Amazon, Books, and Change
October 28, 2011
Amazon’s recent pre-release sales campaign for the not-yet-here Kindle Fire, with a price below most expectations, has created a lot of buzz around the company’s digital publishing aspect.
However, Amazon is going far beyond just eBook publishing: the company is becoming a major publisher in its own right. Features such as AmazonEncore, which uses customer reviews on Amazon websites to predict what products could potentially have greater sales, and imprints such as Powered by Amazon (short books) and 47North (science fiction,) the company is on the right route. We learn more in TechDirt’s article, “Does Amazon Want to Monopolize the Entire Publishing Chain?”
[Amazon]’s hired Larry Kirshbaum, a literary agent and the former CEO of Time Warner Publishing Group (now Hachette Book Group), to start a general trade imprint. Until now, Amazon’s imprints have focused on genre fiction like mystery and romance. By hiring a high-profile industry veteran to focus on “quality books in literary and commercial fiction, business and general nonfiction”—and by releasing those books in both print and digital formats—Amazon is announcing itself as a serious competitor against the “big six” traditional trade publishing houses.
This move, in addition to Amazon’s imprints and the spread of Kindle e-readers, the company is quickly becoming a global publishing company. Amazon could very easily take over traditional publishers because of its distribution possibilities. The way things are looking, it doesn’t seem like Amazon wants to simply become part of the traditional publishing chain. Amazon is on the right track to take over the entire publishing chain.
As our beloved goose-like publisher says, “Online services are potential monopolies.” If Stephen E Arnold is correct, then Amazon is going to be chasing Cornelius Vanderbilt’s achievement. The fellow did pay for Grand Central Station himself I believe.
Andrea Hayden, October 28, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
The Gray Lady Does a Sophie Choice to RIF Real Pros
October 19, 2011
Last week, The New York Times announced internally that it will eliminate 20 newsroom positions through “voluntary buyouts instead of firings.” The core business of the Times has always been the print newspaper, yet that business is shrinking. No matter how successful the digital business is, it cannot replace the revenue the print business once had. Business Insider’s “The Incredible Shrinking New York Times Keeps On… Shrinking” tells us more:
Unless the New York Times Company can figure out a way to turn around the print newspaper circulation revenue (highly unlikely), this shrinkage will continue. Even if the online pay wall is wildly successful, it will not replace the circulation and ad revenue the company will lose as print subscribers cancel. And as the print business shrinks, the print cost structure that supports it will have to shrink, too.
The company’s print-ad business has steadily shrunk over the past four years and the future looks wimpy. In the full memo executive editor Jill Abramson sent to staff, she comments that the difficult and uncertain economy has posed a challenge to the company: balancing journalism in the digital age. Online business for the Times is thriving, but without the profitable print business it one had, the future is somewhat less rosy than Google’s.
Andrea Hayden, October 19, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Arnold Columns October 2011
October 17, 2011
In my recent peregrinations through Europe, one person asked me when the columns I describe in the blog become available. My answer is, “I have no clue.” The publishers pay me to do articles and essays that meet their audiences’ alleged needs.
Some publishers put the information I submit online; for example, Information Today at www.infotoday.com. You will have to run queries to locate my contributions. I don’t look at my for-fee work after I submit it.
Every four or five years, I ask a gosling to gather up drafts and slap them on the ArnoldIT.com Web site as a reference mostly for me. Other publishers use the information in online publications which may be require a subscription. I think the IMI Publishing products work in this way, but I am not sure. The idea is that I spend more time creating the for-fee write ups. I understand that at least one person in a country with lots of vowels in its Americanized name want the articles in the blog, but that’s not possible. I can include some humor in my blog, but my for-fee articles are serious and I often point out some of the shortcomings in quite well known search and content processing companies’ business tactics.
A bit of humor: In Europe two weeks ago someone asked me why I was traveling incognito. Ah, 67 year olds must not have a Project Runway sense of style. I submitted this picture to my various publishers and no one thought I was even mildly entertaining.
Stephen E Arnold in disguise in a far off land. I think I look quite sporty.
Here is a summary of the for-fee content submitted in October 2011. I think most of the information will be available before January 31, 2011. Publishers have their own systems and methods. Who am I to urge a different world view when someone is paying me money? The goose is addled, not stupid.
Enterprise Technology Management, “The Google Spring: Not a Company, a Movement.” The article summarizes the notion of the “spring’ activist activity and Google’s 2011-2012 global road show. Google seems to be kicking up its marketing and its assertions about the “value” of the firm’s enterprise services.
Information Today, “Windows Metro: User Experience over Findability.” Microsoft is following Apple in the user experience race. In this write up, I explore who will be affected by a radical interface change and what the shift implies for the consumerization of information technology.
KMWorld, “A New Sales Recipe for the Enterprise: Governance, Semantics, and a Dash of Open Source Sauce.” In this essay, I look at how firms are wrapping themselves in “open source goodness.” Beneath the marketing frippery beats the commercial heart of a capitalist. Exciting.
