Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age

During this morning’s opening keynote sessions of the second O’Reilly Tools of Change conference, which is being held this week in Manhattan, a number of the speakers did their best to kill the age-old (well, maybe not age-old, but certainly decade-old) notion that “content is king.” Instead, Stephen Abram, in a great talk entitled “Information 3.0: Will Publishers Matter?” stressed that context is king, not content. He then went on to describe different aspects of what’s becoming known as a “sharing economy,” where people don’t trade money in a typical transaction but instead give their time to create or share something with a community (e.g. Wikipedia, which was mentioned a dozen times in the morning sessions alone). One sessions later, author Douglas Rushkoff, in a speech entitled “Whose Story is This, Anyway? When Readers Become Writers,” doing his own bit to kill the idea of content being king, said that “contact is king.” Rushkoff’s idea is that the main point of content is to offer people the opportunity to socialize. And it’s that socializing, or socialization, that’s the real point; it’s the contact that’s important, not the content in and of itself. He summed up his point by saying that “Content is an excuse for people to interact.” I think both ideas, that it’s either “context” or “contact” that is king — instead of content — are really interesting and, in their own ways, revolutionary (and this might be the only time in histroy when a revolution will be good for a king).

Next week I’ll be moderating a panel at the O’Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing conference. The session is entitled, Literary Bloggers: The New Online Insiders. Here’s a description:

While traditional publications such as The New York Times and Publisher’s Weekly continue to cover the book world, an entirely new (and, in most cases, totally independent) breed has sprung up online: literary bloggers. These bloggers not only cover the art and process of writing, but also the industry itself and its various players.

From web sites that trade in publishing industry gossip, to blogs that teach you how to get published, literary bloggers have created a whole new world online that is quickly proving as indispensable as its traditional print-based counterparts. And now that they’re here to stay, what can we learn from literary bloggers? How are they not only participating in the publishing discussion, but changing it? And what effect are these bloggers having on the industry (not to mention its content)?

This panel will examine all of these questions and more, putting in context the hype and the facts, showing how bloggers are helping to usher the book industry into the era of Publishing 2.0.

I have four really great panelists, Ron Hogan, Mark Sarvas, Kassia Kroszer, and Maud Newton, so come by and check us out if you’re attending the conference.

The Guardian reported earlier this week that the magazine The Economist has just announced that “From this week listeners will be able to scroll through the Economist and download audio versions of articles by section or in its entirety.” I think this is a thoroughly great idea; content is content, and whether or not it’s listened to or read, what’s important (especially in journalism) are the words. It doesn’t matter if the words are ingested via the eyes or the ears (or the fingertips, for anyone reading Braille); the only thing that matters is that someone is consuming them.

But why are they doing this? According to the Guardian: “The idea of giving Economist readers news and features to digest while they are on the move follows a move by all the major newspapers into podcasts, quasi-radio programmes that can be downloaded to a computer and transferred to a player.” What’s not explicitly said, and yet is implied (in terms of the Economist reader being “on the move”) is that a person is probably going to do both: read some stories in paper form, while listening to others as an MP3. In fact, a subscriber may start reading a story in the magazine over breakfast, get halfway through it, and then listen to the rest of it while they’re commuting to work. That situation would be a perfect example of “the attention economy” (or, in this case, “the attention Economist”). Because the battle The Economist is facing is not the facile battle of the formats (printed paper versus electronic delivery), but rather it’s getting people interested in their content in the first place; getting people to subscribe to and read their magazine.

Books, in a lo-fi way, already exist like this since people can listen to an audio book or read the print book. Of course, the selection in terms of audio books is not nearly the same as it is for print books, and most people choose one or the other: print book or audio. But what if they were given both, for one price, and they could then switch back and forth as they wanted, when they had time and when the situation called for it? For instance, you read the print book in bed, but listen to the audio book while you’re working out. During his keynote speech at last month’s O’Reilly TOC conference, Chris Anderson suggested that the buyer of his next book might receive a code that would allow him or her to a free MP3 download of the audio book. To stretch this concept a bit, if a book was also made available electronically it would be a third way to consume the content: read a few pages of the book, listen to the audio version a little, and then read the electronic one for a while. In chapter three of Ulysses a character says “Reading two pages apiece of seven books every night, eh?” So why not read seven pages a day in two or three different formats?

