Norman Mailer, one of the leading American icons of contemporary American literature, is dead.

Presumably you already knew that. But I am not here to praise, or disparage, Mr. Mailer’s work. I can’t, because I never read anything he wrote. His hardcover books always looked too thick and heavy for my squeamish tastes. And they always seemed to be pushing the list price envelope by $5 to $10, as if it was assumed the rich elites would reliably consume his books with great velocity without bothering to note the price. I suppose they did. I don’t recall seeing Mr. Mailer’ books in post-hardcover paperback, though they must be. I probably didn’t notice them because I wasn’t looking for them.

I was also somehow repelled by the Mailer head shots that seemed to crown his books. The imposing images never struck me as joyful or easy going. There was pain, even agony, in the wrinkle-lined eyes, and a possibly abrupt rudeness around the mouth. I could imagine myself in his presence being incessantly lectured to about the ways things were and should be. I didn’t think he would care about what I thought, or take the time to listen. Though as a successful novelist, he must have possessed an intuitive ability to absorb other people’s personalities and sentiments. Let me be clear, I never met Norman Mailer and never had any opinions about him whatsoever, until his death made me think about him.

Mailer literally lived in a glass dominated house for all to see. In fact, it would have been easy to throw bricks into his living room, and then disappear into a crowd. I sometimes wondered if any one ever did. His impressive apartment faced the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, where thousands of people walked within his view every day, though most of them probably didn’t know or no longer cared.

I have spent almost all of my adult life in the book business, and have lived more in New York than elsewhere. Yet, I don’t think I have ever had a conversation with anyone about Norman Mailer’s books, but I can say that I have heard his name and perhaps even said his name many times over the years, always in the context of his being Norman Mailer.

The name Norman Mailer was, and still is, an unmovable brand, like Andy Warhol, and Joe DiMaggio, and JFK, and numerous others. Most people who connect to the energies of these powerful names have little or no awareness of what any of them actually did when they were in their primes, but the names have become immortal adverbs through which to express certain meanings and feelings, they even show up in random songs, but it’s not yet known if Mailer will reach this rare pantheon in years to follow.

What’s the point of this blog? Well, Mailer was a major American celebrity, at least through the decades prior to the ’90s. His name was dropped in conversations; people were excited if they saw him in person; he was the frequent subject of rampant gossip and inane gibberish, and he would show up in high profile venues and situations that had nothing to do with his actual “job,” which was nothing more or less than writing. His name was used to help define an exalted “form” of writing and journalism. How many living or recently deceased writers can we say all this about?

Frankly, for those under 40, Mailer may have already been a vague ghost for a long time. But then who do they have instead?  My point exactly.

Posted by: Jeff Herman

It’s interesting to note that the OJ book, which is independently published, continues to thrive as a bestseller. This should not surprise anyone. It vindicates Judith Regan’ commercial instincts and is why her peers and over-lords at Collins initially supported the acquisition. So OJ potentially “outs” himself as the killer. Why does that offend anyone? It would have been more offensive, and boring, if he wrote a book trying to prove that he didn’t do it. But people are always looking for reasons to get on their self righteous high horses, which can lead to censorship and often misses real opportunities to be useful.

The bottom line is that bloody true crime stories are commercially reliable, and that the OJ fetish is not yet ready to fade away.

The book became too hot a potato for any large corporate house to handle, which proves one again why independent publishing can, and must, thrive. While IF I DID IT isn’t an important book by anyone’s standards, it’s vital that a non black market venue existed for it to be published and widely distributed. All too often, and far below the public’s radar, countless good books are effectively terminated by the large corporate entities due to their lack of faith that enough people will buy them. But this is often due to a corporate culture that squelches risk taking, innovation, or anything that springs from gut instincts. Editors at large houses have to be mindful of their career tracks; it’s simply too risky to advocate for decisions that might end up losing a lot of money. Of course, independent publishers can go out of business for losing a lot of money, but they are also more likely to successfully follow their passion, not just their fears.

