New Business magazine have published Paul Boross' article about his observations on pitching within the TV series The Apprentice.
http://www.newbusiness.co.uk/the-art-pitching-paul-boross
The latest series of the Apprentice came to the end of its television journey here in the UK with the inevitable media focus on entrepreneurial business skills and, in particular, the art of pitching.
Almost every episode of the popular, business-based cross between a reality program and a game show features the contestants having to make a pitch.
They pitch for business, pitch for orders, pitch ideas and they pitch to keep their jobs in the boardroom showdown at the end of each week's task. What's interesting is that, every week, Lord Sugar says that he's not looking for a sales person, yet every week the task involves selling something; either low key, selling products to individuals, or high stakes pitching to the buyers of major retailers.
What does this mean? Is buying and selling all there is to running a business?
Fundamentally, what defines a business is profit. I don't mean that profit defines how good your business is, I mean that profit is what distinguishes a business from a public sector organisation, charity or foundation. Yes, these organisations need to raise capital to cover their operating expenses, but they are not driven or measured by the delivery of raw, financial value over and above that.
Fundamentally, every business has to buy raw materials, add value and then sell some kind of finished product. It might buy graduates, add training and then sell accountancy services. It might buy equipment, add support expertise and sell an IT service. Or it might buy electronic components, add design expertise and sell computers. All of these examples point to one principle; that business is indeed about buying and selling.
While Lord Sugar may have the contestants buying and selling waste materials, biscuits, fruit or illuminated teapots, what he is actually doing is stripping business down to its raw essentials.
Where does pitching fit into this? Every week, we hear one or more contestants saying, "I want the opportunity to do the pitch", or, "I delivered the pitch", or, even "I pitched it to him", referring to the point where a contestant asked a builder if she could have another copper hot water tank. The contestants vie for attention, trying to win the team leader's favour so that they can do the pitch. Is pitching really that important to the success of the task or business? Or is it just an opportunity to "shine"? And how closely does the fiction of a TV game show fit reality?
One thing that we never see in The Apprentice is Lord Sugar pitching. Is this another sign that a pitch is no more than a ‘beauty parade'?
Let's first look at what a pitch is. It is a sales cycle compressed into a very short space of time, perhaps as much as twenty minutes, or as little as three.
Whilst sales is an interactive process, with a good sales person listening much more than speaking, one of the difficulties in a pitch is the buyer's expectation that the sales person does all the talking, while they listen and make their minds up. If the sales person doesn't get it ‘right', no deal.
So a pitch isn't made ‘off the cuff', it's the culmination of a great deal of hard work, understanding the needs of the client or target market. One of the biggest problems that the contestants in The Apprentice face, week after week, is clearly identifying their target market. All too often, they start with an idea, or a name, instead of a target customer.
Advertising is an even more condensed form of pitching. In an advert, you're broadcasting, "This is the product, are you the right person to buy it?" It's a product led pitch, and it relies on getting in front of as many people as possible, preferably within the target market.
And so we end up with two types of pitch; client led and product led. And Lord Sugar's bias is very towards the client led pitch. Every time he talks about his own business career, he talks about customers; major retailers and consumers. Yes, he sees himself as operating in a particular market, but what he really seems to focus on is what the buyer needs. Yes, he had to pitch products, but he didn't pitch blindly. I would bet that every pitch he delivered was calculated and targeted to meet that buyer's needs.
Does Lord Sugar still pitch? In a way, yes. At the start of each week's task, he pitches to the contestants. You might think that they can't really say, "no thanks", but he is still aiming to get their buy in, to clearly communicate what he is looking for. Every week, he is very specific and gives a big clue about the success of the task. And every week, the contestants overlook that clue and get wrapped up in their own excitement, politics and desire to be in the limelight.
What clues are you missing from your clients because you're too focused on what you want to say? What needs are you failing to meet because you're too wrapped up in your own? Pitching is just a small part of the sales cycle, or it encapsulates the whole process, depending on how you look at it.
How important is the skill, really?
That all depends on how much you want to win.
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Monday, 1 August 2011
Publishers Still Control the Book Market
Once again, The Bookseller provides us with an interesting snippet of news about the progression of the publishing industry.