At last month’s O’Reilly “Tools of Change” conference, one of the highlights for me — and for most other people, I imagine — was Manolis Kelaidis’s keynote presentation on the morning of the second day. Entitled “bLink: Completing the Connection Between the Analog and Digital Worlds,” Kelaidis showed how the future of books doesn’t need to be an either/or proposition with books battling computers for supremacy. Instead, Kelaidis put forth the notion of a truly networked book: a physical product that can wirelessly (and, for the user, effortlessly) communicate with the Web, thus adding to the print sensation instead of eschewing it. His presentation/demonstration was rapturously received (that sounds like an overstatement, but it’s not; I’ve been going to conferences for ten years and I’ve never seen a standing ovation, much less one like that). I introduced myself to Kelaidis after his speech (as did dozens of others), but I also followed up with an e-mail after the conference. When he told me recently he was going to be in New York for a few days, I offered to take him to lunch and interview him, and so last Thursday we met at Manhattan’s Union Square Café for an enjoyable and far-reaching conversation that touched on the sublime nature of design, favorite books, old movies and loud music. He was gracious enough to let me record our talk, and relevant excerpts follow.

Q: Did you do bLink for the TOC conference, or was this something you’d been working on for a long time?

A: No, bLink was my graduation project until last year. And the prototype you saw was actually made last year. Since then I’ve been looking into the business and technology side of things. Trying to see if this can actually be a commercially viable business that would allow me to have the creative freedom working on something I love. So I’ve been going to conferences to see where the technology is going and how I can implement this with my book, and so on. And I have also been working on the patents, of course, which honestly is not something I enjoy doing.

Q: What are you looking for at this point? Is it funds to continue research?

A: I have been a researcher before I started my design career, and what I have learned is that I can do the most effective research by actually working on something concrete. So my aim is actually to do a first publication, a commercial publication. Come up with an idea, and do this.

Q: What was the bLink project born out of? Was it you as a book reader wanting more of an interactive experience?

A: The whole thing started in my last year as an MA student at the Royal College of Art, when I had to decide what I am going to do for my final show, for a final project. You can do anything you want. So everybody was scratching their heads and saying, “What are we going to do?” And at some point I was attending this lecture, and this person mentioned the word “books.” And it just stuck in my head. “Books.” There are so many of them, everybody buys them, everybody loves them, they’re everywhere, they’ve been unchanged for centuries, and yet no industrial designer would ever consider working on a book. Graphic designers, maybe. And there must be something in that.

Q: When you brought up the subject of books, did you find that people were thinking the way that you initially thought? That books are static, and it wouldn’t be an area of interest for most designers and engineers?

A: No, actually. People found it an interesting idea.

Q: Do you consider yourself a booklover?

A: Not necessarily in the sense of reading. I have on my bookshelf many books which I haven’t ever read. I just bought them because I was in a bookshop, and you feel it and you hold it, and I buy it. So even though Tim O’Reilly said that people aren’t interested in the book, they’re interested in the idea, I tend disagree with that. It’s not only me who has books they have never read. I know many people who do the same thing.

Q: But wouldn’t you agree that there’s more utility in reading books than in just holding them?

A: Of course. The intention when I buy it is actually to read it. But many times I don’t actually get around to reading it.

Q: So you’re interested in the material?

A: Yes. First of all, when I look at a bookshelf in a book shop, I’m attracted first visually. By the spine, the cover, whatever. However, what attracts me is not necessarily fancy looking covers — most often I am attracted by what you could consider the archetype of a book: a simple monochromatic hardcover with gold embossed letters or old fashioned paperbacks. Then I pick it up, flip through it — sometimes I like smelling the paper — and of course see what is the content is. And if everything fits together nicely, I buy it. But the first thing looking at the shelf is the visual.

Q: In terms of the O’Reilly conference, what was your reaction to everyone else’s reaction?

A: I was very nervous before it began. Very nervous. The weeks before, leading up to the conference, I wasn’t sleeping much. I was preparing, I was thinking what I wanted to communicate to such an audience. This is my process, basically. I often drive myself on the edge in order to achieve something. It’s not conscious, and it’s not very healthy, but this is how I often do things. Anyway, that morning [of the keynote] I was really nervous, but when I started doing the talk, I think I was on a mental trip somehow because I was watching people’s faces and I was talking, but on the other side of my mind I was thinking different things. It was like two personalities. I could continue talking, no problem, but I was also thinking about other things, which is very interesting to reflect upon now. I had decided to talk about my process leading to the idea, the outcome and my vision for the future. I think I took them through a journey that seems to have captured their imagination.

Q: And then there was that first moment, the first demonstration with the Mona Lisa, that got this round of applause. Did that start to tell you that maybe this would not be your usual presentation?

A: Yes, totally.

Q: And then you finish, and everyone is clapping and standing up. What’s going through both sets of your mind at that point?

