The Myth About Print Coming Back and Bookstores on the Rise

[Phyrebrat]

I'm with Vertigo on this one (although I'm no fan of e-readers and only read print, myself).

The extinction of books is inevitable. Not only are the benefits few and idiosyncratic to individuals, we are straddling generations who 1) only had books growing up, 2) had mostly books but some e-learning/reading exposure as tech progressed, and 3) those growing now who have access to e-copy just as easily as hard-copy.

My point is, as we shift to a more and more e-bias (when was the last time your operating instructions for something came with a paper manual? It went CDRom to online now!!) there will be those born who have no romanticised preference or conditioning to use books the way we have. To them it will be a no-brainer and after some time books will be artifacts of our culture as opposed to something we see every day.

When that time comes, I'll probably still be grumbling in a cave reading my seventh, tattered copy of The Elememtals

pH

 

[Cathbad]

Dang fancy-shmancy computers!!

 

[Brian G Turner]

IMO the argument of whether reading a physical or digital book is better is a red herring. The facts appear to be:

1. The share of print books is in decline
2. The number of print publishers is in decline
3. The number of bookstores is in decline
4. The range within bookstores is in decline

This suggests that best selling books will continue to be available as paper copies, but for everything else digital will become the only format available to consumers. This is not a choice we will get to make.

Additionally, if we look at the history of the music business - which the publishing industry appears to be following - then the future is of publishing is not simply digital, but of subscription services.

So far Amazon dominates, but there remains room for specialist subscription services to appear. I can see this working very well in non-fiction at the moment - education text books, and military history, for example.

However, it's also possible we'll eventually see a publishing equivalent of Netflix appear. Perhaps after an existing media company buys out one or more big publishers, and puts people on its board who exist in this side of the 21st century - or simply integrates to offer a wider range of media.

While this all says it's an awful time to want to get into print publishing, the future of self-publishing is one that promises diminishing returns.

No major print publisher has their books on subscription services - such as Kindle Unlimited - as yet. But once they do, self-published authors will be mostly squeezed out. Additionally, subscription models always pay lower rates that direct sales, and few self-published authors will be able to survive on mainly lending royalties.

So, overall, print publishing is dying, but the golden-age of self-publishing may have already almost burned out.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

This suggests that best selling books will continue to be available as paper copies, but for everything else digital will become the only format available to consumers. This is not a choice we will get to make.

Unless there is in premises POD, as Jo suggests. Without local POD, as you say we will only have have supermarket titles on paper.

It's not looking good for serious readers as true eInk readers are seriously under threat*. Phones, Tablets and Laptops only suit some people and perhaps the casual reader.

subscription services - such as Kindle Unlimited

Subscription services are exploitive and take away choice from consumer and control from publishers and content creators. They are only morally acceptable where the content is available at a fair price without subscription. Monopolies at retail are evil.

[* Inherently they are single use and have very expensive "eInk" screen technology from a single source. Inherently only the very expensive Mirasol can do a "passive" colour screen and no product uses it due to high manufacturing costs and Qualcomm's high licence charges based on product sale, not component purchase. A Fire isn't a real eReader, it's a cheap android tablet. The other issue is that content creators sometimes don't understand the different kinds of electronic formats, needlessly "locking out" true eReaders.]

 

[Vertigo]

Wish that were true here in the UK.

Trouble is, I don't think anything is replacing them. We can argue about the pros and cons of paper vs e-books (I like both) but what nobody has an an alternative for is the "browsing" you can do in a bookstore. Of course, Amazon can make suggestions, but I don't find their suggestions hit the mark. Public libraries are closing at a shocking rate here too. So while books are getting cheaper, the ability to discover them, and the wider "reading culture" is under threat.

I agree with this. I'd love to see on line book vendors come up with an interface much closer to a bookshop. It could have bookshelves organised by genre and author. So for example search for Asimov and then scroll down that bookshelf and you eventually come to Banks and further down Clarke and so on. You'd see book 'spines' that, as you hover over, 'pull out' so you can see the 'cover', 'blurb' and a look inside option. This way you'll get to see and browse other authors in the genre just as you would in a shop. Otherwise you only see what you search for and the Vendors 'similar' suggestions (which are often rubbish).

@Brian Turner definitely agree with your Netflix model, though I guess that's sort of what Amazon are trying to do with the Prime thingy (I don't use it so I might be wrong there).

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Netflix, Sky, Spotify, Apple Music, Kindle Unlimited etc are in the long term anti-consumer and anti-content provider.

 

[Martin Gill]

Additionally, if we look at the history of the music business - which the publishing industry appears to be following - then the future is of publishing is not simply digital, but of subscription services.