"Despite the collapse of two of the world's largest high street book chains the book publisher Penguin lost only £36m in sales in the first half of 2011, while profits narrowed marginally. Digital sales made up 14% of its overall business, resulting in total sales of £64m at a growth rate of 128%"
Despite the collapse? That would be like saying that despite the collapse of Marks & Spencer, sales of woolly jumpers were down only 5%, or despite the collapse of Tesco, people have surprisingly not starved.
I think that what this demonstrates is that the major publishers have the upper hand with the book stores. Clearly, the majority of Penguin's profits were generated as a result of its own marketing, not because readers go into book stores and have a browse around. When a reader wants a particular book and they find that Borders has disappeared, they just go somewhere else. Let's face it, people haven't stopped decorating just because Focus has gone. Our local focus now has a sign on it directing customers to the nearest B&Q.
I think that this demonstrates that the major book stores are just a shop window for the major publishers. Mind you, that's what I've been saying for the past ten years.
The only reason that book retailers like Waterstones buy books from self and independent publishers is to prevent the likes of Amazon from owning that share of the market; a market that is fast growing. Let's not kid ourselves that they actually support authors who choose not to publish with the dinosaurs.
What Penguin have demonstrated is that the retailers can fight amongst themselves; it really makes no difference to the book market.
"Despite the collapse of two of the world's largest high street book chains the book publisher Penguin lost only £36m in sales in the first half of 2011, while profits narrowed marginally. Digital sales made up 14% of its overall business, resulting in total sales of £64m at a growth rate of 128%"
Despite the collapse? That would be like saying that despite the collapse of Marks & Spencer, sales of woolly jumpers were down only 5%, or despite the collapse of Tesco, people have surprisingly not starved.
I think that what this demonstrates is that the major publishers have the upper hand with the book stores. Clearly, the majority of Penguin's profits were generated as a result of its own marketing, not because readers go into book stores and have a browse around. When a reader wants a particular book and they find that Borders has disappeared, they just go somewhere else. Let's face it, people haven't stopped decorating just because Focus has gone. Our local focus now has a sign on it directing customers to the nearest B&Q.
I think that this demonstrates that the major book stores are just a shop window for the major publishers. Mind you, that's what I've been saying for the past ten years.
The only reason that book retailers like Waterstones buy books from self and independent publishers is to prevent the likes of Amazon from owning that share of the market; a market that is fast growing. Let's not kid ourselves that they actually support authors who choose not to publish with the dinosaurs.
What Penguin have demonstrated is that the retailers can fight amongst themselves; it really makes no difference to the book market.
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Amazon Kindle - Winning the Content War?
We received an email this week from our Apple content distributor. Here it is:
Is this true? Unlikely. It is more likely that Apple are pushing their distributors for sales forecasts, to test the impact on the market of their decision to prevent app developers from selling content direct to the actual person who owns the iPad outright and should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.
Here is our reply:
Cast your mind back a few years... What killed off Betamax in favour of the technically inferior VHS? Content. The studios licensed their content to the consortium of VHS developers, not Sony's Betamax. People couldn't get films, so they didn't buy the machines. Sony learned quickly, and bought Columbia Pictures so that they would never be denied content again.
Random House recently announced that they are putting their entire catalogue of 17,000 books onto the iPad. But for any publishers who don't deal direct with Apple, the Kindle is a much easier and more reliable option. Will this fragment the market? Or will it polarise the market into serious readers who will see the Kindle as a clear winner, or people who primarily want to play games and waste time on Facebook, and dip into the odd ebook here and there, who will go for tablet PCs. Note: Tablet PCs, not necessarily the iPad.
About 20 years ago, the mobile phone companies realised that whoever owned the device in your hand owned what you saw and heard. But wireless Internet is moving the goalposts again. That device could be any one of a number of things, from your phone to your tablet PC, even your television. This favours the content distributors.
Apple have played a very risky strategy; giving content and app development over to third parties, and then trying to control them with restrictive, unfavourable contract terms, based on the belief that Apple owns the world, therefore the developers have no choice but to comply. You want to sell your products? You have to play by Apple's rules, because they control the market.
Except, they don't.
They have scored some early wins by getting customers to fall in love with their products, but this will absolutely not last forever. How do we know?