James Frey is in the news this week, but in a relatively silly and quiet way. Some kind of class action suit was settled that provided various lawyers with hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in fees, about $200,000 for random charities, and nominal refunds for the 2,000 or so consumers who feel compelled to demand them. But the need for the law suit is extremely confusing, because the publisher had already promised to give people their money back on demand. It may be safe to conclude that some savvy lawyers saw an opportunity to make some money for no good reason, other than the fact that they could.

The above scenario set back Random House and its insurer nearly a million dollars, and for what? Imagine how many books an independent house could publish with that much extra cash; which brings me to the real point. A dozen or so independent houses should form a consortium dedicated to the purpose of launching class action suits against their large corporate brethren. Only in-house lawyers would be used, thereby avoiding massive contingency fees. In any given week there must be at least one stupid thing one of the large houses does that is class-actionable and settleable. Eventually, the program can be structured so that the large houses simply pay a negotiated annual fee in exchange for not being hit by any class action suits. Sort of like protection money. Absurd? Well, is the current reality any less absurd? Are independent publishers any less deserving of such windfalls than vultures-at-law, especially since the money derives from the corporate supported houses?

Posted by: Jeff Herman

Americans remain blissfully unaware of the talent of Manchester United and England football player Wayne Rooney. On the football pitch, Wayne has few rivals and he is a sports personality whose talent transcends sport to media superstardom. Even as a better player than David Beckham, he will never rival him as a star: He doesn’t have the looks, but he will be big. On the other hand, his girlfriend/fiancée may become bigger than Victoria Beckham and the glow of Wayne’s stardom has reflected on her since they were engaged when she was 17. You see, 21-year-old Coleen McLoughlin has reportedly just signed a five-book deal with HarperCollins. Admittedly this is on the back of her successful autobiography Welcome to My World (Oopps, I almost typed “Wayne” there…) but, without Wayne would there have been an autobiography at 20 years old?

A quick look at the top-seller charts on both sides of the ocean over the past few years show they are replete with celebrity tell-alls and ‘biographies’; there is even an infamous “I didn’t do it but I could have done it” killer celebrity bio. Katie Price (AKA “Jordan” the model) also penned her bio – twice, in fact, inside two years – to great commercial success and has also benefited from the largess of publishers. As I write, Jessica Seinfeld (who, according to Jerry, clearly doesn’t need the money) is leading the pack on Amazon.com: Not that there’s anything wrong with that. 

On the other hand, perhaps there is something wrong with that from the standpoint of our elitist preoccupation with awards. In the UK, the Booker Prize was announced together with a scolding from the judges that great literary works are not adjudged properly or well by the gatekeepers of our awareness: That would be the newspaper reviewers. At least those that are still alive and critiquing (perhaps there are more in the UK than here). It won’t be long before there is a crisis of conscience over reviewing in the UK as well. In the US, the Quill Awards passed with barely a ripple – less than 50 citations in Google News as I write this. I get more than that. 

Awards don’t matter to the average reader and, while I will roll my eyes at Coleen’s book deal, the fact is that HarperCollins and the other publisher’s who solicit these deals are delivering content that the masses want, which the reviewers will pan and the award-givers ignore. And I guess so what? If there is any downside, it is that the amount of cash allocated to these celebrity titles doesn’t leave too much left over for those of us found lacking in the celebrity department. 

Posted by: Michael Cairns, Information Media Partners

Is it time to revise the manner in which the publishing industry establishes standards for the industry? The pace at which the industry is moving suggests that the model of serial committee meetings staffed by over worked volunteers may no longer be an optimal solution.

Into a vacuum does a 'standard' establish itself and I believe the RFID situation in the library community is just one example. In the absence of a universal approach to RFID tagging in the publishing and library community we now have several vendor specific 'standards' that mitigate some or all of the benefits of the technology itself. Time to deliberate and debate ad nausea is a luxury we can't afford when digital content and transaction models are changing rapidly, so I was interested to see the following comment from BISG regarding digital content:

“The committee will work to find solutions that will benefit the entire book industry – publishers, retailers, search engines, authors, wholesalers and distributors – by improving the process by which online book content reaches consumers. To expedite standards development at a time when the book industry is moving rapidly forward, the Committee will start its work using a briefing paper, requirements, and draft specification that were developed within the Association of American Publishers (AAP) to serve as frameworks for further work.”

