Bespoke Ebooks

In a previous blog I said that printed books were nothing more than packaging for the story. And, ebooks are the exact same story, sans packaging. I touched on the challenge facing digital publishers is one of consumers perception that the digital asset is not highly valued. It is casual if not insouciant – a file is a commodity, and although the contents may be revered, guarded and even highly valued, the fact is it’s just a file. This lack of packaging in ebooks makes the negotiation of a profitable transaction a bit of an obstacle.

So, I explored a couple of ways that are being implemented currently to give ebooks a bit of ‘packaging’; transmedia and DRM. I’d like to expand a bit more on these and introduce a couple of other examples including our bespoke ebook.

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I’m no fan of DRM, at least not in most of the forms we’ve been ‘treated’ to so far. Having said that, the social DRM, imprinting the purchasers’ personal information into the delivered file, seems to be one method that I can get behind. It offers little friction in the buying and reading process and puts the onus on the reader to not share it by way of an implied deterrent. I like this.

Transmedia storytelling is an area that I have been focusing on as a way to enhance the reading experience and add value – not just to the ebook but to the story overall. When I say transmedia storytelling, I’m talking about using several forms of media to TELL the same story – not to promote the story. This is a bit of a grey area however as readers experience a transmedia story, they will share it with others – so the experience of the story becomes the promotion.

I’ve heard the adding of video to a book being called transmedia. This is not correct. I think the term they struggle for is just simply, enhancement. And, there’s nothing wrong with enhancement – this is another form of packaging for the e-book and a necessary one in my opinion. Adding value to the content and giving a little more to the reader in return will be the key to accessing the readers’ wallet with greater success.

The way I see it, enhancements such as interviews with the author (video or audio), trailers and readings from the book are going to be commonplace among ebooks, if for the only reason to retail the ebook at or near par with the printed book. Without enhancements, I think it will get tougher and tougher to retail ebooks over the $10 mark in the coming years.

I think everyone can agree that book pricing is going to fluctuate over the next year as publishers try to find the sweet spot in the growing online store. Last year was a completely different shop for consumers than this year – titles are added in bulk everyday to the hoards of online selling points and the amount that readers can choose from, just in this last year has multiplied at alarming rates. Many of the publishing companies (for various reasons, mostly rights based) haven’t even begun to touch their backlist and OOP titles. All of which has to impact the price. Doesn’t it? The demand is increasing, but this increase is being outstripped by the supply.

There are some that have speculated a ‘Netflix’ model for books may be in the future for ebooks. I have to agree. Subscription based services are taking hold in music and video – why not books? Some find it hard to imagine it working, but think of it in terms of a book of the month club. For titles with no enhancements or ‘packaging’, I can see this being a good fit. This model is ideal for publishers and authors looking to connect with a potentially huge audience through their backlists. I was very hesitant of this type of model when I first heard it discussed, however the more I think of it – and the more I use Netflix – the more I see the potential for the book industry. It's not the 'solution', just another channel to sell content.

Of course the subscription model wouldn’t work for all ebooks, new releases would be excluded from this one would assume as would ebooks with ‘packaging’. Ebooks with packaging have more to offer and will be valued at a different level, by the authors, publishers, retailers and ultimately readers. I know this is a sales model, but the subscription model relates to packaging vs. non-packaging as it’s potential and possibilities illustrates clearly where ‘packaged’ ebooks and non’packaged’ ebooks would or wouldn’t fit.

So, what other ‘packaging’ methods are there? Bundling – putting an ebook together with a print book, pre-sales – pre-selling a much anticipated release, re-sales – for an additional fee, allowing ebook purchasers to re-sell the book (putting controls on the resale market) and how about special editions - multiple versions of the same story? These are all forms of packaging that ebooks can employ.

When we released One Child, our online story was slightly different than our printed book as it included small edits throughout to coincide with actual events that were happening in the world as the story was released in real time. This meant that you could buy the print book after reading online and get a slightly different experience – the story was the same, but some of the details were changed. This would be equivalent to the directors cut in the movie industry… a great way to connect with fans wallets on multiple occasions with the same story… How many versions of Star Wars are there? How many do you have at home? I know I’ve got a few… don’t even get me started on Lord of the Rings. So, are books any different? Right now the answer is mostly yes, but special editions are easy to do in ebooks… at least I think so.

