The Very Definition of a Modern Fantasy Novel

Your new batch of modern urban supernatural fantasy

Got the January GoodReads newsletter today, and as per usual, I scrolled through the new releases by genre only to be let down by what is currently being passed off as “fantasy.”

Skim these and meet me on the other side:

Shadow Heir by Richelle Mead

From the description, “The uneasy truce between her and her shape shifter ex-lover Kiyo is endangered by secrets he can’t–or won’t–reveal.”

Silver-Tongued Devil by Jaye Wells

From the description,”Now that the threat of war has passed, Sabina Kane is ready to focus on the future. Her relationship with Adam Lazarus is getting stronger and she’s helping her sister, Maisie, overcome the trauma of her captivity in New Orleans.”

Raven Cursed by Faith Hunter

From the description, “The vampires of Asheville, North Carolina, want to establish their own clan, but since they owe loyalty to the Master Vampire of New Orleans they must work out the terms with him.”

Sins of the Demon by Diana Rowland

From the description, “The homicide beat in Louisiana isn’t just terrifying, it’s demonic. Detective Kara Gilligan of the supernatural task force…”

The Rook by Daniel O’Malley

From the description, “She soon learns that she is a Rook, a high-ranking member of a secret organization called the Chequy that battles the many supernatural forces at work in Britain. She also discovers that she possesses a rare, potentially deadly supernatural ability of her own.”

Back? Okay, good. Did you catch the trend there? These aren’t fantasy books with tangential nods to the real world, they’re real world books with tangential nods (or thick gloopy swaths) of overlaid fantastic elements.

Don’t get me wrong, I mean no disrespect to the authors of these books (and props for getting through the chain), but I am really disliking the current trend of fantasy that seems like it was put together with shovels.

The publishing industry likes to force some semblance of standardization amongst genres as well as creating finite sub genres (You know, like Supernatural Military Epic Fantasy), all in the name of making books easier to sell. However, when pushing books at the super genre level, can we at least get some damn variety in there?

I think we all know who to blame.

The Gray Lady’s 40 Million Dollar Folly

Or
How, After More Than a Decade, The Times Still Doesn’t Get The Internet

Photo by Graham Biggs

After years of talk, the New York Times finally released details regarding their new pay wall yesterday. Despite receiving mixed reviews, I am failing to see how anyone could see the new Times plan as anything but a bad idea.

First, a little background. The New York Times has attempted a paywall before – and it failed miserably. So have other newspapers, and with the exception of publications that exist in specialized verticals (financials), no paywall has ever really survived. One noted paywall, the Long Island daily Newsday actually saw a mere 35 paying subscribers in its three month trial.

Granted, the new Times Paywall is less a wall and more a Byzantine collection of rules and exceptions that say if and when you can read a Times article.

Everyone gets 20 free articles a month. Links from social media sources and blogs and some search engines will be able to read the article regardless of how many other articles have been read. And readers will always have access to the front page of the site, front page of the sections and some of all the blogs and most of some of them.

Walls have it easy. The Times is putting a crap shoot and a curb between you and the content you want to read.

What’s worse is that there are so many loopholes that anyone with a passing interest in reading any article on the Times website really can. Which leaves paying for access to the website really as more of a punishment for being a less savvy internet user than something that bestows real value.

Of course, in its pricing scheme the all but admits that the website is a free bonus. How so? Well, there’s no way to buy access just to the website. You have to either pay $15 for a four week subscription to the website and the smartphone app, $20 for access to the website and the iPad app, or $35 for access to the web, smartphone and iPad app. The math behind that is crazy, but thankfully Wired already did it.

If A + B = $15 and A + C = $20 and A + B + C = $35, what does A equal?

That answer is 0.

Yes, the New York Times is saying that access to their website is essentially a giveaway value add, but you can’t have that value unless you’re a paying customer. At least not all the time. Well, you can have access when they feel like it.