It will be interesting to see how this develops; however, just making the old system work faster may not be enough. An alternative approach could be to establish a forward thinking (anticipatory) approach to new standards development. Importantly, a small 'reconnaissance' team that sits permanently could identify new standards needs and establish a minimalist framework for these new standards. This framework could include the identification of less than 10 data elements and with definitions that would immediately enable standardization at a very basic level. This group would generate standards projects based on submissions from the community as well as from their own initiatives.

Once the framework was completed the new born standard would be published and passed on to the committee best suited to expand on it and extend its relevance. In some cases, the standard could remain dormant and/or industry participants could submit their own amendments and additions to the standard rather than wait for the committee to define new data elements and requirements.

Posted by: Michael Cairns, Information Media Partners

Maybe you don’t know what a Radiohead is but you can bet your children do and moreover they have probably recently made a rational economic decision on the value to them of the band’s most recent album. Why is this important to book publishers? Well directly perhaps not so much, but the indirect impact of what Radiohead announced last week will be significant to all media including publishing.

As an established band, Radiohead have a large existing fan base and they are taking their music directly to this fan base by releasing their new album via download at whatever price the fan wants to pay. If the fan believes as stated by one of them, that the band is ‘rich enough’ they can pay 99cents for the entire thing (they could get it for free) or they can pay a traditional retail price of $12.95. Whatever. Radiohead receives all the revenue rather than having to split a fee with a recording company. Suddenly, after nurturing and investing in Radiohead over the past 10 years there is no longer a place for the record company. Is this fair you wonder? The question really doesn’t matter because the old model of artist development is dead.  Music companies are going to have to create a new model where reliance is not so much on revenues derived from recordings but shared across the pantheon of revenue opportunities from merchandising to touring to music publishing. The transition will be brutal for both the artists and the recording companies.

Radiohead finished recording their new album only 10 days before they released it via their web site.  Fans have two product choices: They can take a download and pay what they want or they can have a download and preorder a traditional CD and book package. The latter will be release in December. I expect that despite the availability of the download many fans will either buy the CD package initially or return later to buy it. Radiohead are likely to make a pile of money from this model both because of their fan base and due to the publicity that the action has generated. Typically a band would make more money touring than they would from CD sales mainly because their cut of the full retail price is so small. It is because they have so little to lose and that they want to get people to come out and see them that more bands will elect to forgo CD royalties in order to build tour revenues.

Back to publishing. What happens when John Grisham or Stephen King decide to forego a publishing contract and go direct? Well the truth of the matter is that it is already happening. Remember The Long Tail? The book was available for review and comment online long before it was finally published and this not only helped the author fine tune his argument it increased publicity for the printed book. There are other examples and the model will become more prevalent where authors either independently or with a publisher’s collaboration will allow free or discounted access to books both before and after publication.

The economic model may be less different between music and book publishing than is first thought. Related revenues in music come from merchandising and touring and in book publishing they can come from movie, tv, merchandising, and rights. Point is in both cases artists and authors and publishers and producers will increasingly be looking at the totality of revenue opportunities rather than in narrow terms. This could lead to some interesting new collaborations: the screen writer that signs a book deal with a movie producer, the musician who signs a CD deal with a book publisher, or the author that signs a deal with a tour organizer. To some degree these models are starting to become more apparent and as publishers we will need to think more creatively and in collaboration with the authors we publish so that we can remain competitive in an environment where the traditional boundaries are being eroded.

