
Is Amazon’s Kindle Destroying the Publishing Industry? - adambyrtek
http://blogkindle.com/2011/05/is-amazons-kindle-destroying-the-publishing-industry/
======
hamner
I love this, a beautiful example of disruptive innovation:

-Authors get up to 70%, as opposed to 5-15% -Far less trees are killed

-Eliminates the role of the publisher / physical distribution channel, which claimed the lion's share of the profits without adding creative value

-Marginal cost of distributing an extra book is on the order of cents

I've not read a hardcover book since getting a Kindle.

~~~
cstross
The publisher isn't a distributor. Rather, they provide editorial and
marketing services and a hell of a lot of inputs that are largely invisible to
the end user. The lions share of the profit doesn't go to the publisher -- who
typically nets as much as the author after paying for all the pre-press stuff
-- but to the _distribution channel_. Which is Amazon (insofar as they're
trying to take over and merge the roles of distributors/wholesalers and
retailers).

~~~
veyron
Isn't that true of all businesses though (music, movies, games, and other
media)?

~~~
true_religion
It's true in games.

But it wasn't true in music---the industry was vertically integrated.

For instance Virgin Megastore sold records in London, and world wide.

Virgin Music produced those records.

Virgin Music Group (known in the US as EMI) handled distribution of the
records to out-of-chain companies.

Virgin even broadcast under the label Virgin Radio, and sponsored festivals
such as the V-Festival.

That's just one example, but the whole industry was integrated to various
degrees.

------
gamble
The publishing industry is already dead. It's been dead for years.

By 'dead' I mean that the number of copies any one book is expected to sell is
pathetic compared to other industries. A book that sells 100k copies is doing
extremely well, whereas an album, video game, or movie that made similar
numbers would be a disasterous flop. Advances, the main value that publishers
provide to authors, have shrunk to the point where you could draw a bigger
advance (on better terms) at an ATM with your credit card.

I'm hopeful that the democratization of publishing will allow new types of
author to succeed, now that ownership of a printing plant isn't a barrier to
reaching your audience, and revitalize the publishing industry. It really
can't get much worse.

~~~
themal
It is good that power is being transferred away from a small number of
publishers, but that power is being transferred to an even smaller number of
platform owners like: Amazon, Google, Sony, Apple etc. To me, it just seems
like a shift in power from old media entities to new media entities.

~~~
icarus_drowning
This is certainly a concern, but I think it is very encouraging that the major
players- Amazon, B&N, Sony, etc.-- have done a fairly decent job of keeping
the devices "open enough" that you don't need them to get your works onto
Kindles, Nooks, etc.

Amazon, for instance, might curate its bookstore and censor "offensive" books,
but you can still always transfer books using USB (there's even software like
Calibre that makes the process fairly painless). I don't have a Nook, but my
previous Sony EReader had the same capability-- I actually buy quite a lot of
the books for my Kindle from outlets like Smashwords, which cuts out even
Amazon as the middleman.

Still, I think its worth keeping in mind that it is Amazon's choice to allow
us to transfer content to our Kindles. They _could_ make that irritating or
difficult-- and do it at any time. Given that, it is certainly worth being
wary, if optimistic, about their policies.

"Trust by verify".

------
mv1
Historically, publishers provided at least two valuable services: distribution
and marketing. They captured the value they were providing by "taxing"
distribution (i.e., adding a profit margin for themselves). ebooks make
distribution cheap and easy making publishers unecessary in that role.

Marketing is still valuable, but publishers never directly charged for that
(as far as I know), hence their dilemma.

------
aresant
The major role of the publisher has always been to make sure copies of a book
sell.

They select work they think will be commercial.

They pay advances to authors so the author can live while they're writing.

They baby step books to market with limited printings, and then test / edit /
revise and tweak cover art etc.

If there's a glimmer of a winner they pour money into advertising in
magazines, to PR people, etc.

They pay for exclusive positioning to get it at the front of your B&N store
locally, pay reps to go out on the road and talk to local book stores, etc.

So if the end-goal for most authors is to make a living from their writing,
how is publishing going to be disrupted?

Authors are still going to need advances.

Reps may no longer hit the road to independent bookstores, but they certainly
might hit the road to meet influential bloggers.

Advertising dollars will still help raise awareness and sales.

So while the publishing industry is certainly going to transform, it's
certainly not going to be destroyed.

------
programminggeek
What this means is the little guy has a shot to have a big hit due to the
massive distribution power of the kindle/nook/iBooks platforms. It's the same
phenomenon as app stores for software or blogging for news or iTunes for
music.

Major companies controlled major distribution. Now they don't. Of course an
empire built around a competitive advantage that no longer exists is going to
necessarily shrink.

It would be folly to think otherwise.

~~~
raganwald
It's true that the little guy has a shot at massive success without an
intermediary like an agent, a publisher, and massive marketing.

The flip side of this is that there will be more and more and more small,
"vanity" books being sold in small quantities. Disintermediation is about the
long tail. The little guy still has very little chance of scoring a major
success, but lots of people will be able to write and make a few bucks for it.

Being a part-time author is now a serious proposition.

~~~
LarrySDonald
The narrative fits the US hopes and dreams very well, so well in fact that
many believe it. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to publish (and in
fact they are) but this is a lot like the "I would be a rockstar if someone
would just give me a break" story in music. Are we swimming in out-of-nowhere
hits now that nearly everyone can buy everything you need to record/publish
for less then a four-track recorder? No. The reason people aren't billboard no
1s/NYT bestsellers/directing the next Paramount isn't that the man is holding
them down, it's that they suck at it. More cash won't change that much (an
editor and a staff helps, but it's not a cure-all either).

That said, sure, the concept of books is in serious need of help and e-readers
including kindle do help some. I know several people who hadn't read a book
since high school but suddenly got used to reading on kindle/nook/their
laptop/phone and suddenly trade suggestions and (gasp) purchase actual books.
This is a positive, seeing as getting them to sign up for a library card or
even giving them (no strings) a physical book to read was usually met with
suspicion.

------
gte910h
I know the kindle will make me consider strongly having a book edited and
indexed by someone I pay instead of a publisher.

~~~
AndrewDucker
Only useful if you can afford to pay someone to edit and index your book.

~~~
gte910h
Compared to lost work from actually taking the time to write it, those will be
negligible costs (for programmers).

~~~
AndrewDucker
For programmers, absolutely.