When Ford's iconic XR3i ruled the suburban backstreets, every product had an 'i' on the end of its name.
When Sony's Walkman ruled the subways and classrooms, every product had 'man' on the end of its name.
When McDonalds ruled the world of crap jobs, every crap job became a McJob.
When Yahoo became My Yahoo, every website became 'My' website.
When the Internet came into the home, every tenuously related product had an "e" at the beginning of its name.
When Apple's iPod took the Walkman's crown, every product had an 'i' at the beginning of its name.
Apple is tightening its grip on the market. And what can you expect to happen next? The tighter Apple squeezes, the more of that market will slip through its fingers.
As the demand to get content distributed and sold on Apple's iBookstore continues to grow, [distributor] is striving to meet our publisher partners' needs in the most efficient manner possible. In order to help plan and meet expectations, we'd like to ask your assistance. Please e-mail the number of titles that your company plans to distribute to Apple for the remainder of the 2011 calendar year to [someone's email address].
Is this true? Unlikely. It is more likely that Apple are pushing their distributors for sales forecasts, to test the impact on the market of their decision to prevent app developers from selling content direct to the actual person who owns the iPad outright and should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.
Here is our reply:
In response to the email I received asking for [distributor] projections, I would like to say that I will be publishing 8 books between now and the end of the year, however I am supporting the Amazon Kindle platform as a priority because of the unexpected and unnecessary cost and complexity of supporting iBooks.
Specifically, I went to great lengths to ensure that my first iBook was fully compliant with the epub standard, only to find that Apple themselves don't comply with it, so I had to pay for [distributor] to make the conversion, and your technical people couldn't actually tell me what was wrong with the original, so I have no chance of correcting these errors myself, of which I am capable given the right information. So Apple have enforced a standard that they don't comply with, and they guard the information that is required for me to fix the problem, and I am not prepared to pay to have you convert every book for me when the conversion process for Kindle is quick, easy and reliable.
Please do pass this on, because I'm sure I'm not the only publisher with this problem.
Cast your mind back a few years... What killed off Betamax in favour of the technically inferior VHS? Content. The studios licensed their content to the consortium of VHS developers, not Sony's Betamax. People couldn't get films, so they didn't buy the machines. Sony learned quickly, and bought Columbia Pictures so that they would never be denied content again.
Random House recently announced that they are putting their entire catalogue of 17,000 books onto the iPad. But for any publishers who don't deal direct with Apple, the Kindle is a much easier and more reliable option. Will this fragment the market? Or will it polarise the market into serious readers who will see the Kindle as a clear winner, or people who primarily want to play games and waste time on Facebook, and dip into the odd ebook here and there, who will go for tablet PCs. Note: Tablet PCs, not necessarily the iPad.
About 20 years ago, the mobile phone companies realised that whoever owned the device in your hand owned what you saw and heard. But wireless Internet is moving the goalposts again. That device could be any one of a number of things, from your phone to your tablet PC, even your television. This favours the content distributors.
Apple have played a very risky strategy; giving content and app development over to third parties, and then trying to control them with restrictive, unfavourable contract terms, based on the belief that Apple owns the world, therefore the developers have no choice but to comply. You want to sell your products? You have to play by Apple's rules, because they control the market.
Except, they don't.
They have scored some early wins by getting customers to fall in love with their products, but this will absolutely not last forever. How do we know?
When Ford's iconic XR3i ruled the suburban backstreets, every product had an 'i' on the end of its name.
When Sony's Walkman ruled the subways and classrooms, every product had 'man' on the end of its name.
When McDonalds ruled the world of crap jobs, every crap job became a McJob.
When Yahoo became My Yahoo, every website became 'My' website.
When the Internet came into the home, every tenuously related product had an "e" at the beginning of its name.
When Apple's iPod took the Walkman's crown, every product had an 'i' at the beginning of its name.
Apple is tightening its grip on the market. And what can you expect to happen next? The tighter Apple squeezes, the more of that market will slip through its fingers.
Changing My Mind About the Amazon Kindle
A while ago, I said that the Kindle is a pointless device given the price difference between something that only displays ebooks and a tablet computer that can do pretty much anything that any other computer can do.
However, I am beginning to change my mind.