Posted by: Michael Cairns, Information Media Partners

What gives with these ‘literary’ competitions? Over the past year we have seen a number of large publishers launch the paper equivalent of American’s Next Top Model in a pageant likely to draw as much interest as the next blog launch: Oops, you missed it. As any aspiring novelist knows, assuming they are honest with themselves, the chances of getting a publishing house to respond let alone give their life’s work even fleeting notice is miniscule. Now this may not be the case with smaller houses but then who has the time or staff to review the slush pile with any degree of diligence? So, if the publishing companies are not facing some dire shortage of content what are they up to? Well just like American’s next Model, it’s really not about the pretty girls; it is about the people who watch the pretty girls. In the case of the publishing companies they are surely along for the ride as Amazon.com and Gather.com – two of the current partners of Penguin and Simon & Schuster respectively – look to increase awareness and traffic for their web based products and tools. So, should we be congratulating the publishing companies for being innovative and ‘with it’? This would be a reasonable reaction and perhaps they do deserve some kudos for the publicity and brand identification that goes along with the arrangement; however, these programs are paper tigers. I don’t believe they will have any positive long term impact on the publishing companies involved and in fact will influence a category of authors to associate Amazon, Gather.com and others as publishing platforms where they can develop, manage and launch their own content packages. Rather than partnering with these web platforms and social networks, publishers should be focused on developing their own capabilities that puts more control in the hands of their authors. In effect, publishers should themselves provide an umbrella of services for their authors that allow them to make some of their own decisions while still retaining the benefits of a relationship with a major publisher.
Posted by: Michael Cairns, Information Media Partners

The news that AuthorHouse and iUniverse.com were merging was not entirely unexpected, but it is interesting to me that the publishing community basically ignored the event. While it was reported in Publisher’s Lunch and Publisher’s Weekly, the report in PW focused on the question of job cuts which may reflect a limited interest in the strategic ramifications this segment poses to mainstream publishers. Led by Lulu.com, this publishing segment is exploding and the last thing being considered will be job cuts. Just look at the capabilities on offer at Lulu. AuthorHouse and iUniverse complement each other: A number of years ago, iUniverse.com made the strategic choice to add an extensive selection of professional editorial services to their suite of services, which surpass the service offered by AuthorHouse (and others in the market). Tactically, I think the two companies will slot together like jigsaw pieces.

Random House has a relationship with Xlibris and is alone among the major publishing houses in building formal relationships with the self-publishing marketplace. I would expect other major publishers to jump into this space, in the short-term, through acquisition. The leverage these companies achieve over their technology, employees and fixed expenses, the processes they have established and the market they have built make these companies appealing. Ironically, there is a “democratization of access” underway in publishing, which to date, most “publishers” have not participated in; but, this will change as traditional publishers look to the self-publisher market as a natural product extension.

In the case of AuthorHouse and iUniverse.com, they each produce over 5,000 titles per year with total staff of approximately 100. In terms of titles per month and titles per employee, they shame a traditional large publisher. Everyone will argue that the quality of the content produced by self-publishers is poor, but this is no more true than the statement that all content produced by traditional publishers is exemplary. How often has a traditional publisher invested significantly in a title’s success only to watch it sell 300 copies? For the self-publisher—with an author-pays model, no inventory and no promotion expense—there is only upside if a title takes off unexpectedly (and sells 300 copies).

I am not suggesting that the self-publishing business model will be adopted anytime soon by a major publishing house, but there are lessons to be learned from the success that the self-publishing industry has built in the last 10 years. Enabling technology has produced this “democratization of access” and, while it is hard to imagine that there is that much content to produce, the numbers prove the case. Lulu is producing 4,000 new titles per week for a total of 300,000 newly released titles, Author House has over 30,000 authors and 40,000 titles, and iUniverse says they have sold over 5 million books.

Amazon has invested in this area (B&N is getting out via iUniverse.com) and I see some convergence between the traditional publishing model and self-publishing. The content quality issue is irrelevant: Firstly because good content will always find its market and Secondly, because quality in the self-publishing segment depends not on the content but the service the author received. Get ready to see traditional publishers adopt some of the practices of the self-publishing industry.

Posted by: Michael Cairns, Information Media Partners

My introduction to Charles Bukowski occurred via the display cases inside the Boston University library lobby, and I was drawn to them because I happened to be working in the library’s special collections department at the time. The special collections department at BU is quite renowned and was established by Dr. Howard Gotlieb who recently died. (Gotlieb actually wrote one of my recommendations for business school). My job was less intellectual than hired muscle since the library was becoming so overwhelmed with boxed submissions they needed someone to unload the stuff and place the materials in uniform boxes on shelves. I didn’t have too much time to peruse the material in some of these boxes but I do recall a wealth of material from Herbert Swope and Fletcher Knebel, who’s boxes were filled with photos of JFK and his family while they were all in the White House.