But, what if every single reader got a different experience from the same book? What if every single book that was purchased was different? What if it was personalized for each reader of the book? That is some powerful digital ‘packaging’ on an ebook. Margaret Atwood touched on personalization and value at the TOC conference in February, on her last slide (a scan of an illustration she drew and coloured) - she asked the audience how much the image on the screen was worth on the internet (free?), how much was the original worth (a lot more?), what if she signed it (a hell of a lot more?). This interesting concept added fuel to the fire of my thoughts on digital asset valuation and what personalization adds to the mix.

Creating original content en masse has not really been thought of as a feasible venture. If something is personalized or customized, it’s typically a one-off, expensive and takes time to get/make. Creating digital content for one person at a time is possible… completely doable and we’re working on it.

Introducing the Bespoke Ebook.

I’d like to think that the next iteration of packaging, at least what we’re working towards is the bespoke model. Creating stories tailored for the reader, highly customized with reader input – creating one-off stories. This compliments the transmedia storytelling experience and is an area that we are exploring with great delight and enthusiasm. We have an opportunity to do something really different and creative with our next thriller novel and we’ll be looking at ways that offer a more immersive experience as well as a number of ways to promote and monetize the story. I don’t want to tip our hat too much, becauase we’re in the exploration phase right now and will likely do some testing before launching it publicly. Everyone is excited by the possibilities it has to offer, the business side likes the upside of having a ‘packaged’ product that could yield more dollars and the development team likes that fact that we’re breaking down new walls.

I’m looking forward to sharing information on this at the Books in Browsers Conference in October.

The Product is the Package

Much has been talked about the publishing industry; the impending downfall of print books, ebook pricing, DRM and so much more, ...so much, that I am reluctant to even add my two cents. Regardless (or irregardless as I sometimes like to say), here is my humble opinion on some of the issues facing the industry.

First, let me clearly state my bias; I am digital publisher with a focus on transmedia storytelling and distributor of digital content. I believe strongly that, barring some global internet shortage, digital is the future of everything... it just needs some sorting out still.

Now, I'm also of the age where I have a massive collection of vinyl, which I still listen to regularly while working in my office (when there's nobody else here). I also have a pretty good collection of first edition print books from each of my favourite authors. So, I have more than an appreciation for analog formats, I still engage with them regularly.

This engagement and tangible experience is why I don’t see print books ever dying. But, I think their sales will decline gradually over the next 5 years as ebooks continue to take off and erode the print market. This will see a rise in exclusive print runs, special editions and fewer and fewer titles seeing any ink at all.

So, what’s the matter with a decline in pulp and an increase in 1’s and 0’s it’s just a trade off, right? Well, no. As this transition takes place, millions of sales dollars are at stake and all traditional publishers are in the same boat. At this time, consumers don’t see ebooks as having the same value as printed books – but it’s the same product, isn’t it? Well, no. Consumers perceive digital assets as having a very low value which is a huge obstacle when selling them something such as an ebook.

I suppose if we can increase a readers’ perception of value we could maintain a price level on ebooks that offers a sustainable environment for publishing as well. Sure, but to do this, we need to really understand what we’re selling and demonstrate to readers a tangible experience worth paying for.

When you break it down, books are nothing more than packaging. No product is. Now, the publisher and author will tell you, ‘the content is what you're buying, not the packaging’. I say this is dead wrong. Most are under the assumption that the packaging is what the content resides in, and while technically that’s true, without the packaging, there’s not much left to sell or for the consumer to connect and engage with other than maybe 95,000 words, and that can be saved as a .txt file.

If 20 years in marketing consumer products and brands has taught me anything, it's that people buy packaging. Sure, some will argue this, including consumers themselves, but in the end this is what it comes down to... people buy packaging.

And, what exactly is packaging?

It's the wrapper, the container, the vessel that the content is presented in. My definition of packaging is a little more vast than that of perhaps a dictionary, or well, you. But, packaging to me includes many things and encompasses everything you are trading your hard earned dollars for. Good product packaging should include some sort of tangible remnant or an artifact of the product and/or allow you to engage with the product, offering you an experience that you associate with that product.

