History retweeting itself

Tom Standage’s latest book, [amazon_link id=”1408842068″ target=”_blank” ]Writing on the Wall: Social Media – the first 2000 years[/amazon_link], has kept me going through a week of travel and meetings. As you’d expect from such a consistently interesting and good writer, it’s a fabulous book. It combines storytelling with the point (similar to that in his equally terrific [amazon_link id=”162040592X” target=”_blank” ]The Victorian Internet[/amazon_link]) that there are some constant themes in the impact of communications technologies through the ages. Here, the point is that all media are social media: they are all means of communication, the defining feature of human societies. It’s what we do. What’s more, the characteristics of different media are complementary, and introducing a new means of communication will certainly change how the older methods are used but will not displace them.

[amazon_image id=”1408842068″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Writing on the Wall: Social Media – The First 2,000 Years[/amazon_image]

Writing on the Wall draws parallels (in a suitably subtle way) between innovations of the past and today’s social media – for example, English Civil War pamphleteering and blogging, or London’s 18th century coffee houses and Twitter. The examples range from Republican Rome to pre-Revolutionary France, Martin Luther and the printing press, and the dawn of modern mass media in 19th century newspapers. In every case, the innovation was enthusiastically used by the many, and condemned as a vehicle for dangerous – blasphemous, uncivilized, destabilizing – by the powerful few. Each technological innovation did disrupt existing political structures, the book suggests.

Some of the less well-known examples (to an English reader) are especially interesting. I liked the example of disrespectful songs about Louis XV circulating in late 18th century Paris – Robert Darnton’s terrific book [amazon_link id=”0674066049″ target=”_blank” ]Poetry and the Police: Communication Networks in 18th Century Paris[/amazon_link] covers this episode. People wrote rhymes on slips of paper they could hand out in the coffee house or leave lying around in the park. The ‘nodes’ of these networks were known as ‘nouvellistes’. The reason these handwritten slips circulated was because the French authorities restricted printing so tightly – they were the Chinese censors of their day. It’s interesting to see that French journalism is still rather respectful of authority. I attended a Franco-British conference last week, and our French counterparts assured us that ‘everyone’ had known about President Hollande’s affair (by word of mouth) for months – impossible to imagine that happening in British journalism.

[amazon_image id=”0674066049″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Poetry and the Police[/amazon_image]

Newspapers played an important role in the American colonies, in paving the way for the war of independence. Although also controlled by the British authorities, publishers successfully resisted the strictest measures, and papers circulated alongside letters in written correspondence. Tom Paine’s catalytic pamphlet [amazon_link id=”1448657113″ target=”_blank” ]Common Sense[/amazon_link] was serialized in many papers.

I loved the title of the Epilogue – ‘History Retweets Itself’. It argues that ‘old’ mass media were an anomaly, and prior to their emergence in the mid-19th century social media networks were the means of sharing information and ideas. There are some interesting thoughts on the future of ‘new’ social media – will they stay in their proprietary silos or not? The book concludes: “The rebirth of social media in the Internet age represents a profound shift – and a return, in many respects, to the way things used to be.

 

 

Complementarity and serendipity

After writing yesterday (in The Economics of Shelfies) about the complementarity between e-books and physical books, and arguing that in general different vehicles for ideas are complements rather than substitutes, I happened to read this last night in Tom Standage’s [amazon_link id=”1408842068″ target=”_blank” ]Writing on the Wall: Social Media – the first 2000 years[/amazon_link]. It’s about the circulation of handwritten poetry among groups of friends and family members in Tudor times:

“The printing press was now a century old, but rather than making obsolete the copying and sharing of documents in manuscript form, print actually increased the importance and prevalence of handwritten text. Printing pushed up demand for paper throughout Europe, encouraging production and making it cheaper (its price fell by 40% during the 15th century) and more widely available.”

The passage goes on to explain the fashion for creating ‘miscellanies’ or commonplace books, large handwritten notebooks, sometimes shared.

[amazon_image id=”1408842068″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Writing on the Wall: Social Media – The First 2,000 Years[/amazon_image]

I’m about half way through the book and will review it later this week.

The economics of shelfies

Digital technologies have obviously disrupted the publishing business as they have music and film and will do higher education. The record business was first to experience the shock and in its response offered plentiful examples of what not to do. To my mind, publishing has done much better, both in terms of the incumbents safeguarding their position and in terms of innovation with new formats and new creative options.

This is not to say that everything is ideal. There are new, damaging concentrations of market power in e-book distribution. There are too many celeb biographies and cookbooks due to the winner-takes-all dynamics – dynamics that Anita Elberse’s recent book [amazon_link id=”0571309224″ target=”_blank” ]Blockbusters[/amazon_link] explains.