Online Magazine, “Open Source Search: Clarity or Confusion.” The essay raises the question, “How confusing is open source search?” To help the reader get his or her arms around the notion of “confusion,” I created a table listing two dozen providers of open source search solutions. Implicit in the essay is, “How many of these will your CFO recognize?”
I did some work for clients which will run under the clients’ name. You will be able to identify my contributions if you are a reader of this blog. I try to maintain a non-news style which, once in a while, is distinctive. One of the people buying my content told me, “You have a unique voice.”
Ms. Sperling, my English teacher in high school would not agree. She thought I was a smart aleck, indifferent to the strictures of the Victorian Age and somewhat indifferent to the views of the higher ups in the institution. Not surprisingly, I spent some time in the hall outside of the class room due to my occasional flights of literary fancy involving ginkgo trees, Mary Godwin, and Percy Bysshe Shelley.
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2011
Freebie. After all publishers are paying me to write articles for their audiences.
Can the Sum of Digital Media be Classified?
October 13, 2011
The ALRC Discussion Paper released today contains 44 proposals relating to a proposed new National Classification Scheme. It suggests that at its heart will sit a new Classification of Media Content Act. It will identify what content needs to be classified, who should do it, and who has responsibility for breaches of the guidelines.
AOL Management Lessons
October 10, 2011
I skimmed “Former AOLer: ‘Seed Was A Flop From The Beginning’” and thought it was another AOL shoots itself in the foot write up. Enough already. I thought about the example of Seed and its “boss”. I realized that the story was a great example of the “we’re almost like Google” approach to running a high profile department, business unit, or service.
I noted this passage:
Additionally, Saul Hansell — the the “real” journalist in charge of Seed — was more of a big news guy. (Our source reported that Hansell had a copy of the article he wrote about the AOL/Time Warner merger on his desk.) The Seed purview didn’t fit his interest or his skill set.
On the reread, three questions:
- Where was senior management as the top dog sniffed for big news?
- Is it not insubordinate to undermine an employer’s goal?
- Why would one keep old “dead tree” clippings on one desk when there is Facebook to memorialize certain important moments?
In short, the Googley approach does not work particularly well in certain corporate settings. Maybe there is some value in knowing how to manage?
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Google Snatches Newspaper Circular Revenues
October 8, 2011
Who would you bet on between old-school print advertisers and Google circulars? Our money is on the Goog, who is developing a “web-based circular,” as Search Engine Journal reports in “Google to Battle Traditional Media for Advertising Revenues.” The company, you see, is working with large retailers on something akin to the sales inserts we are used to seeing. (Well, those of us who still occasionally encounter physical newspapers.)
Like print circulars, the ads will accompany marketing copy with eye-catching images. These, though, will also have the advantage of being tied to your search query subjects. Google’s VP of product management Nick Fox says this is the company’s answer to retail advertisement in the digital age.
Writer David Angotti elaborates,
According to EMarketer, Google is expected to capture approximately 76% of the U.S. search marketing revenues in 2011 and increase that percentage to 78% in 2012. The new web-based circular ads could provide earnings boost that enables Google to meet or even exceed those projections. If Google can provide retailers with additional traffic to the brick-and-mortar stores, not just the sites, the new circular ads should be widely popular with a large variety of offline retailers.
That’s an understatement. Angotti closes his story with a point of irony: Google is advertising the web circular project in major newspapers. Lest anyone doubt, Google has guts.
Cynthia Murrell October 8, 2011
New Kindle Fire Continues to Burn Book Retailers and Now Libraries
October 7, 2011
When Amazon first came out with the Kindle there were concerns that e-books would take the place of paper books and would force book stores to close their doors. It’s safe to say that these concerns were valid as Barnes and Noble and other book retailers are slowly going out of business despite attempts to hop on the e-book bandwagon. Now the impending release of the Kindle Fire, a $199 Android-based 7-inch touchscreen device, this week may be the nail in the coffin for our public libraries as well.
In addition to all of it’s exciting new apps, streaming, web access, and cross-platform compatibility, one of the Kindle Fire’s biggest selling points may be the rumored unlimited access to an e-book library (for $80 a year) which would include free access to over 3,000 Fox TV shows and free two day shipping.
In the article, The Birth of the Kindle Fire and the Death of the Public Library Sebastian Anthony says of the Kindle Fire e-book library feature:
This maneuver is as close to perfect as it gets. It has already overcome the biggest stumbling block to digital e-books — coming to terms with never holding/fingering/sniffing a paper book ever again — and now it’s moving in for the coup de grâce. The Kindle has flown off the shelves since its release in 2007, and while exact figures aren’t given, there could be 10 to 20 million Kindle users — and every single one of them would kill for an Amazon Digital Library. After all, even when you buy an e-book, you never really owned the book — Amazon can remotely delete books from your Kindle at any time — so why not rent?
