At the Digitalist Sarah Lloyd has posted a six-part series on how traditional publishers need to position themselves in the changing media flows of a networked era. It’s called The Publisher’s Manifesto and it’s a very interesting read. My thoughts:
Whilst the book continues to be viewed as a definable object within covers, as a singular ‘unit’, publishers will continue to limit their role in its production and distribution, and this is a sure fire way for publishers to write themselves out of the future of content creation and dissemination.
The interesting thing here is that she points out that the role of publishing is basically the dissemination of information or of literary creations. In the past that’s necessarily been tied to printing books. So will publishers evolve and think about new ways to get their product out there, or will they become an increasingly niche and shrinking field that sticks to physical books?
Publishers need to provide the tools of interaction and communication around book content and to be active within the digital spaces in which readers can discuss and interact with their content… Publishers need to be at the centre of these digital conversations, driving their development and providing the tools for readers to engage with the text and with each other if they are to remain relevant…
Not all books need to be networked books. There will still be a place for that deeply immersive, solitary reading, I hope, in the future. But publishers had better be the ones defining what the shape of a ‘networked book’ should be nonetheless, because if they are not someone else sure as hell will be.
This is basically what I think. Whenever the future of publishing is brought up, it’s all panic stations and lamenting the loss of reading and books. But I don’t think books will disappear, just that new forms will emerge alongside them. The idea that books need to be ‘networked’ (i.e. electronically available, inserted with links, and read alongside devices that allow for social networking and discussion) is an exciting one; imagine what that would mean for research, for example.
The question really is no longer, “Will consumers read on screens in the future?” or “Will all content be found on the Internet?” The question is rather, “How will consumers read on screens in the future?” and “How will all content be found on the Internet?” And as publishers have been latecomers to the online party, the question lurking behind all of this is what, if any, role do publishers have in the digital future? It’s a future which is not too distant and in which texts are potentially increasingly inter- related, multiple information sources and media types are mashed, and a combination of search and social networks provides the gateway and the guide to content online. Perhaps publishers might position themselves in new intermediary roles: helping authors to write through platforms, or bringing authors and readers together in new and creative ways.
The idea that publishers will need to start making direct connections with the people who consume their products is an exciting one for small press in particular, I think. Most small press I know already do spend time forging actual relationships with their consumers - more so than big publishers, even. While most people that buy books don’t care about the publisher, many who buy small press books are interested in the brand behind the product. That’s a unique selling point and a definite advantage in the kind of environment Sarah is talking about.
They would also need to develop brands around subject or genre niches so that their platforms are able to gain traction over those developed by competitors and to become far, far better at direct sales and marketing.
The idea that publishers should be heading towards niche publications is not a new one. I think it makes sense - by focussing on and marketing to one demographic, your chances of communicating with your audience is higher and therefore sell rate might also be higher (rather than trying to be ‘all things to all people’ - lit fic is such a broad term… and the most successful new small press I know is aduki, who is mostly creating publications aimed at a specific, identified and very niche market).
Publishers will need to view themselves as shapers and enablers rather than producers and distributors, to take a project rather than a product approach and to embrace their position as merely a component element in a reader, writer, publisher circularity. They will need to embrace new business models and they may even need to become media companies rather than publishing companies. They will need to understand and know and connect with their readers far, far better and they will need to develop brands that hold the highest kudos for authors and imply brand values to consumers that appeal to readers around identifiable niches.
Again, it is about disseminating rather than simply making printed matter. Whether you go the route of digital publishing or choose to print certain books, the thrust is that now is the time to choose your mode of publication, rather than simply go with the historical norm. I personally would like to see some lit journals create workable and profitable online publications, rather than having the same print publications funded year after year because ‘that’s how it’s always been done’. (And please note that I think it’s the lit journals, rather than single-author fiction books, that are in the best position to explore the possibilities of an online arena.)
L.
Yes, there’s a new mook on the block! Lip magazine is a fantastic publication aimed at being a glossy mag alternative to rags like Dolly. In fact, it’s for ‘girls who think, feel, create, speak out, live’. 
I’ve been meaning to blog about these things for ages but haven’t found time to create a critical response. But I think it would be remiss for any more time to pass without at least mentioning them:
Two new publications are available from my favourite web comic artist, who also happens to be the amazing illustrator behind the covers of this year’s 