And gigs, which doesn't really translate to the literary world. What the technology we now have has done is lower the barrier to entry and distribution for content producers (bands and authors). Its now possible to write, publish and distribute without leaning on the traditional publishing infrastructure - by which I mean agents, publishers, etc.

Netflix, Sky, Spotify, Apple Music, Kindle Unlimited etc are in the long term anti-consumer and anti-content provider.

I disagree here. On one hand wildly successful artists like Taylor Swift complain at low royalty rates etc and can afford to pull tehir content because they are already crazy rich, but on the other hand these platforms provide exactly that, a platform for new artists to reach audiences they otherwise wouldn't have reached. I've discovered tons of new music through Spotify that I'd never have risked £9.99 to download or buy a physical album, but I'll stream a couple of tracks and see. The artists get revenue they'd have missed otherwise and reach new potential fans.

The original battle in the digital TV space was to own distribution. Now Netflix and Amazon are going after content, because they realise without great content you can't keep hold of viewer's attention. Spotify, BBC etc do a similar thing with live music, sessions, etc. Will Spotify become a record label? Maybe - it wouldn't be such a bad move. Will Amazon become a book publisher? Well in essence they already are, just they've crowdsourced it to us.

What all of these digital disruptors do is change the market dynamics by connecting people, democratising access to content, tools etc, cutting out unnecessary middlemen to save money and in many cases digitizing the actual product. The same trend is at work in travel (AirBnB, Uber, etc), Financial Services (Wealthfront, PayPal, Lending Club, etc) and will only grow.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I disagree here.

Only very rich people can afford multiple subscriptions.
Subscription services aim to have exclusive content.
The reason they exist is because they are more profitable. The Consumer ends up paying for more content than they are actually interested in, on average. On Average the consumer pays more and has less choice.
There ends up being fewer retail distribution channels and thus the "subscription" platforms put up price but also squeeze the content providers.
In the long term the consumer over pays and gets less choice. Only "safe established" content creators who eventually get less income.

democratising access to content, tools etc, cutting out unnecessary middlemen to save money

Absolute nonsense. New more powerful middlemen, less accountable to anyone. Amazon, Google, Apple etc don't listen to any consumer and are controlled by tiny cabals.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Arguments about subscription services may be better served in its own thread, as its a bigger topic, and interesting in itself.

 

[Martin Gill]

Amazon, Google, Apple etc don't listen to any consumer

Not true. They are all obsessed with what consumers want. They spend millions of dollars on developing an incredibly deep understanding of what people want. What they know is how to monetise it in markets that are having their dynamics transformed and the cost of access for creators constantly lowered.

Are they on your side as a consumer or a creator? Well, that's a totally different question.

 

[ratsy]

Interesting read here. I do think that paper will eventually be a niche item like records have become. There are die hard record fans, and some albums are still released in that format. I wouldn't have thought that I would no longer buy CD's so soon, or DVD's. I mean, I never buy music! I use Spotify and Netflix, or On Demand movies. It is crazy the way the tech has changed, and in another generation, this will just be common practice, or even more so, depending on what technology does. How can books be any different? Ebooks are great, easy to store and read, and audio books are only going to grow and become common practice.

I love real books too, but have to catch this wave and ride it into the future.

 

[Martin Gill]

less accountable to anyone

Sorry - hit "post" not "quote" hence 2 posts.

No more or less accountable than traditional publishers to their owners/shareholders. Just they've learned to operate in and even change the dynamics of the markets they operate in. Many businesses haven't yet and many more will fail as a result (Blockbusters, etc).

Subscription is only one part of it. Yes, I agree, in many cases its more profitable and Ray's points are on point, however many companies that move to a subscription model form one off purchase or perpetual licencing (for software) report an initial drop in revenues.

The technology we have now has changed the way we produce, distribute and consume content. No, I don't think books will ever die. Neither will Vinyl. There will always be a hardcore of people who want that experience and will be prepared to pay for it. The challenge publishers have is to reinvent themselves before someone (like Amazon) makes them irrelevant. Magazines and academic publishers (Elsivier, Walters Kleur, Mondadori, Guardian, Economist to name a few) are in the throes of this now and are transforming how they operate before they die as businesses. I don't see book publishers positioning themselves to respond to the threat.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

No, I don't think books will ever die. Neither will Vinyl.