[amazon_image id=”0571309224″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Blockbusters: Why Big Hits – and Big Risks – are the Future of the Entertainment Business[/amazon_image]

Still, as I’ve said a few times, the balance is positive in terms of innovation, and also number of titles available and book sales. This weekend I read this post about the ‘book porn’ phenomenon, the growth in websites like Bookshelf Porn and Explain Yourshelf, the ‘#shelfie‘ vogue on Twitter. The author of the post explains it in terms of the physical pleasure, turning pages, feeling the heft of the book, seeing the spines on the shelf.

There’s an economic account, too, namely that reading online and reading offline are complements, not substitutes. Many people made the assumption that e-books would substitute for physical books. But the sales numbers don’t bear that out, as physical book sales have not declined much (during an economic downturn) while e-book sales have soared (from a low base).

It’s the same mistake that was made when people predicted the paperless office; in fact, access to more information led to more printing of documents, not less. Or when it was predicted that telephones, or social media, would reduce face-to-face contact, when all the evidence is that they increase it (see Ed Glaeser on this).

Generally, forms of communication and vehicles for ideas are complements, not substitutes.

Innovation in publishing, continued

As a reader and an [amazon_link id=”0691156794″ target=”_blank” ]author of books[/amazon_link], and now dabbling in publishing, albeit in partnership with some grown-ups, I’m endlessly fascinated by the effects of digital technology on the industry. While not in denial about the challenges facing publishers or booksellers, I think the sector as a whole has responded far better than the record industry with a series of innovations that serve consumers.

Two things caught my eye this week. The first is Kevin Kelly on the economics of self-publishing (courtesy of Storythings), spelling out the financials as well as some practical issues. John Kay is another author who has self-published some books. The technologies, combined with the sales platform provided by Amazon, have clearly brought down entry barriers in publishing to the point where individuals can have a go. The main barrier now is marketing, grabbing readers’ attention. (I also like the link in Kelly’s column to another post about the joy of physical books.)

The second was a blog post by the University of Minnesota Press (courtesy of the Princeton University Press blog) about a new series they are publishing, capturing the the faster and more engaged nature of scholarly debate in these days of blogging and social media. Here’s the core of the idea:

“Forerunners will publish timely, innovative works of between 15,000 and 25,000 words, written for a broader audience of serious readers. These could be original writing or adapted from more ephemeral conversations already happening. We’re leveraging agile publishing tools and ebook technology to make works available quickly and widely at an affordable price. This means ebooks available from all the major retailers, like Amazon, as well as print-on-demand editions for those who still prefer a more tactile reading experience. And, I’m talking a few months from submission to publication—not a few years, which would be the typical timeline for a scholarly monograph. You submit your work in January; we have it out in April.”

It isn’t all roses in the book world. Some bookstores earn 25% of their annual revenue in the month before the Christmas holiday, and most of what they sell will be ghosted celebrity biographies and cook books. But for those of us interested in ideas and enamoured of books, these are exciting times.

 

How brave a new world for publishing?

This morning’s Financial Times reports a study saying the number of insolvencies among publishers in the UK has been trending upwards, to 98 in the 12 months to August 2013, from 69 and 36 in the preceding two years. The suggestion is that although entry barriers in publishing have declined and it’s easier to reach customers thanks to digital technologies, margins have been squeezed. After all, in 2012 there were 2,450 books per million people published, which is apparently more per capita than any other country.

I’m a moderate optimist about publishing, which has been more innovative and responsive to customers than some of the other industries, swimming with the digital tides rather than paddling furiously against them. Indeed, I’m sufficiently optimistic to dabble a bit myself with Perspectives.

The FT story does note that many of the insolvencies concern magazine publishers, facing full-on competition from online and often free content. It quotes Richard Mollet of The Publishers Association (they omitted the apostrophe, not me) saying the biggest threat comes to very small publishers from self-publishing. I’m not sure that distinction makes much sense any more – it’s all competitive fringe to the bigger publishers. It isn’t entirely clear from the PA figures, but it looks to me like margins have been increasing for the book sector as a whole – sales values rose 4% in 2012 and volumes declined by 1%. And e-book margins are surely much higher than those for physical books, given the pricing points that have been so successfully established for e-books. Sales of digital books in the UK rose by 66% in 2012.

The really good news about the effects of the technological changes is that people have much greater access to things to read, and greater voice if they want to engage in the debate. So we have the paradox of an increasingly vibrant, engaged public conversation online at the same time that conventional political debate in many countries is becoming increasingly impoverished and ritualised. The public space is reverberating with informed debate – you just wouldn’t know it if you stuck to the conventional channels.