lip mook

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’.

They’ve just relaunched as a mook, using print on demand technology, which is a great idea. And using POD means they’re able to be ad-free.

“As an independent publication run by volunteers, we don’t have the resources to print thousands of magazines, only to have them sit in my garage waiting for someone to buy a copy,” says Rachel Longhurst, Editor and co-publisher of lip.

Using a print-on-demand service means just that — a copy of the magazine is only printed once an order
is received. No excess inventory = no waste.

lip’s ad-free format, its unique voice and high production values lends itself to being described as a new
hybrid publication called a “mook”.

“lip still acts like a magazine — published in a series on a quarterly basis — but looks more like a book you want to hang on to or share with your best friends.”

I obviously think this is cool… and I know that lip were struggling with doing full-scale print distribution as a volunteer-based mag. So this is a fantastic way to keep the mag alive for its fans (and future fans!).

L.

why publishers should blog

As said by Booksquare.

f there’s one thing we know about today’s online market, it is that, collectively, they do not respond well to packaged marketing pitches or the absurdly inauthentic public relations voice. So many publishers treat the copy on their websites like it exists in a sterile environment…where is the enthusiasm about books?

Just as authors need to better market themselves and their books, so do publishers. While the audience for a publisher website is diverse — authors, booksellers, journalists, agents, readers, and more — talking about books on your website the same way you talk about books in your catalog simply isn’t cutting it. In printed material, you have various constraints. On the web, you have the ability to do something special: tell the world what excites you, the publisher, about a particular book.

So true.

L.

bit o’lit

There’s a new book marketing initiative in Washington called Bit o’Lit. Basically, it’s a fortnightly street press mag about books that is handed out to commuters to read on the way home. The main content of the mags is excerpts.

Bit o’ Lit is a booklet-sized magazine that is handed out for free to commuters in Washington, DC as they board the bus or train on Monday evenings. The booklet’s primary contents are book excerpts, paid for by publishers, which passengers read on their ride home.

We believe that while readers support the idea of reading new books, in practice, they are hesitant to risk their time and money on untested books or authors. This is undeniably why there were no new authors among the thirty bestselling books last year.

Reading their website, it seems very focussed on keeping things as local as possible; they are offering a fairly specific target market to advertisers (publishers) and encouraging them to advertise books by people from the area or who will be visiting on tour. I think keeping the focus small (local) is a great idea because it will make it relevant to the people reading it, making it a good advertising choice for the right kinds of books/authors.

They publish the magazine online as well, though unfortunately don’t have a picture of the print mag itself. Described as ‘booklet-sized’ I think it may be Mini Shots size or similar, which of course makes it instantly appealing (to me, at least).

I guess my main concern with this as a publisher would be what the strike rate of interested people would be. The fact that it’s promoting ‘literature’ might turn a lot of general book readers off; the l-word is hated by a lot of people I know who are actually quite heavy readers. But I love the idea of a kind of trouble or (the former print) aduki for books in Melbourne - especially if it’s promoting small and independent press in particular. It seems like a good fit with this indie, literary city.

L.

anti-small press sentiment

I was annoyed to read this post on The Rejecter this week - The Grumpy Dragon Vs The Rejecter. The post itself wasn’t annoying really, in fact she made some valid points about the way the publisher in question runs its press.

No, it was the comments about independent publishing that got me riled (my emphasis):

Agents don’t like small presses. Their advances are minuscule or non-existent, and their profits are in the crazy land of “don’t check the mail for a check anytime soon.” Agents don’t make money because authors don’t make money. Also your book doesn’t get a lot of distribution, meaning it has next to no chance of earning back the non-advance on royalties or becoming a bestseller. Ultimately, it’s better for your career and your wallet to be with a major press.