For totally different reasons.
No electronic reader nor format matches the ease of use, learning curve and flexibility of printed media. For various reason it might not ever.
Actually the superior dedicated eInk type eReaders may be doomed because of Amazon's dominance. People like the convenience of an "App" and it's a zero cost option with more flexibility than the high inventory cost of their own brand eReaders (the Fire is just a commodity Android tablet, so Amazon can use JIT ordering or ditch it tomorrow, it's not an eReader, but an app on a tablet)

 

[Vertigo]

... I don't see book publishers positioning themselves to respond to the threat.

I agree with all you say, but especially this. Trad publishers appear to me to have their heads deeply buried in the sand, as do most trad bookshops; Waterstones completely abandoning the digital book market is just suicide to my thinking though they might get away with it for another decade or two. And maybe that's all they want!

 

[Vertigo]

For totally different reasons.
No electronic reader nor format matches the ease of use, learning curve and flexibility of printed media. For various reason it might not ever.
Actually the superior dedicated eInk type eReaders may be doomed because of Amazon's dominance.

I actually disagree with this. I think eReaders (hardware or software on phones etc.) are close to matching and surpassing the ease of use. They currently, in my opinion, only fall short on three counts: quickly flicking through pages, footnotes and images. They easily surpass eReaders on font flexibility, searches, portability and annotations. As for learning curve; I can see the argument that picking up and opening a book is completely intuitive but as more and more people have grown up from childhood using technology, I don't think you'll find they have any learning curve at all. Even I found most of the interface for my first eReader pretty much intuitive.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

are close to matching and surpassing the ease of use.

• Only for simple novels. The software is rubbish, though that could be fixed.
• The size is huge issue, anything that naturally needs larger than paperback.
• "quickly flicking through pages", is not much better now than 30 years ago. There is a problem with the storage access speed and the document compression. There are some ways of mitigating it, but not without a new OS or bypassing the OS. I've worked three times on projects relating to that issue.

I've been designing computer stuff and gadgets and I'm sceptical about "apps" replacing printed media.
it's depressing that the great hardware eInk readers have WORSE software than document systems 30 years ago and are probably doomed.

The apps are not going to get much better because they are free. They COULD have better library management, better tools, better interface to browse etc, but I doubt that will happen. Even though professional Document systems had it 30 years ago! Instead they will only add more "features" to the content (interactive etc) and ability to have more source formats. Most tablet and Laptop screens are too low a resolution and limit the size formats. Phones are only suitable for re-flowing novel text.

Ten years ago the future was brighter for dedicated eReaders than today. Even the expensive "retina resolution" LCD and AMLED are inferior for text than eInk. Most commodity tablets and laptops to save money now have worse LCD screens than professional gear 15 years ago!

 

[Brian G Turner]

No electronic reader nor format matches the ease of use, learning curve and flexibility of printed media

Reminds me of when people argued that vinyl was the "proper" way to hear music. All you're doing is providing a personal preference, but the consumer market clearly enjoys ebooks.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

but the consumer market clearly enjoys ebooks.

Not the same at all. I said "printed media" not books or novels.
I have over 1000 eBook texts, most from Gutenberg, but some are bought.
Computer, tablet, phone and eInk are useless for many types of printed media that are not in paper back book format.

The comparison of Vinyl and CD is entirely false. It's not preference. Many non-novel "printed media" are either unavailable or impossible as electronic media on existing eReaders or existing screen.
It was only a minority of luddites and today nostalgia that keeps vinyl alive. ALL 78 / 33 / 45 / Cassette content is suitable for CD or computer files, easy even to transcribe your own format / content, etc.

I even have PDFs of old journals and text books 60 or 80 years out of print that can only be easily read by printing them (multi-column and no re-flow). Many art books, technical books, magazines, manuals etc are unsuited for smaller screens. You'd need 14" 300dpi screens for some and larger screens for others. The suitable hardware varies from rare to non-existent. to be able to handle all printed media.

Novels and newspaper are trivial to put on phone, tablet, computer or eInk readers.
I have my entire CD, 78's, Vinyl and cassettes transferred to 256K and 320K MP3 files. I have 3000+ books, magazines, text books, manuals etc that are probably never going to be on computer or eReader. Every day thousands of printed media items are created that we don't even have consumer screen technology that can support it.

There is a HUGE lot more to printed media than novels and newspapers.

 

[Wruter]

And now even the NYT is erroneously trumpeting PAPER IS BACK based on the coloring book blip:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/b...books-and-coloring-books-but-not-e-books.html
40% increase in audio book sales last year is something to think about though.

I'm one of the few whose town still has a big chain bookstore. The last time I went in, which was months ago, I looked at the SF section and realized I'd read at least one book by every single author on the shelves. There was nothing new, just the established names expanding to fill the limited physical space.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I said "printed media" not books or novels.

Well, this thread is about books and novels.