While listening to a good old-fashioned record, I can read the liner notes and marvel at the cover art – this is packaging at it’s best. The better sound quality and this visceral, visual, tangible packaging experience is why artists and record companies are releasing on vinyl again… there’s a premium price attached, but it’s well worth it.

Having just paid $40.00 for the new, beautifully designed Strokes 10 song LP – the packaging was beautiful and the experience of opening it, handling it and engaging with it while it plays is worth every penny spent. Now, as a digital album, it’s $9.99 – same songs, but there’s no further experience or added value… just listenting. It’s priced right. Heck, at .99¢ a song and I’ll probably pick that version up too so I can listen to it in the car.

For 4 times the price, the music publisher has offered me an experience by creating packaging around the digital asset. (and, don’t for a minute think this wasn’t digital first, just as books are typed into a digital environment, then typeset and printed analog in a book, so too is music). The wrapper or packaging of the digital product is where the perceived value is for the consumer.

In the case of the good old print book, the packaging was done in the form of subtle, beautifully designed text, printed on crisp, porous papers that were easy on the eyes but spoke of quality and importance. This was further packaged with stitched eight page signatures and set into a hard back cover, the linen stretched taut, folded and glued with precision - so much so that the average reader didn't give the construction of it a second thought - it just came that way, it was perfectly bound and solid. The linen was hot foil stamped with the title and author's name. Then this is all finished with a gloss-laminated dust-jacket with embossed text and a perforated price tag inside the fold. I think you get the picture, when you fork over $38.00 for this book, it's not for the 95,000 words inside, it's for the packaging.

Without this packaging, what are those words worth?

Surely there is a price to be paid for something that someone has spend so many hours creating. A team of people were involved in the creation of the digital asset, surely their time is worth something. Unfortunate as it is, if the consumer can’t see it they have challenges understanding it’s value.

In the case of ebooks, there is no packaging. Or, rather the packaging that does exist is 'owned' by the digital reader or store front, and that has little to do with the publisher or author. It also has little to do with the reader and the experience with the product is controlled by the retailer or the device, who has varied interests in your experience outside of the text you are reading. In essence, the retailer and devices own the packaging through the digital storefront – your enjoyment and experience is secondary to volume.

So, if this is the case, if it’s true that consumers buy packaging and not the product itself, and what little packaging exists is controlled by the retailer and device, how do you go about pricing something with no packaging, if packaging is what the consumer has been indoctrinated into purchasing?

Consumers expectations sans-packaging are low, which is why digital content has suffered the label of being worth less, but not worthless. They still want the product, they’ll even pay for it, but not at a premium. ‘It's just a digital asset – what can it be worth?’ We've all heard this. Most of us have seen what 95,000 words looks like in a .doc file, some of us have put them there. Take the time spent typing all those words away and what do you have? All you have is text that can be copied and pasted like a funny image on the web, it’s void of value – until you introduce experience and packaging.

The same goes for any digital asset. We need to be inventive to create experiences around digital products to make money with them.

Digital assets are all the same; we used to purchase Lettraset sheets, sometimes hundreds of them for specific client fonts. There was value inherent each time you rubbed out a letter. Fonts used to be packaged – now, you just select a different font from your toolbar. The end product is the same, the experience is different, less valued. Ergo, in the consumers mind, it should be priced less.

In Apple's App Store, the Apps range from free to $899. The device is the packaging, you experience each app though it and the varying degrees at which the software manipulates and displays the data… or slingshots birds. The point is that you are constantly interacting and engaging with this digital asset and that’s the where the perceived value is. This is similar to cloud based apps – maybe you remember when software was packaged in a box with instructions and a CD or two, you may also remember, there was a much higher retail price.

I think you get the point – the product is the package.

Until this issue of packaging gets resolved, publishers have been willing to look at many ways to maintain a price that defies perceived value on the digital asset they call ebooks. They crave a price that is closer to the heavily packaged print book.

Two ways that have been explored by publishers and debated endlessly are DRM and Enhanced ebooks.

Personally, I’m not a fan of DRM, I feel it undermines the trust the author and publisher have with the reader and quite frankly, I’ve paid for my product (or packaging) and I’ll do with it as I please. Jumping through hoops to access content or restricting access to devices does not make for that same carefree enjoyment and experience you get with a physical product. I know why publishers want DRM on their products, but I would rather see them incorporate some ‘packaging’.