A: It’s really difficult to explain. The pressure and the frustrations of the last year that had led up to that point, for me, were really, really tough. And then when people broke out into a standing ovation and everything, it was just overwhelming. And after the Q&A when people came up and started taking pictures and everything, what I did basically was get out. I went across the street and found a Cuban homeless person and smoked a cigar in the park. I was happy, of course, but it was too much.

Q: And how have you been in the weeks since? What’s been the follow-up?

A: It’s been like a journey in Disneyland. I was invited to Foocamp after O’Reilly, which was an amazing experience. After that there were meetings in Silicon Valley and San Francisco and meeting certain people you have read about, but now you discussed with or had dinner with them. Then I was invited to come here [to New York] by the Institute of the Future of the Book, and also had the chance to talk to other people. I have had such an overflow of information that really I need to go back to London, digest it all, reflect on my options and make decisions about how I want to proceed.

Q: After all your thinking about the book and how it hasn’t changed, or how it might change, what do you think — even aside from bLink — is going to happen to books in the next five to ten years?

A: After ten years, they’re still going to be like they are now. I think nothing fundamental regarding people’s reading habits is going to change — perhaps only in education and newspapers. Longer than that, they’re still going to exist, but in specific sectors probably. Some publications will not make sense to print, but others will still make sense to be published as books. And there are many reasons for this. It’s not just emotional, or because they’re popular and people are attached to them. My argument is that they’re very, very functional. And people don’t realize this. It’s a very functional device. Comparing this to a screen, where you scroll up and down, or you push a button and it flips pages, [that’s] much, much more difficult. They are also durable and my aim is to ultimately make the technology of bLink-ed books invisible and as durable as that.

Q: So you think that you’ve created the perfect combination of the two?

A: Not the perfect combination yet, but maybe the most elegant one and something that evokes peoples’ imagination. It is very satisfying that reading people are engaging in discussions about the future of the book inspired by this project. However, I think the future of reading habits cannot be easily foreseen. The future is not monolithic, or a matter of dominance of one medium over the other. Instead it is a matter of co-existence. I want to create a platform for publishing that people can experiment with and come up with their own ideas for how it can be used. I see benefits in both the analogue and digital worlds and my aim is to start creating publications that are conceptually interesting, but also new products based on the book-format that are fun to read and use. My personal motivation lies in combining electronics with text and graphics on paper and solving design problems within the constraints of traditional print and bookbinding.

In the exhibit hall at this week’s O’Reilly “Tools of Change” conference, I had a rep for iRex give me a demo of the iLiad eBook device (clip is above). It’s a nice looking device, although at $699 I think it’s too expensive. Also, it’s not yet found in any major stores, but iRex is working with retailers to make it more widely available. The video was shot with my new Flip Video camera.

As one of this morning’s keynote sessions at the second day of O’Reilly’s TOC conference, Dale Dougherty delivered a presentation entitled “The Beauty of Print in a Digital Age.” Dougherty is the editor of O’Reilly’s Craft and Make magazines, which he classifies as a “book/magazine hybrid.” The magazines are both quarterlies, and each sells for $15. Dougherty’s stated aim, with these publications, is to create “something you keep, not throw away.” In terms of the encroaching tidal wave of online experiences and digital products (what Chris Anderson yesterday called a “relentless march”), Dougherty talked about print and digital co-existing. Or, as he put it, “The old and the new are interwoven, and the art of our day is to figure out how these two pieces fit together.” However, Dougherty also acknowledged that print today looks like a “poor country cousin” next to new and flashy gadgets like the iPhone. Despite this, he believes that “print layouts can be more sophisticated” than what you can do on the screen.

In terms of an overall reading experience, Dougherty was dismissive of an online or digital interface, saying that “the Internet today is largely a collection of snippets,” characterizing the experience as being one of “small bits of information scattered everywhere.” He continued, saying that this is “very much different than reading a book…it’s more like reading street signs when you’re driving a car.” Because of this, Dougherty said “print can still offer a great experience, [it is] more like a movie than a soundbite.” In fact, Dougherty feels that the print experience is enhanced by the comparison to the Internet because he feels that print is “personal, it belongs to you; it’s something you can share with others.” He also declared print a “terrific interface people already know how to use and enjoy.”

So while Dougherty speaks of some sort of combination of print and digital, saying that we should be “weaving the old and the new together,” it’s clear that he leans toward paper and is dismissive toward digital (even though most of his subscriptions occur through the website). Steve Jobs may be declaring the upcoming iPhone to be “the God machine,” but it’s clear that Dougherty believes that print has already been sent from heaven.

