Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age

Editor& Publisher this week published some very surprising findings from a study that showed, in terms of readers reading material both in print and online, “more text was read online than in print.” The study was part of a survey “in which 600 newspaper readers from six different newspapers were studied, utilized electronic eyetracking equipment that readers wore while they read broadsheet, tabloid and online editions of newspapers. The research, conducted last year, focused on 100 readers from each newspaper.” What the study found was that “when readers chose to read an online story, they usually read an average of 77% of the story, compared to 62% in broadsheets and 57% in tabloids.”

This is pretty astounding, and it I think it goes a long way towards dispelling the myth that print is the perfect media/medium, and that its marriage with text is a marriage made in heaven. Instead, I think this study shows that, in many cases, the marriage between print and text is instead a marriage of convenience, and that the joining of the two was originally incidental (engineered to meet a function) rather than predestined (text invented to fill the page). Not to mention that, in an increasingly digital world, the relationship between print and text is becoming gradually anachronistic. So then, since print itself is not the point, what has become truly important is the content itself. What matters least of all is the paper and the ink.

Surprise: Study Finds Online Users Finish More Stories Than Print Readers

The New York Times, among other media outlets, is reporting that “Time Inc. announced yesterday that Life magazine would cease publication next month, the third time since Life’s founding in 1936 that its owner has pulled the plug.” The last issue will appear on April 20. Increased competition from similar publications, such as Parade and USA Weekend, contributed to the death of Life, but another factor was the rise of Internet usage and the fact that Life is putting all of its photographs on the Web, “where consumers will be able to download them free.”

The company explained their decision in a statement: “While consumers responded enthusiastically to Life, with the decline in the newspaper business and the outlook for advertising growth in the newspaper supplement category, the response was not strong enough to warrant further investment in Life as a weekly newspaper supplement.”

Looked at in terms of the “print is dead” debate, Life’s general erosion of readership and brand value can be linked to more and more people getting what they want online for free or else from other media outlets who have a robust online presence. During the magazine’s heyday of the ‘40s and ‘50s, Life — along with Look and National Geographic — was one of the premier ways to communicate experiences and images to readers across the country, and yet now the Web can do that much more quickly and efficiently. Life has been usurped by websites, Flickr pages and photoblogs, and the world itself has been so flattened in terms of information dispersal that new images are communicated throughout the world in seconds; no one waits for them to arrive once a month in their mailbox.

NY Times: “Life Magazine, Its Pages Dwindling, Will Cease Publication”

The New York Times had a story earlier this week entitled “ The Album, a Commodity in Disfavor,” which talks about — as have many stories lately — how declining CD sales and the rise of digital downloads are contributing to the death of the full-length record. And what’s interesting is that this is being caused by consumers, newly empowered by online stores such as iTunes that allow them to purchase single songs instead of entire records. Because of this, “to the regret of music labels everywhere … fans are buying fewer and fewer full albums,” writesthe Times. “In the shift from CDs to digital music, buyers can now pick the individual songs they like without having to pay upward of $10 for an album.” And after gradually eating into CD sales for the past five years, digital downloading is about to reach its digital tipping point (which spells trouble for, if not the beginning of the end of, the LP). More from the Times: “Because of this shift in listener preferences — a trend reflected everywhere from blogs posting select MP3s to reviews of singles in Rolling Stone — record labels are coming to grips with the loss of the album as their main product and chief moneymaker.”

Looked at in terms of the “print is dead” debate, if records die as a concept (which is different from CDs dying as a format), i.e. there will no longer be immersive listening experiences with a beginning, middle and end, this could end up having deep and troubling ramifications for print publishers. For example, an entire generation used to buying and listening only to unconnected songs (not to mention shuffling them and listening to them in a random order), will no longer have the patience for long narrative works of fiction. This mindset has already given rise to Youtube’s “clip culture,” but it could soon give rise to the “snippet culture” which has already been discussed in this context elsewhere.

In terms of the Times story, while it seems to show a glimmer of insight on behalf of industry executives (“Executives maintain that they must establish more lasting connections with fans who may well lose interest if forced to wait two years or more before their favorite artist releases new music”) this is unfortunately not being reflected by the current actions of the Record Industry Association of America, who continues to vigorously go after file-sharers. The latest target of their lawsuits has been college students, which is beyond ridiculous since college students is who they should be courting, not trying to get into court. So while some record executives are lamenting the death of the record, the RIAA continues to the nail the coffin shut. Newspaper, magazine and books publishers will hopefully better handle their digital transition.