I need to applaud the Pottermore project for bringing ‘social DRM’ into the spotlight, a process where the readers personal information is embedded into the product as a way to prevent copy – this is a far less intrusive and acceptable form of protection than anything I have seen so far.

The other method employed by publishers to create more value on their ebook properties is enhanced versions. Enhancements come in various forms, from the inclusion of video or audio and web links or a full on transmedia experience. Enhancement is where I think publishers need to focus their attention. This is as close to ‘packaging’ as you’re going to get in the digital space – creating experiences around the 95,000 words demonstrates value and commands a higher price.

My company has decided to focus on the transmedia storytelling side of things, and with my background in consumer packaging and brand experiences, we should be able to create that elusive engagement with the reader, providing some tangible experience that they will want to explore again and again.

At the end of the day, consumers want to feel good about the purchases they made and purchasing things makes them happy. Packaging is validation of money well spent.



Packaged in this blog, what do you value my 1791 words at?

Mmmm.... Peanut Butter! Part 2

To understate the fact, I enjoy peanut butter, maybe more than the average person and I admit this with a mix of pride and some reservedness as there is still some stigma attached to any addiction.

Peanut butter is not my only love. I also love radio.

Radio's early days were fraught with experimentation leading to it's primary reason for existence, entertainment. I'm excluding it's other uses like news and communication because what I love about radio is it's awesomeness as an entertainment vehicle.

The early part of last century saw radio becoming the central component in a home for entertainment. Every home was plugged in and listening to their favourite shows acted out on the airwaves. Some of these shows are still played by a few radio stations and many of these are still more entertaining than TV. You get to combine the use of your imagination to visualize the happenings without the awkwardness of having to read a book.

Back then, radio was the hub. And for a while it stayed that way until television showed us visually what was happening.

In a way, this 'hub' style entertainment is exactly what Apple is trying to recreate with iTunes. For those that are plugged in and using iTunes to it's max, you know that you need not go any further for any entertainment - rent movies, download courses, music, TV shows... and sync your communications. Early adopters are in love with this, but it's still got a long ways to go for mass acceptance and use.

Growing up, there was only one radio station in town. There were actually 6 stations but with 1140 CKXL on dial nobody listened to anything else. XL as it was affectionately termed had the highest ratings of any station in North America as it related to the population, or market share. It was the king of the airways and enjoyed that spot for well over 10 years.

What was XL's secret? Well, they were a popular music, AM station, but they weren't confined to a single genre - they played everything from country, pop and disco to heavy rock and parody songs all in the same hour. Bottom line was they just played good music, they didn't confine themselves to a restricted playlist of a single genre. They had great on air talent and great marketing, they were involved in the community and didn't take their success for granted (not outwardly anyways).

So, what ended their reign? There were a few factors, first and biggest was the advent of AOR (album oriented rock) which in turn popularized FM radio - a much better platform for music listening (hurray for stereo!) - this pretty much ended most AM music stations throughout North America. The second was the increase of competitors (more stations) and the third was the poaching of their much loved on-air talent. With more choice in the market and B-sides to listen to, the audience was fragmented and diluted. They still had a core listenership, but there was just too many pieces of the Calgary radio pie and everyone was fighting for the extra slice.

Now, I'm not an expert in the radio or peanut butter business, but I did spend a few years working in radio and a few years working in the food industry. So, my insight is perhaps a little broader (or narrower) than most.

What I can say is that radio is a funny business, and I mean funny peculiar, not funny haha.

Radio and peanut butter react to market changes in a similar manner in that they change their product without considering what made their product popular in the first place. However, in the case of peanut butter, changes usually are made slowly, in increments over long periods of time, whereas radio changes are usually done overnight and are very dramatic.

Some of these changes appear to be knee jerk reactions, panic decisions that are based on some numbers and not on what the products or core values are.

In Calgary, some radio stations change their formats more frequently than I change my Facebook status. The decision to change a station format is generally based on audience loyalty (or lack thereof) which is determined by the measuring stick called BBM. Obviously, ratings are important as they determine advertising rates and sales - which is why stations rely so heavily on their verdict.

In my opinion, the method of gathering data by BBM is dated and renders inaccurate results of the actual market. I've participated in these surveys for TV and there is no accurate way of monitoring exact use unless it's electronic and synced to the device that is being monitored. At best it is a partial sampling of some of the listeners in a market.