Chris Anderson spoke this morning as part of the opening keynote sessions during the first day of the inaugural O’Reilly “Tools of Change” conference, taking place this week in San Jose. His talk was entitled “FREE: The Economics of Abundance and the Price of Zero,” which is also the subject of his next book. The session was just a speech, with Anderson announcing somewhat nervously at the beginning that he was not going to have an accompanying PowerPoint presentation. This was quickly greeted by laughter and applause. Anderson began by saying that there’s really nothing new about the idea of giving things away for free, and went on to cite many different kinds of economies where things — goods or effort or ideas — are given away for free. The one that really struck me was what Anderson called the “gift economy,” citing Wikipedia as the best example. These are social networking and user-generated content sites where people spend a lot of time and effort creating content, receiving for this not necessarily money but instead they get reputation and the ability to express themselves. In these situations economics as we know it (people paying for a good or service) do not apply. And then, placing his speech in context when talking about what’s happening to other media (including music and film), Anderson stated that “books are the last media not approaching free.”

In terms of ways that he’s going to use “free” to electronically promote his upcoming book (which will come out around the end of 2008), Anderson cited the following examples that he and his publisher are considering:

1. Make the audio book free with the purchase of the printed book. The buyer of the printed book would receive a code that would allow them to download an MP3 of the audio book (for free). However, the audio book would also be sold as a standalone item.

2. Book would included in all search programs, including Google.

3. eBook would be given way for free, but locked to a specific device/reader. This would allow it to be spread to early adopters and “influentials,” treating them as a “marketing channel.”

4. An unlocked eBook edition that features ads alongside the text (which is much like how magazines look, where content is next to advertising).

5. Page-view model, where users would read it online, with ads that make sense.

6. Sample chapters distributed on websites.

In terms of the analog version of his “free” idea, Anderson mentioned the following methods that could be used in terms of making print books available.

1. Sponsored books.

2. Advertising in books.

3. Rebate model; offer rebates to people who buy the book.

4. Give away books to “influentials.” (This worked incredibly well for The Long Tail, where Anderson convinced his publisher to print 1,000 ARCs — many more than publishers usually print — and they ended up getting about 800 copies into the hands of interested bloggers. From this, more than 600 online reviews appeared, which then linked to Amazon. Anderson said that his Amazon sales outweighed his bookstore sales, leading him and his publishes to believe that all of that online-linking led to more Internet/Amazon sales.)

5. Libraries, where books have always been free.

But why do all of this? Anderson said that, in this model, the “free book is the marketing for the non-book thing.” In his case, what he’s really selling is himself. He also acknowledged that, for his publisher, this is a difficult and different proposition. But Anderson believes that “you give away what you can give away, and you charge what you can charge for,” and that all of the iterations of the eBook or the printed book with ads — that any way you offer the “free” version — will be inferior to the real book.

So the real reason for all of this is to generate and maximize exposure. Anderson cited that 200,000 books are published a year, but only 20,000 make money. Because of this, Anderson believes that authors write to be read. So then writers can create audiences by making their material free. Of course, the question then becomes, How does this make money? Because these ideas don’t work for all books, and in the case of most authors, they make their money from royalties (the same way publishers make their money from sales). Anderson mentioned the inevitable publisher opposition to some of his ideas. However, he also stressed that, in an increasingly digital world, traditional publishers need to find a way to play a part in the growing community aspects that are currently growing around books.

In terms of the “print is dead” debate, Anderson was not as forward thinking. He said that the printed book is still “the optimal way to read the book,” stating flatly that the “physical product is better than the digital book.” As I mentioned in the blog post about Edward Tenner’s article a few months ago, this reminds me of the paraphrased chant at the end of Animal Farm: “Digital books good, printed books better!” Anderson also said, tongue somewhat in check, that “the only thing that comes close to the book is a glossy magazine.” (He is, after all the editor of Wired.) In the face of digital music, and the online streaming or outright downloading of movies and TV shows, he also said “books are the last physical commodity that makes sense.” He also said that books were the last item opposing the “relentless march” towards digitization. The way he said this made it sound as if he approves of the book’s continued resistance in the face of digital challenges. He expounded on this during the Q&A session following the keynotes, when an audience member asked Anderson if he felt he had been “too harsh” in his dismissal of eBooks. Anderson hesitated a bit, but then answered that his views on eBooks versus printed books are based mainly on the emotional aspect of books and not necessarily their utility.

Finally, in terms of his admittedly radical idea of giving things away for “free,” Anderson stated that “there are a lot of risks, but eventually things work themselves out.”