Of course, nobody is saying that the Times website is worthless, least of all the advertisers. Numbers I’m seeing is that the site took in $300 million last year from ad impressions alone. But, the new pricing and access scheme concocted by the wizards at the Times feels oddly punitive especially when we consider the competitive landscape of publishing news online.

The issue facing the New York Times seems to be multifaceted, and the new paywall will do little to solve it. In fact, if the Times earns back the $40 million paywall investment within the next two years, I will be shocked.

Let’s look at the issue. First, the New York Times is not merely competing on a city or regional level. Hell, they’re not even competing on a national level. They are an international publication and they know this, as the equally vaunted and lauded paywall took effect today in Canada with the rest of world schedule to start on the 28th of this month.

Second, the New York Times is not just competing with other newspapers. News is coming from more and more spaces – all of the newspapers of the world, plus all of the television websites, the vertical websites, blogs, and the recently emerging trend of real time, unedited broadcasts from reporters on location via social networks.

Put these two together and you begin to get the picture of the modern media landscape, people have an abundance of news sources to pull from. The sea of a million periodicals allows a rapid comparing and contrasting of news that puts emphasis on loyalty to story rather than loyalty to brand.

In order to succeed online, the Times needs to stop thinking about coping with the new system while punishing those who play by the old rules and instead move to the golden rule of selling: make people want to give you money.

I know, it sounds simple. But if it were, every product would be a must have. However, since I’ve already come this far, here are just a few suggestions for how to turn the experience behind the paywall into something actually worth paying for.

First, get rid of the freaking ads. I know, newspapers have never been about selling copies and have always survived by amassing an audience and then selling that audience’s attention to advertisers. But, seriously, if I’m paying to be there, I don’t want my experience muddied up by ads.

Second, embrace your subscribers by allowing them to be heard. This is not just an argument for comments, or for restricting commenting to merely paying subscribers. This is an argument for a second commenting system that is restricted to paying customers. Reward these users by not having them mix with the aggressive and argumentative landscape of the public comments system. Allow commenters to interact with each other. And the kicker? Require your staff to participate in the premium comments.

Third, provide access. I don’t mean the current model of access which is determined on a device-by-device basis. That’s a bastardization of infinite supply. I mean real access. Access to reporters. Access to notes on an article and background information. Access to photos that were taken but not used. These are unique items that are often of scarce supply and provide a real value to readers and differentiate the Times website from the millions of others out there.

What’s more, these don’t have to all be included in one plan, they could be rolled out a la carte and at multiple levels. Level one gets you an advertising free Times experience. Level two removes adds and access to the gated community. Level three allows for communication with reporters and peels back the curtain on the story. Hell, level 15 could involve a monthly beer with the editor.

Put bluntly, the Times is selling the wrong thing. They’re trying to get people to pay for infinite and largely fungible content instead of paying for scarce commodities like access and privilege. And that is a damn foolish way to blow $40 million.

The Future of Publishing

Music did it. Movies did it. Television is doing it. Even the newspapers are reluctantly doing it. The book publishing industry now stands as the last major media format to make the leap from traditional publishing to digital. The leap is large. The leap is scary. This is the largest change to the printing of books since Gutenberg. It’s going to require not only different marketing mindset, but a complete understanding of what digital content is.

There is, however, a key. To succeed in digital, publishers need to look at the following analogy and observe some lessons that other media industries have learned the hardway.

“The MP3 is to music as X is to books.”

What is X?

The easy, almost obvious answer is that X is the seemingly elusive eBook, a technology which has been promised to us for years. However, that answer is incorrect. Why? Because the eBook is a family of file formats, whereas the MP3 is a specific file format. This might seem like an argument based on semantics, but for the publishing industry, the devil is truly in the details.

What made the MP3 successful?