Earlier this week, Apple announced that it is going to start enforcing its rules that mean that content must be acquired through iTunes, where Apple can of course make money. It would be like being forced to only by a BMW through a BMW dealer. OK, you might be able to live with that to get a BMW. But then you are also forced to buy your petrol (gas), car washes, bags of sweets and pine tree shaped air fresheners through the BMW garage too. You might feel that BMW were taking advantage of your allegiance to their brand.
Personally, I feel that Apple's philosophy is, "You bought an Apple. You love Apple. Apple is your life. You don't need anything else. We own you." They're like a paranoid, clingy, dependent lover that just happens to be holding a gun to your head.
Here's a snippet of the story from The Bookseller:
To explain this simply, here's what has happened.
You go to the iTunes store, looking for ebooks. To read an ebook, you have to BUY an ebook app such as iBooks. Of course, the majority are free because the developer wants to make their money on ebook sales, not on the app itself. So you download the app.
You BUY some books for the app from iTunes, on which Apple makes a profit.
Inside the app is a link to find more books, which you can buy direct from the developer's website, which saves all the hassle of having to buy through iTunes, which normally involves the download failing half way through, you not getting a refund and not being able to re-download, so you have to buy another copy and then chase Apple for a refund.
So you buy the book on the developer's site and read it on your iPad.
Not any more. Apple are now forcing you to buy all content through iTunes and preventing you from buying content elsewhere.
Hang on.... We just paid £600 for the thing, and you're going to dictate where I can and can't get the stuff that I use it for?
Sorry, Apple, I just don't feel the same way about you any more... Now, put the gun down.
However, I am beginning to change my mind.
Earlier this week, Apple announced that it is going to start enforcing its rules that mean that content must be acquired through iTunes, where Apple can of course make money. It would be like being forced to only by a BMW through a BMW dealer. OK, you might be able to live with that to get a BMW. But then you are also forced to buy your petrol (gas), car washes, bags of sweets and pine tree shaped air fresheners through the BMW garage too. You might feel that BMW were taking advantage of your allegiance to their brand.
Personally, I feel that Apple's philosophy is, "You bought an Apple. You love Apple. Apple is your life. You don't need anything else. We own you." They're like a paranoid, clingy, dependent lover that just happens to be holding a gun to your head.
Here's a snippet of the story from The Bookseller:
Apple is finally getting round to enforcing its new app purchasing guidelines after reports emerged over the weekend of direct purchasing links being removed from some third-party apps
E-book companies now have the option of selling direct through Apple's iTunes store at a cost of 30% per transaction, or hoping customers buy direct from their own stores and use the app only for reading the purchased material.
The simple fact it that no third-party aggregator can afford to pay a 30% fee for being the middle-man on a platform it does not own itself, meaning that in the short term the e-book market is going to be a less interesting environment for book readers and a less useful place for those interested in developing e-book apps.
To explain this simply, here's what has happened.
You go to the iTunes store, looking for ebooks. To read an ebook, you have to BUY an ebook app such as iBooks. Of course, the majority are free because the developer wants to make their money on ebook sales, not on the app itself. So you download the app.
You BUY some books for the app from iTunes, on which Apple makes a profit.
Inside the app is a link to find more books, which you can buy direct from the developer's website, which saves all the hassle of having to buy through iTunes, which normally involves the download failing half way through, you not getting a refund and not being able to re-download, so you have to buy another copy and then chase Apple for a refund.
So you buy the book on the developer's site and read it on your iPad.
Not any more. Apple are now forcing you to buy all content through iTunes and preventing you from buying content elsewhere.
Hang on.... We just paid £600 for the thing, and you're going to dictate where I can and can't get the stuff that I use it for?
Sorry, Apple, I just don't feel the same way about you any more... Now, put the gun down.
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Join the Social Revolution
Well, as much as we hate social networking, it seems that Google loves it.
Specifically, Google's latest indexing algorithm attributes more importance to incoming links from social networking sites, particularly Facebook.
So while we've been avoiding it for some time, we've set up a Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/CGW-Publishing/134630879948358
Now, don't get excited. We're not looking for friends, or to play games, or for any other tat that proliferates in social networking.