The Album, a Commodity in Disfavor

Last week The Economist published an article entitled “Not bound by anything,” which deals with the future of books and asks the question, “Now that books are being digitised, how will people read?” The digitization in question is of course Google’s book program, already written about (and maligned) in plenty of other places. In fact, the open line of the Economist story makes this sound all very clandestine (“In secret locations and using secret methods, human beings are scanning lots and lots of books for Google, the world’s largest web-search company”; I love that the writer makes it clear that “human beings” are doing the work, lest we think Google has invented their own kind of Umpa Lumpa). By the fourth paragraph, however, the Google-hysteria ends and the article moves on to more important questions, the very ones that form the foundation of the future of the book movement and the “print is dead” argument: “As books go digital, new questions, both philosophical and commercial, arise. How, physically, will people read books in future? Will technology ‘unbind’ books, as it has unbundled other media, such as music albums? Will reading habits change as a result? What happens when books are interlinked? And what is a book anyway?”

The article then goes on to talk about eBooks (including the new Sony device), the new paradigm of wikis, the popularity of iPods, and what all of this could mean for non-fiction (hyperlinks galore) not to mention all of the material (such as novellas) that have never really fit within the business of traditional publishing. But just when you think that someone’s really getting it, the writer trots out the old “the book is perfect” argument: “Most stories, however, will never find a better medium than the paper-bound novel. That is because readers immersed in a storyline want above all not to be interrupted, and all online media teem with distractions (even a hyperlink is an interruption).”

The same way that, just a week ago, Cory Doctorow seemed to classify all novels as the same, so now does the Economist classify all readers as similar, noting that the most important thing to them is to not be interrupted while they’re reading. This is a silly if not insane notion. Readers are changing just as much as novels are, and have been for generations now. When Less Than Zero first appeared, more than twenty years ago, it was noted that its brief scenes, short chapters, and stream-lined prose made it a novel for the MTV Generation whose attention had been shattered and for whom slow narratives had been banished in order to make way for the three minute fix of rock videos. Well, it’s now a quarter of a century later, and society has only increased speed; we have not slowed down. Music and films reflect this, and the rise of reality television shows that audiences no longer have the patience for storylines, characters or plot. Today’s readers (not to mention tomorrow’s) are used to e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, podcasts, and a dozen other inventions that didn’t exist a decade ago. Because of all this, they will be able to intelligently absorb text on a screen (even within the form of a novel) alongside a myriad of other digital distractions, and it’s an insult to them to say that they won’t and to assume that readers are like squirrels (as if any sudden movement will scare them away). Not to mention that novels of the future will reflect and celebrate these changes, not provide an antidote to them. Yes, some people will continue to hug novels in bay windows on autumn days, basking in the warm glow of a fireplace with a cup of Chamomile at their side. But many more will embrace the convenience and advanced usability that digital technology and digital reading provides, and for them nothing will be lost in the equation.

The Economist: Not Bound By Anything

Oliver Bullough, writing the Guardian’s Book blog, lask week lamented the recent news that Powells Books is producing a series of short movies starring authors that will serve as promotional features for their books. The first person to “star” in one of these is the British writer Ian McEwan. Bullough seems to bemoan all this, titling his blog entry “prepare for all-singing, all-dancing book promotion.” To this I would say, Yes, exactly, and follow this up with, Why not? If you subscribe to the notion of the “attention economy,” and agree that books now compete not only with films and television for cultural relevance and interest, but now must also beat out new media such as blogs, MP3s, Myspace and Youtube for human bandwidth, then why shouldn’t authors use every marketing tool at their disposal? People criticize this because it will, of course, change the landscape of the world of literature. These short films will be posted all over the Internet, embedded on blogs and traded on file-sharing websites, and all of the sudden a charismatic but not-very-talented writer will find himself more popular than a wonderful writer who freezes up in front of a camera. But this is nothing new; writers like Norman Mailer, Truman Capote and Tom Wolfe were the first writers to regularly appear on television talk shows, becoming as famous (or, in the case of Mailer, as infamous) as rock stars. Later generations of smart, attractive writers such as Jay McInerney and Bret Easton Ellis continued in this tradition, appearing in newspapers and magazines as the cover stars of a new literary generation.

Now the Web will take this even further. And writers who are unskilled in the ways of the Internet, or just don’t want to play any part in the online discussion and want to write their books and be left alone, will be like movie actors at the end of the silent era who were forced to acquire new skills when talking pictures were suddenly the brand new thing. For some actors, the advent of sound allowed them to shine in a way that silent films never did. For others, however — those who didn’t have good voices or couldn’t act in the way that talking pictures demanded — they found themselves suddenly without a career. Many modern day writers will find themselves in similar circumstances, unable to deal with the ramifications and changes that a new technology has brought to their art form. But this is, unfortunately for some (though not McEwan, who I’m sure will be fine), the new truth of our current literary age, and nothing can bring us back to the era of Grub Street.