The only saving grace is that BBM is what all stations use, so they're all playing with the same deck of marked cards. The BBM is comprised of surveys filled out by listeners who jot down what they are listening to in a diary... yeah, by hand - you can imagine how accurate this is. This type of survey is great if it's 1972... hopefully there's some better way to accurately measure listening habits of people, what with the interwebs and such. In fact, I believe an electronic version is in the works, and I trust BBM is leading the charge in this so they can remain the leading authority on all radio ratings, as they do have a great reputation in the industry.

So, radio stations use the BBM reports to measure their market share and make a lot of their programming decisions based on the findings of these reports.

Here's how it plays out:

About two years ago, a new station starts up and promotes themselves as Calgary's newest music source, their format, meaning what their positioning statement and their playlist is comprised of is considered 'good music'. And, after 3 or 4 BBM reports with no measurable impact (no upward swing in audience) they revise their format and try to target a niche that is open, they call this new format 'classic alternative'. For 1 maybe 2 BBM reports, they operate under this clever new format (if you are an avid music listener you may consider this format a bit limiting and somewhat laughable) and realize that it isn't helping so they change their format again, this time a complete change up, to 'Top 40' - which these days is mostly pop, dance and hip-hop.

So, what this means is that for about 2 years they hooked listeners with the promise of one type of music (good music), slightly modified it in hopes to increase their share of the market and then completely changed their offering.

In measuring the performance of a radio station, Average Quarterly Hour (AQH) ratings are important, but so is loyalty (that's where most of the AQH comes from). Changing formats does nothing to increase loyalty, in fact is has the exact opposite effect. The listeners that were happy listening to Green Day and Pearl Jam are for sure not tuning in now that Britney Spears and Fergie are playing. This means that they are starting at ground zero with their audience base and discarded the loyal listeners they earned in the process.

I genuinely feel sorry for the marketing people at these stations, for months they work on branding and positioning a station as THE place to be for XXX then after two bad BBM reports, they are repositioning to be YYY.

This is a black hole to which no amount of marketing can escape.

It happens all the time in radio. And, it's the stations that consistently change their formats that are always the ones struggling to keep up in the ratings game.

Marketing and brand building comes down to a being authentic, being true to the brand and what it stands for. And, if it's a good idea don't waiver - don't stray from your brand motto, you can make subtle changes and modifications to keep up with the market, but never make and about face change - that is almost certain death for a brand. (insert link to new Coke here)

Some good examples of local radio stations that have stuck to their guns over the years and remain successful because of it are as follows:

CJAY 92 - Classic Rock and has been for a couple of decades - they continue to be in the top half of the ratings game year after year. Many stations have tried to knock them off their perch, but have given up after a few bad BBM's and changed their format - this only strengthens the loyalty of listeners to CJAY.

COUNTRY 105 - Western Canada's country music powerhouse, not because they're the only country station, quite the contrary, it's because they have remained true to their original vision - sure some of the announcers have changed and the playlist has adapted over the years with the whole country music genre, but it's still the same great brand as it always was.

CHQR 770 AM - Calgary's talk radio station and has been for some 18 years, the talk format is definitely the best use of AM radio. The format of a talk radio station is very similar to a TV station in that people will tune into their show, not necessarily the station - this helps and hurts the ratings - but they've got a huge loyal audience.

Kudos to these three local stations for staying true to their brand.

When you think about it, who would want to invest any time in becoming a fan of a new radio station when you know that the first sign of a ratings drop they will change format? Radio is no different than any other brand, make adjustments to your current product, don't drop it and try to reinvent yourself unless the brand idea is no longer relevant (like a disco station would have been in 1982).

When it comes right down to it, commercial radio is no different than any other product in the grocery aisle. You build a brand through loyalty and delivering on peoples expectations consistently. Sure change is inevitable, but it can't stray from what your core values are as a brand. Be true to your brand motto always.

I still love peanut butter and I still love radio, especially now with Satellite Radio.

These days I listen to Little Steven's Underground Garage on Sirius - with DJ's like Little Steven and Andrew Loog Oldham you are treated to some great inside stories and some 10 minute intro's into songs - it's back to being an entertainment source for me and I can't wait to turn on the radio to hear what's going on...