However, if you would be so kind as to 'like' our page, and we get 25 people to like it, we get our very own page name! Ooooohhhh!
And that means better search engine something or other, according to the experts.
You can also just visit our main site
www.cgwpublishing.com
and click the 'like' button in the top right. And while you're at it, give us a Google "+1".
Thank you!!
Specifically, Google's latest indexing algorithm attributes more importance to incoming links from social networking sites, particularly Facebook.
So while we've been avoiding it for some time, we've set up a Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/CGW-Publishing/134630879948358
Now, don't get excited. We're not looking for friends, or to play games, or for any other tat that proliferates in social networking.
However, if you would be so kind as to 'like' our page, and we get 25 people to like it, we get our very own page name! Ooooohhhh!
And that means better search engine something or other, according to the experts.
You can also just visit our main site
www.cgwpublishing.com
and click the 'like' button in the top right. And while you're at it, give us a Google "+1".
Thank you!!
Monday, 27 June 2011
How to Get Published
Well, maybe not. How to get a publisher to take you seriously, at least.
Here's another submission email from an author (Just the first paragraph, the full email is very long):
Spot the problem?
The writer (a poet) has used words like 'forgive', 'indolence', 'freaks' etc. These are not good words to use. Let me explain why.
When you ask someone to like your poetry or come to your poetry reading, you might call yourself a freak and it might be funny for some people.
When you ask a publisher to invest in you, you are asking them to make a business decision. It is not easy to work with someone who puts themselves down, and it does not give a publisher faith or confidence in you if you do not show confidence in yourself.
Don't apologise. Submission guidelines are here for the publisher's benefit. It saves us having to ask the same questions every time someone sends a 'best selling' manuscript. But what we need is a solid reason to make a business investment. Whether we like something, personally, does not make a big difference. What is important is that we feel something will sell. Publishers are experts at getting a product to market, and that product is not your poetry, it is YOU.
So my advice is, before you contact publishers, think about your email or letter and show that you have confidence in yourself. Not arrogance, it does not help when an author offers us a book and says it is a guaranteed best seller because it's fantastic.
What is very important to remember is that the question of how good the book is really makes no difference to how well it will sell. You might think your book, or poems, are wonderful. Your friends might. Even we might like them. But the issues you must address are:
How well do people really know you? (Your name must sell the book)
What are you doing to promote yourself and your work?
Do you take your work seriously? (The writer's words suggest that he would like to but does not)
Remember, when you contact a publisher, you are not asking them to like your book. I can like your book without wanting to invest in you as an author.
The bottom line with any investor is that we want to know, "Will this investment show a return?"
And the answer doesn't lie within your books pages, it is within you.
Here's another submission email from an author (Just the first paragraph, the full email is very long):
Please forgive me if I am not following your existing submission rules, but by some reason I could not find them. Maybe by my indolence, mostly. I hope that even I did not follow them and you are likely overloaded by similar freaks like me you will find time to review my proposition.
Spot the problem?
The writer (a poet) has used words like 'forgive', 'indolence', 'freaks' etc. These are not good words to use. Let me explain why.
When you ask someone to like your poetry or come to your poetry reading, you might call yourself a freak and it might be funny for some people.
When you ask a publisher to invest in you, you are asking them to make a business decision. It is not easy to work with someone who puts themselves down, and it does not give a publisher faith or confidence in you if you do not show confidence in yourself.
Don't apologise. Submission guidelines are here for the publisher's benefit. It saves us having to ask the same questions every time someone sends a 'best selling' manuscript. But what we need is a solid reason to make a business investment. Whether we like something, personally, does not make a big difference. What is important is that we feel something will sell. Publishers are experts at getting a product to market, and that product is not your poetry, it is YOU.
So my advice is, before you contact publishers, think about your email or letter and show that you have confidence in yourself. Not arrogance, it does not help when an author offers us a book and says it is a guaranteed best seller because it's fantastic.
What is very important to remember is that the question of how good the book is really makes no difference to how well it will sell. You might think your book, or poems, are wonderful. Your friends might. Even we might like them. But the issues you must address are:
How well do people really know you? (Your name must sell the book)
What are you doing to promote yourself and your work?