Prepare for all-singing, all-dancing book promotion

The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday had a story by Ethan Smith entitled “Sales of Music, Long in Decline, Plunge Sharply,” which talks about how — as the headline suggests — even though music sales have been in a slump for years, they’re now close to bottoming out. And what’s most scary to industry analysts is that one of the things that killed the CD — digital downloads — is far from making up in its sales the loss of revenues which CDs used to provide. True, the iPod has certainly made a huge dent in the music market, not to mention it’s changed the way a generation listens to music, but Smith also points out that online access has given the consumer a myriad of choices. “But because of the Internet, those [music] consumers have more ways to obtain music now than they did a decade ago, when walking into a store and buying it was the only option.” These days there are dozens of options for potential consumers, not to mention there’s more competition than ever in terms of online entertainment. This is not just the home stereo versus Apple; it’s also about YouTube, Second Life and Myspace.

And even though the music industry has been the first to feel the pinch from an increasingly digital world, it will certainly not be the last big media business to take a hit. “The film, TV and publishing industries are also finding it hard to adapt to the digital age,” writes Smith. “Though consumers are exposed to more media in more ways than ever before, the challenge for media companies is finding a way to make money from all that exposure. Newspaper publishers, for example, are finding that their Internet advertising isn’t growing fast enough to replace the loss of traditional print ads.” For trade publishing these changes are only — so far — being minutely felt, but that will of course change over time. Today’s music buyer (or rather, the teenager today who doesn’t buy music) could be tomorrow’s twenty-something who chooses to read blogs and websites rather than novels. Because of these (mostly all-around downward) trends in traditional media, newspaper, magazine and book publishers need to embrace the Web, find ways to interact and engage with the consumer, and change its business model to meet the emerging digital reality. Because, really, if music goes away, couldn’t words be next?

Sales of Music, Long in Decline, Plunge Sharply

Rachel Smolkin has an interesting article on the American Journalism Review website. Entitled “Finding a Niche,” the essay asks “Is there a role for the weekly newsmagazines and their Web sites in a 24-7 news environment?” Here’s how Smolkin sums up the current situation: “The weekly newsmagazines could use some divine inspiration as they grasp for a foothold in a media landscape increasingly dominated by the Web. Over the last few months, the repositioning has been illustrated most dramatically at Time. In addition to shedding about 50 staffers as part of a larger contraction at parent Time Inc., the magazine has hiked its newsstand price by $1, reduced its guaranteed circulation to advertisers from 4 million to 3.25 million, debuted a new advertiser option for counting readers and unveiled a redesign in its March 26 issue. Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report are adapting as well, if at a less precipitous pace.”

Throughout the piece there’s the usual hand-wringing and doom-and-gloom predictions (”I worry about the future of newsweeklies,” says a media analyst, “I don’t know what their relevance is in the world today”), and while the “print is dead” debate gets an oblique mention (“Writing obituaries for the newsweeklies has been a popular pastime for media handicappers for decade”), the essay is a thoughtful, non-hysterical look at the current facts (and the eventual fate) surrounding newsweeklies in an increasingly digital world.

In the end, though, the article comes to the conclusion that most people are slowly realizing, in terms of the digital reading debate, that electronic screens or audio players or tablet devices or whatever simply represent a new way to consume and enjoy information, the same way that the Iliad a long time ago went from lips to the page: “Through that media cacophony, the leaders of the old-guard newsweeklies believe they still provide a special service — no matter what the platform.” And it is indeed all about the service, the content, the stories, the words; what matters least is the paper, the staples, the ink.

American Journalism Review: “Finding a Niche”

The Washington Post yesterday had a story entitled “For Bookstores, a Real Page-Turner,” which talked about how a small number of bookstores are trying to stay relevant in an increasingly digital world by participating in pilot programs with a non-profit organization known as the Caravan Project, a new company doing its best to stake its claim in terms of the future of the book. The Caravan Project offers bookstores the ability to deliver content to consumers in a myriad of ways, including on screens. In fact, the articles asks, “Want to see the future of the book? Pay attention to what’s on the screen.” This is especially interesting seeing as it comes just a few days after Cory Doctorow’s essay saying that books won’t be read on screens.

In terms of the current literary situation, the Post sums it up like this: “With books increasingly available in multiple formats — among them digital ‘e-books’ and audio versions downloadable to your iPod — what’s to prevent people from bypassing brick-and-mortar bookstores entirely, further undercutting enterprises already under pressure from online competitors?” This is where the Caravan Project comes in, offering to supply readers books in an array of formats, thus perfectly appealing to our increasingly on-demand everything/I want it now culture. For example, books will be available as regular print editions (either paperback or hardcover), digital books in several formats, audio books as either CDs or in digital form, and large-print paperbacks that would be printed on demand. This approach shows how consumer-oriented Publishing 2.0 is going to be, letting readers make their own decisions about how and when they consume their content. Tom Dwyer, director of merchandising at Borders, says of the Caravan Project, “This could be a pilot for what all publishers end up doing eventually.” Whether or not that’s the case, it’s a step in the right direction. It also shows that bookstores are beginning to realize that the “print is dead” argument — this time around — is, for better or worse, here to stay.

