Part One: Writer's Digest and the electronic opposition

The future is now, and in publishing the future is yesterday. Yet trying to explain this to the dinosaurs of print publishing is like trying to explain dinosaurs to Bill O'Reilly.

The internet is abuzz with electronic publishing - analysts are touting the benefits over its printed brethren, industry is capitalizing on new markets, and technology is innovating exciting products faster than consumers can buy them. The immediate advantages to the electronic word are apparent, such as cheaper production and instant delivery. The more complex advantages, however - those which manifest over the longer term - are still being revealed and discovered, leaving myopic print publishers cynical about potential.

A big problem is that print publishing feels threatened by electronic publishing. Rather than embrace it as a new co-existing trend within the industry, it is treated as an intruding force thrashing at the castle gates. Instinct reacts inward looking - strengthen the walls and rely on what we know. A short term strategy that becomes obsolete with the realization that the "attackers" are gaining ground as they find new ways to breakdown the walls faster than those walls can be built. Print publishing is slowly acknowledging that the walls are coming down, but that doesn't mean they except the truth.

Eliezer Yudkowsky at Overcoming Bias writes:

Giving someone a false belief to protect - convincing them that the belief itself must be defended from any thought that seems to threaten it - well, you shouldn't do that to someone unless you'd also give them a frontal lobotomy.

Once you tell a lie, the truth is your enemy; and every truth connected to that truth, and every ally of truth in general; all of these you must oppose, to protect the lie. Whether you're lying to others, or to yourself.

In print publishing this "protected belief" is that the physical product is superior and everlasting- as if only one format will prevail in this fight to the death. For a glaring example, take Writer's Digest's most recent issue "The Brave New World of Publishing." In a section titled The Future Now the introduction reads "Insiders Bob Sacks and Samir Husni square off in the industry's hottest debate: Will print magazines survive - or even thrive - in the next century?"

From Bob Sacks' "It's a Digital World Now":

From a 20th-century perspective, one of the most wonderful things about magazines and books, apart from their content, is their amazing and convenient portability. You can read them anywhere, at any time, without a plug or internet connection. Simply put, magazines and books are easy to get and easy to read. With ink printed on paper you're usually provided with a crisp, high-contrast, highly reflective substrate. And because it reflects light evenly in all directions, you can read it at almost any angle. Not bad for a 600-year-old technology.

On the other hand, a computer - be it a laptop or a desktop - is not so uncomplicated, not kind on the eyes and not nearly as convenient. But it can store as much information as the Library of Alexandria and can instantly summon text or images from deep within it memory or from the Web. [...]

Are we headed toward a totally paperless society? No, not yet and not in our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean we can rest on our laurels. It's a digital world now, and the digits aren't going away.

Did I mention that Sacks' article is the pro-electronic article?

From Samir Husni's "The Death of Print Magazines and Other Fairy Tales":

I can see the future clearly. The future is e-paper and e-readers. Magazines and newspapers will be no more. [...] If you believe all that, we need to talk business because I have a few things to sell you: The Eiffel Tower, The Great Wall of China and a great three-for-one deal on some pyramids over in Egypt.

The big problem with all of this future talk is that I have no way to see the future or how the media world and media consumption will be in five weeks from now, let alone five months or five years from now. The only two people who can tell you the future are God and a fool. [...]

There's hope. Money is being invested in our industry. Customers feel an attachment to print because holding a real magazine and tangibly feeling what you paid for is much more fulfilling than turning on your Kindle or e-reader and reading a detail-rights managed copy of something. [...]

Some prophets of doom and gloom may say magazines haven't had the best year, but try telling that to the 715 [last year's new magazine launches totaled 715] editors and publishers who introduced their newborns to the magazines world last year. They'll be quick to tell you that magazines are still the best form of media we have today, tomorrow and the next day.