Some of the material deposited wasn’t quite so moving or important (at least to my eyes) and in many cases it was clear that entire desk drawers had been upended into a box and sent off to BU. These boxes often included things like gum, blank paper, pens, pennies, paper clips and other detritus which had minimal residual value to scholars. BU did have several archivists responsible for cataloging the vast amount of stuff that was deposited. They seemed to work fairly methodically (slowly) to identify the important material and provide tables of content for scholars. Increasingly, the material in formal special collections libraries like BU and in local libraries is being digitized and there is little doubt that this will accelerate. Books constitute some of this material and are included in scanning projects but the bulk of material in these collections would be non-book format material such as documents, letters, posters, art work, banners, etc.

Displaying this material is regarded as an important activity at libraries. After all, they have expended the effort to collect and catalog the material and they want people to know they have it. Hence the display cases at BU and in the lobbies of many other libraries. On a sales call to a small public library in Redlands CA a number of years ago, our meeting was held in the special collections room which contained their collection of local southern Californian historical material. Much of this material probably doesn’t exist anywhere else and sadly patrons had to ask for permission to enter the room. With the glacial progression towards digitization of this material it does mean that patrons will eventually have more access to this material online but it will take some time.

Digitization will enable more opportunities for the library to benefit commercially from this material and I am curious why more libraries are not recognizing these opportunities. Two of these include the electronic version of the traditional display case and traditional publishing. Both of these require the touch of the archivist/curator to prioritize, explain and make relevant the chosen material. Not everything in a collection will be important or interesting enough for the average patron and the editing function remains important to ensure that the interest of the patron is held through the presentation. The electronic version of the display cases are computer terminals and/or online access that enable some self-directed exploration of the material and these are showing up in some libraries. In an electronic collection, this material should be available to other institutions that want to access it where the material could add to or enhance material they may be also be featuring. The network aspects of intermingling collections and expertise is nascent in the library world but could become a very exciting area of study. Increasingly, much like museums, libraries will be able to develop programs and special events that feature their special collections content not only at a reasonable cost but also as a revenue generator.

Traditional publishing can also support and enhance the display and exploitation of library special collections. Many of us are familiar with the Museum shop experience which can be irritating because it often appears overly commercial; however, the reason these shops exist is basic economics. The products sold are a material support to the institutions. In the case of virtually all museums the institutions retain extensive publishing programs for everything from books and exhibition catalogs, to greeting cards, postcards and posters. Digitization will allow even small libraries to leverage their content in revenue producing ways. Ideally, the most savvy library administrators are going to realize that the opportunity for revenue could actually pay for the digitization. After I graduated from BU, I became the book buyer at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and that experience showed me the intense focus on leveraging their collection in all commercial aspects is critical to retail revenues, special events and shows and donor participation. Obviously, the correlation with your typical local library and the MFA is tenuous but the lessons are there to be learned in how to build new and recurring revenue streams that can be channeled back into the library.

Once in digital (leverageable) format it is no slam dunk that your typical librarian is going to be able to produce a printed book but today there are more readily available options for print production. All of the “photo book” providers such as Blurb.com, picaboo.com, etc. offer templates and functionality that could provide that basis for a publishing program. At least something they could test without too much downside. The downside of these providers is that the retail price point for these products would probably be too high to create much demand. On the other hand, the self-publishing programs offered by lulu.com, Xlibris and iUniverse may be the answer especially as they become more sophisticated about format and color. Even now, quality from these vendors is high enough that patrons would pay for the books. As any Museum publisher will tell you, the popularity of their in-house titles published to support both specific events and to show case their collection would amaze in the number of annual units sold. I am convinced that there is a business opportunity or consulting practice here for someone to help libraries build publishing programs or digital collections that will enhance their revenue base.

Not every library is going to have a collection worthy of digitization, but those that do will increasingly see revenue opportunities from catalogs or a publishing program. Who knows perhaps BU will get around to publishing their Charles Bukowski collection.

Posted by: Michael Cairns, Information Media Partners