On the other hand, maybe what you’ve written is very experimental, or isn’t so great, or is great in a way no one can appreciate (meaning it’s very experimental), or you just want to get published, damnit, and you don’t want to self-publish. And small presses are legitimate courses to take at this point if you’ve failed to get an agent. It will count on your publication record more than a POD book. It’s not the best of stepping stones but it is one.

Oh right, it’s that whole thing about small press and independent publishing being the refuge of the unpublishable. I think you know what I’m going to say to that - bullshit. This issue was mentioned at the Emerging Writers Festival pitching session a while back, how many authors try with the big publishing houses and then start submitting to independent publishers; the implication being, of course, that the indies are second best.

Of course it’s true that publishing with small press means you’ll probably get smaller distribution and less money (though there are a lot of authors with corporate publishers who aren’t seeing the money, either; not everyone is a bestseller). But independent publishers are far from being crappy copies of the big players. For me, even comparing small and big press (tee hee) is just not comparing apples with apples. Independent publishing is so many things - it’s subcultural, experimental, innovative, niche and not always driven by the bottom line. No, it’s not mainstream publishing, but in most cases it doesn’t want or try to be.

L.

PS In a previous post The Rejecter has stated that she doesn’t recycle because the energy it takes to recycle outstrips the energy it takes to produce new paper; that makes me so mad I could scream.

publishing in the media

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:

Overland have had a nice discussion on independent publishing going on in their last two issues in particular. Issue 190 has culture vulture Mark Davis looking at the problems and prospects for independent publishing in Literature, small publishers and the market in culture. Also in that edition are two good (and related) features:Share and share alike by Emmy Hennings, looking at modes of digital reading; and The trouble with books by Jenny Lee, looking at changing book culture, in particular its how it might or might not become digitalised. Both those articles are available to read in full online.

Issue 191 of Overland has Nathan Hollier talking some more about the state of independent publishing; (from the website) he ‘traces the intersection of post-modernism and the free market in contemporary literary culture’. (I haven’t read this one yet!)

In the current issue of Meanjin there is an essay, The Other Way, by Wayne Macauley on Australian fiction publishing. In particular he looks at modes of publishing (small press, self-publishing), funding, and the culture of creating books.

In the Introduction of the current issue of Wet Ink there is what I consider to be a bit of a call to arms for publishers, particularly the independents. I’ll definitely blog about this in more detail (and hopefully the others too) at a later date.

In non-published news, I’ve read two excellent essays on independent publishing in the past two weeks. It’s gratifying to see that people outside of the sector (by which I mean not necessarily working in it) are noticing and taking interest in what’s happening in small press publishing in this country.

L.

magazine pod

At the end of last year I looked into doing Mini Shots as print on demand but couldn’t find any good POD printers that do tiny magazines. Very few do magazines at all, and those that do seem to be aimed towards the super-glossy, full-colour end of the market.

So I was interested to read about MagCloud, a POD publishing service (think lulu, blurb.com, etc) but specifically for magazines. They’re in extreme beta, are annoyingly only shipping to the US, and there’s not much info available on the site but it sounds like a promising idea.

From The Magizineer:

The web has changed our thinking about media in ways we’re still figuring out. Now we can make media without the bother of putting ink to paper. We can distribute it planet-wide in an instant. And the content can be customized to your tastes, personalized for each reader. It’s so obvious now, but it’s important to remember what a revolution this has been.

But there’s still something about paper. It’s not just because screens suck to read on (they do, but that hasn’t kept us from doing it all day). There is an intimacy about a good book, a pleasure to the glossy pages of magazines, and, ironically, a permanence to paper. (How many times has a website you really loved simply disappeared?)

So what if we could combine the best parts of the web (no waste, personalized content, open to all) with the best parts of print (sexy print quality, permanence, no batteries required)?

For the last year, I’ve been working on a project with HP Labs called MagCloud. The idea is simple, really. MagCloud enables anyone to start a magazine - a real printed magazine - with no giant pile.

If you can make a PDF, you can now publish a magazine.