The evidence presented in Husni's piece is laughable in most parts, and the general argument behind his pro-print article is that print magazines aren't dead yet... Yet. I wont even bother addressing the obvious logical fallacies, but when your argument is defensive and grasping at straws there's a good chance you're avoiding some truth. I find it odd that the magazine debate wouldn't include a true pro-electronic article. At the same time, I realize the last thing Writer's Digest magazine wants is an argument convincing its readers that print publishing is fading. My subscription expires in a year or so, and the chances of renewal are zero. The faithful Digest readers, however, who might not be as internet conscious, will probably continue to read the magazine - just like many people continue to buy CDs in stores. Regardless, Writer's Digest's agenda is so transparent they might as well have recruited Warren from the video below to write the article
"I FUCKING LOVE PRINTING"

Another example of perpetuated denial in Writer's Digest is Jordan E. Rosenfeld's 3 page article entitled "Does Free Pay?" which explores the interesting Chris Anderson piece Freeconomics from The Economist. In the original article, traditional publishing is hardly addressed, but even here, the Digest editors find it necessary to include the following quote as the final sentences:
"I'm a huge believer in the traditional book" [Anderson] says. "Everything else just helps cement the form of the physical books."

And if you thought they were done, Writers Digest also manages to sneak the pro-print sentiment (once again as the concluding thought) into the issue's lead author interview with Brad Thor

YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING FOR MORE THAN A DECADE NOW. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE YOUR OPINION ABOUT WHERE PUBLISHING IS HEADING?

I got a Sony Reader as a Christmas present from my agent and I absolutely love it. I think it's fantastic and I prefer it to the Kindle just because of its size. I downloaded a ton of books and I like to use it when I travel. [...]

Reading is an experience that goes beyond letters being scanned by your eyes. I'm a young guy and I embrace technology, but I don't think that e-books are going to supplant books on paper. There's something about turning pages and the smell of a book. I get that feeling when my order from Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble comes in and I open up that box and have fresh, clean new books. There's a feel.

I've read some great books on the Sony Reader, but the experience wasn't the same. And I just don't think that we as human beings are ever going to lose our connection to paper. You can't duplicate the weight of a book in your lap; the tactile sensation, the way the pages smell as you turn them. I'm not saying it won't continue to grow as an adjunct market to paper books, but I think books are special--they're like nothing else, and I just don't see books going away.

I wont argue against the allure of a print book. At present time, the print product is superior and more convenient but to think that the electronic product's advantages wont far exceed print in the near future seems asinine. Print publishing has reached its potential. It has maximized efficiencies and there's no where left to go. Words on a page. Even if you don't want to believe that print is diminishing in popularity (though sales trends suggest otherwise), why frame your arguments to deny the demise of print publishing? At the very least, can the two formats not cater to two different generations and target markets? Or work together for a combined effort? If magazines like Writer's Digest didn't feel threatened at the prospect, then there would be no need to conclude every single article with an optimistic statement about the future of print. Not to pick on Writer's Digest either, (they just made it really easy to do so) this mentality is prevalent through the entire industry.

So, when Samir Husni states "The only two people who can tell you the future are God and a fool" I say, I don't believe in god and only a fool resides in the past. It is not hard for me to conceive a day when print books are essentially non-existent. The first books that are going to disappear are academic books, and in a market already threatened by used-books and rental books, you'd think a new business model would be welcome. At present time electronic works are barely encroaching on the fringes of traditional sales, while offering entirely new possibilities in unforeseen markets.

"Are we headed toward a totally paperless society?" asks Bob Sacks "No, not yet and not in our lifetimes." In our lifetimes? I assume he means his lifetime because unless the drink kills me prematurely I've still got a half-century to see this thing play out, which brings me to my next topic.

Stay tuned for
Part 2: Who's on Top?

Comment and Discuss

Posted by Chris Griffin at 10:09 AM

Print Friendly · Digg it · del.icio.us · StumbleUpon · Netscape