Do you take your work seriously? (The writer's words suggest that he would like to but does not)
Remember, when you contact a publisher, you are not asking them to like your book. I can like your book without wanting to invest in you as an author.
The bottom line with any investor is that we want to know, "Will this investment show a return?"
And the answer doesn't lie within your books pages, it is within you.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Spam, Scams and online Cons
Spam really does get everywhere. As a publisher, we receive many unsolicited submissions from authors. One of the most persistent is a guy claiming that he invented Post-It notes and that his book follows the story of how 3M ripped off his life's work. Right. Unfortunately, the story of Post-It notes is well documented.
Here's another example that arrived today:
Sounds great! Exciting!
Where's the outline? Where's the connection between the author's name and the email address?
The article referred to is genuine; http://nymag.com/news/features/51835/
But is the person in the article in Palm Beach, Florida, where the phone number appears to point to?
So why the suspicion?
If you were an author, wouldn't you put a link to the article? Would you include at least some outline of the book or a sample chapter?
Spam, scams and con tricks are everywhere, unfortunately.
Here's another example that arrived today:
To Whom It May Concern:
Hi, my name is Jack Steele, my story is that I was recruited by the Justice Department for over two years to infiltrate a group in order to capture one of Americas 10 most wanted killers. An article was written in the New York magazine by Robert Kolker titled Mercenary For Justice documenting my journey leading to his arrest. If you are interested in my story, please email at dendav17@aol.com, or by telephone number 561-594-2281.
Thank you in advance.
Jack Steele
Sounds great! Exciting!
Where's the outline? Where's the connection between the author's name and the email address?
The article referred to is genuine; http://nymag.com/news/features/51835/
But is the person in the article in Palm Beach, Florida, where the phone number appears to point to?
So why the suspicion?
If you were an author, wouldn't you put a link to the article? Would you include at least some outline of the book or a sample chapter?
Spam, scams and con tricks are everywhere, unfortunately.
Monday, 13 June 2011
What Do You Get When You Cross Twitter With an iPad?
A fantastic new step forward in the integration of mobile computing platforms and social networks?
Or a dark day for your privacy?
Apple and Twitter have said that they are collaborating to incorporate Twitter into iOs, the operating system for iPads, iPhones, iPods etc.
What does this mean? You can use Twitter on your iPad now? What's the big deal?
Do you have a desktop or laptop computer? Perhaps a Mac? Or Linux? Or if you're unlucky, Windows?
Your computer has a bunch of programs on it, and most of them share some common functions. They can print. They can access the Internet. There's no point in each software vendor figuring out how to make a program print; it's one of the things that your operating system or OS does for them. So the program designer sends a file to the printer library, and a short while later, you're another step closer to having to buy more ink that costs more than the printer did in the first place.
Integrating Twitter into the OS doesn't just mean that there will be a special program or 'app' for reading and writing Twitter feeds. That's already there.
No, integrating Twitter into the OS means that it is there for all apps to use, whether you know about it or not.
Imagine, you get a new high score on Angry Birds, and the app tells you that your best friend just beat you.
How? The app 'Tweeted' your high score, and their app Tweeted back. But the Tweet wasn't a private conversation between the two of you, it was available for anyone to see.
Do you really want your iPad doing even more behind your back? Apple's view of user privacy is already, "You bought an iPad, therefore all your data now belongs to us. We call it an 'enhanced user experience'. You call it an invasion of your privacy. If you don't like it, don't buy an iPad."
Do you want your iPad telling the world where you are? Or what website you just visited? Do you want it sending emails on your behalf based on a special offer from a store you just visited? Do you want Google maps to show you, in real time, where all your friends are right now?
After all, you might find out something you wish you hadn't. Like one of them is round your house, right now. And they're not playing Angry Birds.
Or a dark day for your privacy?
Apple and Twitter have said that they are collaborating to incorporate Twitter into iOs, the operating system for iPads, iPhones, iPods etc.
What does this mean? You can use Twitter on your iPad now? What's the big deal?
Do you have a desktop or laptop computer? Perhaps a Mac? Or Linux? Or if you're unlucky, Windows?
Your computer has a bunch of programs on it, and most of them share some common functions. They can print. They can access the Internet. There's no point in each software vendor figuring out how to make a program print; it's one of the things that your operating system or OS does for them. So the program designer sends a file to the printer library, and a short while later, you're another step closer to having to buy more ink that costs more than the printer did in the first place.
