Beware the Kindle!
Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 at 2:05 PM
The Kindle and other e-reader devices could become threats to any
publisher's business model.
By William Dunkerley
Worlds
may collide if the e-reader continues to advance rapidly in the
marketplace. Certainly, e-readers represent an enormous breakthrough in
reading technology. And the jump from paper to e-reader is nothing less
than revolutionary. This could benefit publisher and consumer alike.
It's hard to name a publisher that should not be providing content via
e-readers these days.
So where do the "colliding worlds" come
into the picture? And just what worlds are they?
I'm talking
about the sometimes conflicting worlds of publishers and e-reader
producers. According to my analysis, they may be on a collision course.
Before
I describe that course, let me tell you about an experience that brought
this possibly impending problem into focus. It was a self-taught
crash-course in Kindle publishing.
The Sad Kindle Saga
A
few months ago, it occurred to me that Amazon's Kindle platform could
possibly become very utilitarian for magazine publishers. It turns out
that Kindle publications can be read without an actual Kindle in hand.
You can read them on a PC, a Mac, an iPhone or iPad, an Android, a
Windows Phone 7, or a Blackberry.
This means that if you publish
something in the Kindle format, it can actually be read on many of the
most popular e-reader devices, including the Kindle. That gives you
access to a wide audience.
So what could you publish for this
rapidly broadening Kindle audience? You might put together a group of
thematically related articles and publish them as an e-book. This could
be a good way of monetizing archived content. And, as a Kindle
publication, the e-book would automatically go on sale at Amazon.com.
Or,
how many times have you published an article that basically summarizes a
wider body of information? You might produce a longer Kindle version
that includes all that extra information. It would be convenient for
readers and an opportunity for you to monetize otherwise unused content.
We
wondered how easy or problematic it might be to produce a Kindle
publication, so we set out to do just that. We decided upon a 5 x 8
format, as the size of the Kindle and other e-readers doesn't lend
itself to standard magazine size. We thought a publication designed in
the smaller format would be a better fit for the small devices.
Well,
what we found is that the process is more problematic than easy. In
fact, it seems almost impossible to create an effective page design and
have it display properly on the Kindle platform. The Kindle doesn't
follow normal guidelines of typography -- basic things like spacing and
alignment. That is readily apparent when you look at many of the
currently available Kindle books. Their appearance can be enough to make
an experienced designer or layout artist ill.
Can the Problem
Be Fixed?
We tried to bring concerns regarding our design
issues to the Kindle publishing group. But what we got in return were
slow answers, incorrect information, and technically flawed solutions.
It was not a good experience.
Here's one example: Our design used
chapter titles that started partway down the page. We found that the
Kindle was able to display this spacing. But when we opened the pages on
the Kindle for PC app, the spacing disappeared. The Kindle publishing
group's solution? Take out the extra spacing!
This response, as
it turned out, seems emblematic of Kindle's general philosophy regarding
layout: that they should determine how a publication will look on
Kindle, not the publisher. And, unfortunately, they don't favor the
established precepts of typography, which facilitate the best possible
reading experience.
There seems to be an expectation that
publishers should tailor their content to Kindle's specifications. I'm
not talking about matters of technology-related limitations that might
influence design, but things within the realm of technical possibility
for devices like the Kindle.
As a publisher, however, I look at
the Kindle as a substrate for my content. I wouldn't expect a paper
manufacturer to tell me where on the page my article titles should be,
so it's troubling that this electronic substrate provider would do so.
It seems like the Kindle folks are mandating design choices that are
either more convenient for them or that arise out of their inattention
to good design principles.
Do You See the Impending Collision?
There
is a fundamental question of who is providing a service to whom. Are the
electronic substrate providers supposed to be service vendors to the
publishers? Or are the publishers just supposed to assume the role of
adding value to the e-reader products? In a sense, this Kindle
perspective is similar to that of some online subscription services that
impose their own mandates upon us publishers.
For an analogy,
think of the ubiquitous vending machines for snacks. They appear
designed to dispense snacks in a range of sizes and shapes. The snacks'
diverse packaging styles reflect what the snack providers perceive is
convenient for the consumers, and sometimes also represents part of the
branding image. But what if the vending machine manufacturer were to say
that all the snacks had to be packaged in potato chip–style bags. How
far would that go? Who's going to want to eat a chocolate bar out of a
potato chip bag?
Like snack providers, publishers should have
enough control over the characteristics of their products in order to
effect the consumer experience they want to achieve. And in publishing,
those characteristics are typography and layout. Simply presenting words
in a format that ignores established, effective layout practices should
not be acceptable.
But It's Even Worse Than That
When
we get involved with the e-reader providers, we're getting involved with
the computer industry, which employs a practice that is quite alien to
that of the publishing industry: planned or evolved obsolescence. Much
of the computer industry depends on selling new versions of existing
products to consumers who have been using older versions.
What's
more, it often becomes impossible to continue using the older versions,
even if you wanted to do so. If you have a favorite old 1998 car, you
can still drive it on the roads and get it serviced when something goes
wrong. But if you have vintage 1998 software, you may not be able to run
it on your new computer operating system.
Today's publisher needs
to expect an ongoing parade of new e-reader devices. Typically, each one
will require you to produce a specialized app and, likely, a customized
publication design. The parade will gain momentum not only because of
technical advances, but also because of planned obsolescence.
In
publishing, we've grown accustomed to the stability of using paper as a
substrate. It hasn't required us to produce multiple designs or keep
coming up with new ones. The e-reader substrate will.
One result
of that will be expenses that we've not had before, ones that will be
difficult for us to control. These expenses will arise at the will and
pleasure of the e-reader providers.
But there won't be new
revenues for us. The e-reader parade will create new publisher expense
without significant new publisher revenue. That means that publishing
will become less profitable. Just think of where that will lead us: cuts
in product quality, cuts in compensation, diminished consumer
satisfaction. It's not a pretty picture.
There's also the
possibility of e-reader providers jumping into the publishing business.
If they view content as just a commodity, and believe they can produce
that commodity less expensively than the publishers, they might figure,
"Why not do so?"
So What's Next?
Does all
this woeful speculation mean that we shouldn't get involved with
e-readers? Of course not. That would be impractical.
But it is
time for the publishing industry to recognize the evolutionary paradigm
that it is up against. And it needs to assert some control over the
situation now, while there's still time.
The publishing industry
needs to establish typographic and design specifications that e-reader
providers will have to follow. Our published material should conform to
these standard specifications. And if the bulk of content is available
only in that standard, the e-reader providers will have to adapt
themselves to it.
That's certainly better than publishers being
led around by the nose by the e-reader providers, a situation that would
diminish the publishers' sustainability.
I'm going to send a copy
of this article to the Association of Magazine Media (formerly the
Magazine Publishers of America) and Association Media and Publishing
(formerly the Society of National Association Publications) with the
suggestion that they develop and promote specifications that will set
the standard. I'll also send a copy to the Kindle people to get their
reaction. I'll let you know what response, if any, I receive from any of
these parties.
Action taken now can avert the possibility of
worlds colliding. That will be a clear benefit for all concerned.
William
Dunkerley is principal of William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants, www.publishinghelp.com.