The MP3 existed for years before the portable MP3 player. The file format, MP3 was invented in 1994 – making it older than the public internet, and certainly before the iPod. As the computer and the CD-ROM grew in popularity, the MP3 became the perfect compromise when dealing with digital music. It had better-than-decent sound quality paired with a file size that was drastically smaller than other technologies of the day. Beyond that, it was portable – any computer with Windows 98 or an updated Windows 95 could play the file. To put it another way, the MP3 was universal and portable – like a book.

Again, what is X?

This is an answer that the publishers desperately need to decide for themselves. The MP3 was made the de facto digital publishing choice not by the record labels, but by computer owners. The revolution was carried out at the desktop, not in a corporate memo. The publishing industry has a position that I’m sure the recording industry wishes they had: there are numerous technologies currently available to create eBooks, yet none of them have become the standard.

The First Step is the Decision

Though there are numerous choices for the publishing industry to format future eBooks in, the importance isn’t so much on a specific format, but rather the specific format. In order to capitalize on the opportunity, the plethora of current formats, the path to success lies in publishers as an industry, or a significant share of publishers deciding on a single format. The public needs a single file format which it can recognize as an eBook. Developers need a single format to build for. Publishers need a single format to sell.

The Brave New World

There are still lessons to be learned from the way that both the music and film industries have grown moderately successful in the world of digital content. Lessons like pricing, availability, and portability. These are not easy lessons, and they often chaff against what is considered the acceptable standard. But they exist for a reason – digital content is vastly different than physical.

Control and Scarcity

Perhaps the most alluring aspect of digital publishing is the lack of resources required to produce and maintain a product. When a book is electronically published, there is no limit to how many copies can be sold. This is a wonderful thing, it means that more books can be published in a year. It means the end of a 10,000 book run. It means that anyone who wants to buy a book, can, as long as they have access to the internet.

However, consumers are well aware of this, and expect a digital version to cost less than the physical variety. Considerably so. Customers want that savings passed on to them. Why? Because they are opting out of a great deal of comfort. They cannot hold their digital purchase. An accident can easily render it lost or unusable. The ease of purchase lends itself to the phrase – easy come, easy go. And the customer doesn’t want to be the only one financially shouldering that risk.

Or, to put it more bluntly – to succeed in electronic publishing, book publishers must relinquish scarcity pricing, and scarcity marketing. Prices must be low, drastically so. Publishers must embrace a digital marketing mindset.

The Upside of the Digital Marketing Mindset

Of course, there is an upside to this. The lower the price, the lower the resistance stopping someone from making an electronic purchase. That is, the lower the price, the greater that chance someone will buy an eBook. This allows for popularity explosions, the viral phenomenon, which can’t be easily replicated in a printed book.

Digital publishing also allows for what Wired’s Chris Anderson calls “The Long Tail.” Removing the scarcity mentality allows for books to be published on a time scale that comes a lot closer to infinity and in which purchases can always be made. Long tail economics means that a property can continue to collect revenue long after it’s initially published, something that can’t be done amidst the continual turnover of a brick-and-mortar book store.

Get Centralized

Apple’s iTunes Music Store became the largest music retailer, not just online but in the United States, through a combination of branding and player. However, the success of the store draws not from that, but from the fact that it is centralized and easy. Apple didn’t secure the rights to sell music from one or two of the major record labels, but from all four of them. This made Apple the place to go for all your musical desires. The moment the switch was flipped on at the iTunes Music Store, it became an instant competitor to the largest and most established music stores in the world.

Granted, there are more than four major publishing houses, but they would each be wise to come to some agreement on a centralized, universally acceptable method for selling eBooks.

The Player

The other reason for the success of iTunes Music Store was it’s tight integration with Apple’s iPod – a device already reaching near-ubiquity when the store launched in 2003. For the publishing industry, the obvious conclusion to draw here is that Amazon is the new iTunes Store, and the Kindle is the literary world’s answer to the iPod.

Again, the obvious answer is wrong.

Why not the Kindle?