Integrating Twitter into the OS doesn't just mean that there will be a special program or 'app' for reading and writing Twitter feeds. That's already there.
No, integrating Twitter into the OS means that it is there for all apps to use, whether you know about it or not.
Imagine, you get a new high score on Angry Birds, and the app tells you that your best friend just beat you.
How? The app 'Tweeted' your high score, and their app Tweeted back. But the Tweet wasn't a private conversation between the two of you, it was available for anyone to see.
Do you really want your iPad doing even more behind your back? Apple's view of user privacy is already, "You bought an iPad, therefore all your data now belongs to us. We call it an 'enhanced user experience'. You call it an invasion of your privacy. If you don't like it, don't buy an iPad."
Do you want your iPad telling the world where you are? Or what website you just visited? Do you want it sending emails on your behalf based on a special offer from a store you just visited? Do you want Google maps to show you, in real time, where all your friends are right now?
After all, you might find out something you wish you hadn't. Like one of them is round your house, right now. And they're not playing Angry Birds.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
The Changing Face of the Book
Have you noticed that book covers have changed?
The predominance of cover 'art' is being replaced by a new design goal; big and bold.
Is this to make books stand out on book shelves more?
Not really.
Cover art, complex designs, small or script titling, even subtle photographs are perfect for when the reader picks up the book before choosing to buy it; at an airport book shop, typically.
But these kinds of covers are next to useless, illegible, in the place that most people will see the book - on a web page.
Huge, clear, colourful text with a title that fills the entire front of the book, simple geometric designs and high contrast covers are the order of the day.
In the 'flesh', they might look garish but as a thumbnail image on a web page, they are competing with the site's own branding and adverts.
The Internet has led to many changes in design philosophy in all kinds of areas; writing, graphic design, user functionality, and so book cover design is simply one more area that the Internet is now influencing.
So remember, don't judge a book by its cover.
The predominance of cover 'art' is being replaced by a new design goal; big and bold.
Is this to make books stand out on book shelves more?
Not really.
Cover art, complex designs, small or script titling, even subtle photographs are perfect for when the reader picks up the book before choosing to buy it; at an airport book shop, typically.
But these kinds of covers are next to useless, illegible, in the place that most people will see the book - on a web page.
Huge, clear, colourful text with a title that fills the entire front of the book, simple geometric designs and high contrast covers are the order of the day.
In the 'flesh', they might look garish but as a thumbnail image on a web page, they are competing with the site's own branding and adverts.
The Internet has led to many changes in design philosophy in all kinds of areas; writing, graphic design, user functionality, and so book cover design is simply one more area that the Internet is now influencing.
So remember, don't judge a book by its cover.
Monday, 6 June 2011
Unbound: A Threat to Publishers?
According to The Bookseller, the new self publishing service, Unbound, is the beginning of the end of traditional publishing, or at least a business model that will accelerate the demise of the printed book. Or the ebook. Or neither.
The Bookseller says, "Unbound, a publishing platform that allows readers to choose what is published, was devised as a response to the “difficulties of the existing publishing model”, with the programme aiming to get 35 to 40 projects off the ground in its first year."
Here's the idea; instead of self-publishing, you pitch your book idea to a social network of readers. If they like the idea, they invest in it to cover the publishing costs. In return, they get anything from a 'goodie bag' to lunch with the author.
If an investor puts in more than £1,000, they might get a royalty share of book sales too.
Whhooooaa! £1,000? How much are they saying it costs to publish a book?
Oh, of course, I forgot. We're talking about a traditional publishing house trying to muscle in on the ebook and self-publishing market.
"Supported by Faber, the platform was created by “QI” writers John Mitchinson and John Pollard, and Crap Towns author Dan Kieran. Authors are required to pitch their idea to readers on the site, and have 50 days to attract support through readers pledging money to fund the publication of the work. If enough money is pledged, the work will be published, primarily as an e-book or “beautifully bound, limited edition hardback”, or both, with each pledger’s name inscribed in the back of the print edition."
