two and the suggestions my editor had for changing it.
Yup, just another opportunity to be dragged kicking and screaming toward growth :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