Mmmm.... Peanut Butter! Part 1

Both radio and peanut butter have humble beginnings, making their big splash this side of the border. Marconi used Newfoundland to receive the first Trans-Atlantic broadcast and Edson patented peanut butter from his residence in Montreal.

Canadians are awesome. (insert smiley face emoticon here)

A number of years ago, in the grocery aisles where I grew up, there were three dominant brands available to consumers: Skippy, Squirrel and Empress.

Empress. What can I say, it was the Safeway store brand before there the invention of no name or generic products. It was a decent enough product, and half the price of the others. You knew better than to ask for allowance when there was Empress in the pantry cause things were tight if we were eatin' store brands. Quality was always good, but flavour was a bit lacking and this was true of most of the house brands, the jams that Empress made however were top shelf. Today, the Empress brand is reserved for jams only, other products along with the peanut butter moved into large tubs with lousy packaging that equal the taste.

Skippy was the fun one, it had colourful packaging, and was noticably sweeter and smoother than the others - their secret was the use of icing sugar rather than granular or liquid sugars. The packaging was marketed to kids, and as a result, it was the top pick amongst us kids. The Canada Corn Starch Company manufactured this under the Best Foods banner until it was sold to Unilever in the 1990's.

Squirrel peanut butter was a novel treat from time to time as it gave you one of the first unique packaging experiences known - when you opened the jar you were greeted with a whole peanut, sitting on the top of the peanut butter. The first scoopful was always a treat - the rest of it was so-so, mostly because it wasn't the kids first pick. I may be wrong about this, but I believe Kraft had this under their umbrella and manufactured it for many years before finally selling to Best Foods in the 1990's. CCC, AKA Best Foods, quickly liquidated many of their lines which included the unloading of Squirrel and Skippy to Unilever.

When Unilever acquired both Skippy and Squirrel, they decided the consumers only needed one peanut butter or they only wanted to manage one peanut butter with the accounts. Customers wouldn't notice, or if they did they wouldn't be vocal about it - luckily I didn't have this blog then. They did it slowly, they slowly killed off the number two seller in the category. Some companies in the food industry would die to have number 1 and number 2 sellers in a category - there certainly must have been other issues to arrive at the decision they did to nix the poor squirrel.

So, Skippy came out on top and its name would carry on down the sales trail - but how exactly would they 'off' good ole Squirrel? Well, they decided to do somewhat of a merger of the two brands - a sort of brand integration 'til the end. I actually would have advised the same tactic at the time. They merged the two brands by calling it Skippy the Squirrel and in a collaborative effort between wordmarks and fonts the slowly worked the squirrel out of the brand. It was the Skippy formula with the Squirrel peanut on the top... for a while.

Whether through customer feedback or just sheer lack of understanding of their brand legacy, they changed the formula and dropped the whole peanut. And, over time, the packaging featuring the little mascot squirrel and the name squirrel started to shrink, and each time you purchased a jar, it got smaller and smaller until one day they were gone entirely. Gone from the shelf, but not from our memories.

I used to love having a peanut butter sandwich... raspberry jam was my all-time favourite, but strawberry jam or honey worked out nicely too. And, if my dad taught me anything it's that the amount of peanut butter is at the very minimum twice as thick as the complimentary spread - dad always made the best peanut butter sandwiches, not sure if mom was spreading it thin as a means to make the jar last longer or she just didn't know any different. I never told her this fact because she would change it for sure and there would be no difference between the two - then dad's wouldn't be looked forward to as a treat.

These days, a bit of me gets disappointed when I eat a peanut butter sandwich. I get excited about the idea of a PB and J, I lay out the bread 4 up on the counter with the tops of their crusts touching. My mouth waters as I make the sandwiches, but when I take the first bite, something is different. It's not the same. Is it that I am old and loosing my taste buds? I don't think so. I think the formula has been changed ever so slightly over the years, a bit here and a bit there... enough to make my childhood treat, my comfort food, my sit back and relax snack, a distant memory.

Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy the sandwich, it's just different. It's not the same as it once was. And, it once was great.



Kevin's helpful shopping tip: if you're looking for real jam, it should read 'jam' on the label, fruit spread is not an acceptable substitute in my book.