Comments on: Publishing, promotion and print-on-demand

By: Paul Raven

Paul Raven — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:58:11 +0000

I understand exactly what you’re saying, Mark – the music industry is just the same. The Times, like any newspaper, has to titillate – and if exploiting public ignorance is the way, then they’ll do it.

But for me the take-away point is that the same business model is the thing that’s crippling the music industry right now; the age of the hit is over, because consensus is so much harder to manufacture in a multichannel media environment. The sooner the smaller presses, like the small record labels, start to think outside of the box, the better.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:32:43 +0000

Paul, regarding the ‘leaked’ Waterstones memo. I work in the publishing industry and I’m a bit surprised at the niavety of the Times article – its been the practice of bookshops to charge for premium space for years. Its the same principle as Tescos selecting certain brands in their shops – retailers don’t choose on the basis of quality, but on what they can move. They also make a good deal of money from promoting their suppliers products.

Is it a good or bad thing? I think at the end of the day it’s a business decision for the retailers – they need to maximise the revenue/sqm. Consumers though should be savvy enough not to think that just because something is well-stocked, in a bestseller chart or recommended by the shop that it’s good. Unfortunately though a lot of consumers are taken in by the advertising – thus the success of the likes of Dan Brown.

Quality does not = success. I think the shock of the Times article comes from their mistaken belief that publishing and bookselling is not a business but a cultural service.

By: GLP

GLP — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:11:54 +0000

Hi Paul – glad to see you back, and thanks for the plug.