While $199 purchasing cost and $80 yearly rental fees are a great deal, no amount of convenience can beat something that’s free.
Jasmine Ashton, October 7, 2011
New York Times and About: Layoffs
October 6, 2011
Is it possible that Google’s search algorithm changes are hurting more than just the average search user?
About.com posted weak revenues in the most recent quarter and attributed the lag to changes in Google search and slow ad sales. The site’s revenues dropped 10.2 percent in the last quarter. In hopes for some stability, The New York Times’-owned company recently laid off 15 editorial staffers and will be hiring 10 replacements as they reconstruct the site’s mission.
Yahoo News’ article, “About.com lays off staffers; hires replacements” shared more about the changes. We learned:
[Kristin Mason, a spokeswoman for the internet company, said] 10 new full-time positions will be created, with outgoing staff members to be given “first-priority” to apply for the new posts. She said many are expected to be rehired. The organization will be broken into four groups: Guide Operations & Recruitment, About Editorial & Quality Review, Site Review and Community Tools. This is intended to improve the site’s focus and quality.
Even with promises of “first-priority” for outgoing staff members, there will still be five positions completely cut from the company. To me, this doesn’t look like simple reconstruction with hopes for stability. This looks like brute force cost reduction in its purest form.
Publishers who hope for stable ad revenues going forward may want to consider the plight of the Gray Lady. If the New York Times can’t sell ad, how will lesser publications’ ad sales teams do in the last quarter of 2011 and the first six months of 2012?
Andrea Hayden, October 6, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Inteltrax: Top Stories, September 26 to September 30
October 3, 2011
Inteltrax, the data fusion and business intelligence information service, captured three key stories germane to search this week, specifically, how some of the biggest names in the business are underwhelming us lately and need to do better.
One such story was “Microstrategy Not the King of Cloud BI,” http://inteltrax.com/?p=2471 which discussed how one very fine business intelligence operation is failing at becoming something it is not—a cloud BI hotspot.
Similarly, the story “Teradata Doesn’t Have the Power to be Dominant” http://inteltrax.com/?p=2435 showcases how another smart analytics firm is stretching itself too thin by trying to become everything to everyone instead of focusing on the core things it does exceedingly well.
Our feature story, “Pentaho and SizeUp Lean Toward Free Analytics,” http://inteltrax.com/?p=2616 was rich with successes for analytic software providers, but also cataloged how customers working exclusively with freeware programs from top BI names will be regretting the choice.
We’re keeping our eye on the top names in business intelligence and data analytics and playing watchdog in the process. Even excellent companies make mistakes and we’ll be here to warn consumers and slap said companies on the wrists with cutting commentary and insight every day.
Follow the Inteltrax news stream by visiting
www.inteltrax.com
Patrick Roland, Editor, Inteltrax, October 3, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Observations about Content Shaping
October 3, 2011
Writer’s Note: Stephen E Arnold can be surprising. He asked me to review the text of his keynote speech at ISS World Americas October 2011 conference, which is described as “America’s premier intelligence gathering and high technology criminal investigation conference.” Mr. Arnold has moved from government work to a life of semi retirement in Harrod’s Creek. I am one of the 20 somethings against whom he rails in his Web log posts and columns. Nevertheless, he continues to rely on my editorial skills, and I have to admit I find his approach to topics interesting and thought provoking. He asked me to summarize his keynote, which I attempted to do. If you have questions about the issues he addresses, he has asked me to invite you to write him at seaky2000 at yahoo dot com. Prepare to find a different approach to the content mechanisms he touches upon. (Yes, you can believe this write up.) If you want to register, point your browser at www.issworldtraining.com.— Andrea Hayden
Research results manipulation is not a topic that is new in the era of the Internet. Information has been manipulated by individuals in record keeping and researching for ages. People want to (and can) affect how and what information is presented. Information can also be manipulated not just by people, but by the accidents of numerical recipes.
However, even though this is not a new issue, the information manipulation in this age is much more frequent than many believe, and the information we are trying to gather is much more accessible. I want to answer the question, “What information analysts need to know about this interesting variant of disinformation?”
The volume of data in a digital environment means that algorithms or numerical recipes process content in digital form. The search and content processing vendors can acquire as much or as little content as the system administrator wishes.
In addition to this, most people don’t know that all of the leading search engines specify what content to acquire, how much content to process, and when to look for new content. This is where search engine optimization comes in. Boosting a ranking in a search result is believed to be an important factor for many projects, businesses, and agencies.
Intelligence professionals should realize that conforming to the Webmaster guidelines set forth by Web indexing services will result in a grade much like the scoring of an essay with a set rubric. Documents should conform to these set guidelines to result in a higher search result ranking. This works because most researches rely on the relevance ranking to provide the starting point for research. Well-written content which conforms to the guidelines will then frame the research on what is or is not important. Such content can be shaped in a number of ways.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