In the old days, there were publishers and there were vanity publishers. A publisher buys the licence to print your book and in return pays you a pittance of a royalty. They use your book to market their business, and if they really go to town on marketing, you make some money. But not nearly as much as the publisher, and quite rightly so, because they've done all the hard work in marketing and getting your book onto the shelves. Which they control.
Vanity publishers just charged you to print your book for you.
So, an aspiring author had two choices; take their manuscript around all the publishing houses, facing rejection, or pay to see their book in print.
In today's world of ebooks and print on demand, anyone can get their work into circulation for a very small amount of money, but, is it any good? And will it sell?
Today's author is faced with the choice of taking their manuscript to the traditional publishing houses, as before, self-publishing and now, getting the readers to buy the book in a limited print run before it's even written.
"As The Bookseller went to press, of the five ideas currently on the [Unbound] site, author Terry Jones’ idea for “a darkly funny set of linked tales” had received 2% of its required funding, while Gavin Pretor-Pinney’s idea, an iPad version of his book The Cloudspotter’s Guide, was still on 0%."
We presume they're both well known authors, so these figures either show that the Unbound concept is in its infancy, or it's a silly idea.
As a business model, it is very similar to the 'micro loans' concept that hit the headlines a few years ago. The idea was that I go to a website and post a request for some money, then some other people offer to lend me various amounts which together give me what I need. I then pay them back, through the website. Each micro investor makes a return, I get a loan, the website makes a profit off the top.
Unbound is not a new concept in publishing, it is a simple and blatant attempt by an existing publishing house to shuffle the risk around - so that it lands anywhere but at their door.
The Bookseller says, "Unbound, a publishing platform that allows readers to choose what is published, was devised as a response to the “difficulties of the existing publishing model”, with the programme aiming to get 35 to 40 projects off the ground in its first year."
Here's the idea; instead of self-publishing, you pitch your book idea to a social network of readers. If they like the idea, they invest in it to cover the publishing costs. In return, they get anything from a 'goodie bag' to lunch with the author.
If an investor puts in more than £1,000, they might get a royalty share of book sales too.
Whhooooaa! £1,000? How much are they saying it costs to publish a book?
Oh, of course, I forgot. We're talking about a traditional publishing house trying to muscle in on the ebook and self-publishing market.
"Supported by Faber, the platform was created by “QI” writers John Mitchinson and John Pollard, and Crap Towns author Dan Kieran. Authors are required to pitch their idea to readers on the site, and have 50 days to attract support through readers pledging money to fund the publication of the work. If enough money is pledged, the work will be published, primarily as an e-book or “beautifully bound, limited edition hardback”, or both, with each pledger’s name inscribed in the back of the print edition."
In the old days, there were publishers and there were vanity publishers. A publisher buys the licence to print your book and in return pays you a pittance of a royalty. They use your book to market their business, and if they really go to town on marketing, you make some money. But not nearly as much as the publisher, and quite rightly so, because they've done all the hard work in marketing and getting your book onto the shelves. Which they control.
Vanity publishers just charged you to print your book for you.
So, an aspiring author had two choices; take their manuscript around all the publishing houses, facing rejection, or pay to see their book in print.
In today's world of ebooks and print on demand, anyone can get their work into circulation for a very small amount of money, but, is it any good? And will it sell?
Today's author is faced with the choice of taking their manuscript to the traditional publishing houses, as before, self-publishing and now, getting the readers to buy the book in a limited print run before it's even written.
"As The Bookseller went to press, of the five ideas currently on the [Unbound] site, author Terry Jones’ idea for “a darkly funny set of linked tales” had received 2% of its required funding, while Gavin Pretor-Pinney’s idea, an iPad version of his book The Cloudspotter’s Guide, was still on 0%."
We presume they're both well known authors, so these figures either show that the Unbound concept is in its infancy, or it's a silly idea.
As a business model, it is very similar to the 'micro loans' concept that hit the headlines a few years ago. The idea was that I go to a website and post a request for some money, then some other people offer to lend me various amounts which together give me what I need. I then pay them back, through the website. Each micro investor makes a return, I get a loan, the website makes a profit off the top.
Unbound is not a new concept in publishing, it is a simple and blatant attempt by an existing publishing house to shuffle the risk around - so that it lands anywhere but at their door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)