The Kindle is certainly a fine piece of technology, leveraging a cellular network and epaper to produce a reader that does a fairly good job of simulating paper. But, for all the wonderous and smart technology involved in the device, it is a perfect example of good intentions, bad idea. Or, perhaps, just bad timing.

The Kindle, which routinely sells out at Amazon, has racked up an impressive 250,000 to 500,000 units sold since it was first introduced in 2007. Beyond that, the Kindle average one book per unit per month. A quite acceptable haul with the understanding that outliers are probably skewing that number in both directions. The problem with the Kindles that there aren’t enough to truly take advantage of the digital revolution. Why? According to a report by Citibank, Amazon is only looking to sell another half million or so Kindles this year, and two million in 2010, which would put the installed base at around 3 million users.

We Already Have eBook Readers

Though this number sounds juicy enough, it falls flat when compared to this statistic: in the first month it was available for sale, the iPhone 3g sold 3 million units. It took Apple one month to put a perfectly acceptable eBook reader in the pockets of as many people as Amazon hopes to push the Kindle on in more than 3 years.

And the iPhone isn’t alone. Every one of the cell phone companies has a large touch screen device currently on the market. Every one of the of the cell phone companies has some method for distributing content like ring tones and wall papers across the cellular network.

When you branch out into the greater smart phone population, the numbers start to get truly staggering. The iPhone, however, provides a wonderful place to start. It’s a huge installed base filled with people who are already accustomed to purchasing applications and media wirelessly.

Apply the Lessons

Making the change from a physical product to a digital distribution method is a scary concept. But it is one that is unavoidable. Just as the internet lowered the perceived value of music and movies, it is also providing numerous new avenues and means for people to read.

It seems only logical that sooner, rather than later, that the book will be ported into the electronic realm. The task currently set before publishers is not to see digital publishing as a threat, a means to cannibalize print publishing, but rather as a means to make print more profitable. Selling more books at a lower price can lead to higher profits, especially long tail economics are taken into account.

The goal then, is to establish the online marketplace as the publisher, rather than to allow the free market to establish it for you. But to do that, you have to understand online publishing, and you have to do it right.

If anyone would like further information on this, including optimal technologies to use and pricing policies, feel free to contact me by email or leave a comment below.

For a more personal anecdote on the future of eBooks, check here.

Also, don’t forget to pitch me on a book to buy.

Personal Thoughts on eBooks

Though I used the music industry as the frequent example in my feature on online publishing, there is another industry that comes to mind – the current generation of video game consoles. This generation saw Nintendo break from the current processor and graphics arms race, and instead put out a console that was fun and casual. The result? They became the hands down winner. They captured an overlooked market – the casual gamer – and as a result, the Wii is still scare years after it was first released.

I am not saying that book publishers need to incorporate motion controls into an eBook reader, rather that they should go after the casual reader through a combination of low pricing and ease of use.

Personal anecdote – I used to drain the battery on my Blackberry on a nightly basis reading things online. I would comb through entire websites, reading every article. Putting away the equivalent of likely 30k to 40k of content a night. Or, in other terms, a book every two to three days.

I found an ebook reader for my Blackberry, one that handled classics with expired copyrights. The kind of books I could read for free. The program didn’t last long. I’m rather tech savvy, however the program (the name of which escapes me), frustrated me. It was slow, it was cumbersome. It didn’t work right.

Though I no longer work in a job where I can read the entire time, I still frequently browser the internet on my Blackberry while out on smoke breaks, when it’s not my week to drive to work, or while waiting for just about anything. I, and I don’t think I’m alone here, would love to pop open a book on my beat up old Blackberry and get to reading.

By going after people who would like to read casually, and setting prices so low that they don’t feel reading casually is a risk – as in less than $3 per book – this could be a very viable market.

Tying that casual market in with a centralized program, one that could easily sync up with virtual bookmarks between a handheld device and a computer, and the eBook becomes even more viable.

The difficult part will be doing it right. Thankfully there are millions and millions of smart phones currently available, all of which would function as an awesome testing group.