Washington Post: “For Bookstores, a Real Page-Turner”

SF writer and tech-guru Cory Doctorow has a really interesting essay in Locus Magazine’s March issue entitled “You Do Like Reading Off a Computer Screen,” which talks about how, even though the future will bring the adoption of “super-portable screens” which will be heavily used, “most of us won’t spend most of our time reading anything recognizable as a book on them.” Doctorow admits that this is obviously contradictory (after all, if everyone starts using Tablet PC-like devices to keep in touch, read websites and compose blogs, why wouldn’t they also use them to read narrative fiction?), he explains this away by defining the novel as something which is — by its very nature — digitally undigestible. “The novel is an invention, one that was engendered by technological changes in information display, reproduction, and distribution,” writes Doctorow. “The cognitive style of the novel is different from the cognitive style of the legend. The cognitive style of the computer is different from the cognitive style of the novel.”

I can see Doctorow’s overall point, but the problem with his argument is that he’s referring to the Novel like it’s a static, regulated thing; as if each novel were the same in content, tone and construction. And if he’s talking about thick classics like Tom Jones or Vanity Fair, then I can of course see his point that a computer device is not contemplative enough for a meandering, slowly unfolding bildungsroman. But what about shorter, experimental novels? Or else books that just beg to be jumped in and out of at different points, like Pessoa’s The Book of Disquiet? This classic book (it’s not really a novel) is constructed in short, pithy bursts; there’s not much of a narrative, and each of its sections is self-contained; reading it is not unlike reading a blog. And there are thousands of similar works that would hardly suffer from being read on a screen. Indeed, quite the opposite: they’re actually perfect for electronic reading.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that none of this takes into account the new kinds of fiction and literature that has yet to be written. Throughout his commentary Doctorow keeps a running list of all of the other things he has been doing while writing (“In the ten minutes since I typed the first word in the paragraph above, I’ve checked my mail, deleted two spams, checked an image-sharing community I like,” etc.). His attention, like the attention of anyone who lives a wired, online life, has been shattered and now exists in a dozen places at once, most of which are represented by the digital boxes on his computer screen (and the white earbud headphones in his ears). Gone are the days when a writer like Proust worked in a cork-lined room in order to keep the sound of the world away from his ears (and his concentration). The kids now reading Doctorow, and who will become the next generation of writers, will have been raised on computers, blogs, MP3s, RSS, iPods, Myspace and YouTube, and the works they create will have this electronic DNA woven throughout them. Because of this, these new works of fiction will most likely be perfectly suited to an electronic screen. The same way that all authors must be men of their time, in our rapidly approaching digital future a new generation of writers will create computer-influenced works whose words will belong on a screen the same way that the words of Thackery and Fielding once belonged on the page.

Cory Doctorow: You Do Like Reading Off a Computer Screen

There was a story from CBS News last weekend about the continuing decline of print media, and what the trouble that newspapers find themselves in could mean to the way news is covered. In terms of the current woes for most print publications, CBS News describes it like this: “Papers across the country have been or may be sold, with workers laid off as well. Major advertising revenue for many papers is down, too, and classified ads are increasingly being placed on Internet sites.” Why is this the case? Well, it’s because the Internet is more immediate, and people are online more often — and thus likely to view a news site — than they’re offline with a newspaper in their hand. After all, times have changed. “There was a time when the only way to find out what was happening was to buy a newspaper,” says CBS News, “but these days there are plenty of ways to get your news. “

In terms of the “print is dead” debate, on the second page of the story there’s a quote from Samir Husni, chairman of the journalism department at the University of Mississippi: “Every couple of years we seem to go through a cycle — print is dead, print is dead,” he said. “Anybody who is realistic will know that we will have printed paper products from now ’til eternity.” This is completely ridiculous. Of course we’ll still have printed paper products; people are saying print will be dead, not extinct. Not to mention that what they mean is “dead” as in a metaphor, meaning no longer relevant (since something that was never really “alive” can truly be dead). And to say that all of this recent debate is just a “cycle” is disingenuous at best, and delusional at worst. Because that would mean that the Internet itself, and the myriad of social changes that it has brought with it, is also just a “cycle.” But of course none of this is a cycle; instead, these are changes that are here to stay. In fact, if anything is a “cycle” whose term it just about finished, it’s newspapers themselves that are on their way out.

CBS News: Have Newspapers Reached Their Deadline?