The Rotten Apple of Publishing
Published May 18th, 2012 | 
I’ll be the first to admit when I am wrong. While I’ve long been a vocal critic of Apple’s “agency model” ebook pricing scheme, I never actually believed there was any collusion between Apple and the major publishing firms. But then, all these lawsuits happened, and what we are learning is that not only was there collusion, but Steve Jobs, himself, strong-armed reluctant publishers into the deal that gave Apple “most favored nation” status and fixed prices. Jobs basically sold publisher on the idea that Apple’s way was the only viable option for them.
According to Jobs, the agency model would level the playing field for publishers,end Amazon’s monopoly on the e-book market, foster competition and reduce digital piracy. Let’s see … how did that work out?
Did it reduce piracy? Nope. In fact, since the iBookstore was released for the iPad using the agency model, e-book piracy has spiked.
Did the agency model end Amazon’s monopoly? Not really. Sure, Amazon lost some of their market share to other players, but that would’ve happened anyway due to the simple fact that there emerged other players. Amazon still basically owns the ebook market as of this writing with somewhere between 65 and 70 percent of the market share.
Did the agency model foster competition? Again, not really. Other players emerged, but the agency model forced everyone to follow Apple’s rules. Those rules benefited publishers in the sense that they were able to earn a profits on many books, but it hurt consumers in the sense that they were paying more for those e books (in many cases, more than the hard copy).
What bugs me is that the publishers woes were self-inflicted. They never bothered to look for another option. They were susceptible to Apple’s machinations because they were looking for a shortcut. Dumb. Really dumb.
* This post is sponsored by car title loans philadelphia.
Financial Content Providers
Published March 17th, 2012 | When I first got online nearly fifteen years ago, their was a saying that “content is king." The conventional wisdom was that good websites were driven by good content. Then, after the tech bubble burst, it became all about web design. People argued usability v. graphic design standards and so forth. Then, lo and behold, Google comes out with adwords and adsense. Almost overnight, neither content nor design became as important as SEO. Content farms popped up as if web developers had discovered the holy grail. They’d finally figured out how to generated income from online content. Problem was, quality suffered. Every non-writer was a writer, repurposing crap around valuable keywords. Google, having made billions from this practice started to realize that their brand was suffering and other search engines like Bing were nipping at their heels. So they came out with the new Panda algorithm. A change was on the horizon. Now, more changes as ranked will be weighted in favor of content and against SEO.
What that means if you freelance writing online content is there is little room for non-writing generalists anymore. They want experienced journalists who specialize. So if they are hiring financial content providers, they not only want an experiencing writer, they want an experienced writer with a solid background in financial reporting. In order to write stock market tips you will actually have to understand what stocks to buy today.
So content is king once again. That might prove to be a good thing as it will lead to better web sites. But it will also be harder for many would-be writers to compete.
* Mother’s Day is coming — have you purchased your personalized mothers day gifts yet?
Posted in Current Events, New Media, Publishing, content mills, seo writing, websites | 
Leave a commentReading With Cheap Eyeglasses
Published January 8th, 2012 | I was blog post by new media phobic writer, Nicolas Carr, a guy who though he himself uses new media as a platform for his writing is nonetheless critical of everything digital. His latest target is e-books.
More specifically, he ponders whether being able to edit on-the-fly is a good things since a book is never really complete if you can constantly revise it quickly and painlessly. According to Carr:
What will be lost, or at least diminished, is the sense of a book as a finished and complete object, a self-contained work of art…
Well, this is a good one. Truly. I had to clean my cheap eyeglasses twice to make sure I was reading that correctly. Think about this: When the anti-eBook crowd initially poo-pooed the e-book, one of the criticisms was that there was no editorial process at all. Now Carr is saying that there will be too much editing. Huh?
Here’s my problem with this argument: Revision is a necessary part of writing. And many writers have published revised versions of printed “literary” books even after publication. Jerzy Kosinski to name just one noted writers, was infamous for doing this. Walt Whitman made it his life’s work to revise and update Leaves of Grass. And what about the many editors and literary scholars who have posthumously revised and updated well-known literary works (how many different editions of Shakespeare, Homer, The Bible are there? And don’t even get me started on what The Powers That Be have done to Twain). The only difference is that it takes longer to do in print. However, for the vast majority of writers, when a book is finished it is finished. Does Carr imagine that the ability to make quick post-publication revisions will cause writers who wouldn’t normally make post-publication revisions to make post-publication revisions? Like it’s an addiction or something?
Further, is Carr suggesting that a writer doesn’t even have the right to change and update his own work if he so chooses? This is nonsense. This whole idea that the physical form of a printed book is all that defines a book as a book is ridiculous. Is a bound collection of blank pages a book? Or is the book the written arrangement of words and ideas? Is The Grapes of Wrath less of a masterpiece in digital form? Because that’s the question we have to answer going forward. Not whether revision changes a piece of writing. Because is does that’s why we call it revision. The definition doesn’t change just because a book goes from print to digital.
*Brought to you by pa electricity
.