L.

how to save the book publishing industry

Henry Blodget talks pricing and digital media:

Hardcover books should cost $25. And publishers should keep printing them–for people who want to buy them. Meanwhile, for everyone else, publishers should publish cheap electronic copies for 20% (or less) of the hardcover price.

$4.99 for a first run bestseller, downloadable to your Kindle, PC, or iPod–or simply readable on the Internet. The retailer keeps $1 or so, the author gets $1 or so, and the publisher takes home about $3. Some of that goes to marketing and some to overhead. And then you’re left with the typical publisher profit of less than $1 (no returns, manufacturing, or distribution costs).

But here’s what happens: book sales suddenly go through the roof.

Why?

Because you’ve made buying a book almost a no-never-mind. At $4.99, buying a book is like buying a couple of magazines: you can buy them on a whim and feel free to skim them. At $25, meanwhile, buying a book is like buying a two-pound guilt trip: Until you slog your way through it, you don’t deserve to buy another one.

With a similar margin per book sold, cannibalization wouldn’t matter. If publishers really wanted to get aggressive, however, they could cut book prices to, say, $1.99, compress all the revenue splits, and watch sales truly explode. Especially when they made available the out-of-print catalogs.

All that matters is the bottom line, and going digital could quickly resurrect the profit growth of the publishing industry. Unfortunately, right now, the publishing industry is obsessed with maintaining the status quo–which means print units and revenue.

I think he’s right on two counts. Firstly, publishers really are trying to maintain the status quo in an environment that’s becoming increasingly digital. There’s so much talk about the future of books and the future of publishing, but what’s really changing?

Secondly, he’s bang on the money about cheap books. I buy books at DailyLit that I would never buy hard copies of. For example, I would never spend $20+ on this book, but for $5 at DailyLit it was worth seeing what all the vegan fuss was about.

People will still buy and treasure books. But they’d probably buy more books if they could buy them at a range of price points, online and off.

L.

publisher’s manifesto

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.

the plastic age

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 Mini Shots series - Rhys McDonald.

Pioneering Mediocrity
Self deprecating name? Check. 36 page b&w mini comic with full colour cover? Check. What more do you need to know? Never before has so little been on offer from a webcomic! Hi jinx, boob jokes, actual boobs, nude men, it really is a book for the family to enjoy. If mediocrity makes your mouth water, you’d better hold a bucket under your face because this will have you salivating like a fat man at the buffet line!

Can’t Even Tell - The Art of Rhys McDonald
74 pages of wall to wall art, 38 full colour pages and 36 b&w. Collects various work from 2007-08, including sketches which have never seen the light of day, TPA comic strips of the highest (and crudest) calibre, pinups, robots, mexican wrestlers, girls….you get the idea. The book is perfect bound A5 size.

The comic will only set you back a coupla bucks and is well worth it if you have a sense of humour. If not, well - there’s always the art book. Availabubble to buy from the-plastic-age.com store.

L.

small publishers show a little spunk

… or is that SPUNC?

From today’s Age:

Seemingly out of nowhere, a dying academic’s last lecture rockets up the bestseller lists - something local small publishers can only dream of. A new report shows they may be doing it tough but there’s plenty of life in them yet, writes Jason Steger.

It will come as no surprise to learn from a new report into the state of small and independent publishers that the major problem they face involves money. The Small Press Underground Networking Community - Spunc - commissioned the report from Kate Freeth, a master’s student at Melbourne University, who got responses from 46 publishers.

The key findings are: that most have a small annual turnover (58% no more than $50,000, and 28% $10,000 or less); a lack of funding (50% receive no funding at all); a lack of paid staff (29% have none); 89% have used volunteers in the past 12 months; a lack of staff (24% have only one staff member); and small print runs (47% have an average print run of fewer than 1000 copies). But the report says the 46 respondents have published more than 300 titles in the past 12 months, an encouraging figure.

Full article here

L.