Amazon (an industry leader in book sales) recently reported that for the first time last quarter, they sold considerably more e-books than print copies. While this is an incredible statistic, it is even more important to note that they did not achieve this feat due to a fall in paper book sales, as they have continued to experience solid sales in this sector as well, but rather by sustained growth in e-book sales. In the words of Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com: “The Kindle format has now overtaken the hardcover format (…) astonishing when you consider that we’ve been selling hardcover books for 15 years, and Kindle books for 33 months.”

As mentioned above, it is incredible to think of the speed at witch the shift towards this new medium is happening. Here are a couple other interesting statistics that seem to point towards digital print going mainstream.

• The Amazon Kindle e-reader reached an important milestone a while back, when it became the #1 bestselling product on Amazon (and this certainly hasn’t changed as the sales have continued growing on a month-over month basis).

• The Association of American Publishers recently reported that they have observed a 207% increase in e-book sales since the beginning of this year (when compared to the same period last year)

Paradoxically though, none of these statistics actually point towards an actual demise of print, as Amazon actually experienced some growth in paper book sales as well last quarter. In other words, although one is growing, it doesn’t seem to be shrinking the other. Like I said in my initial post: I don’t think print is going anywhere anytime soon and think we will be experiencing this duality of media for a while.

What’s your take? Do you favor one medium over another? Is this print’s last climb in vain before an epic fall?

]]> http://www.alexanderlynn.com/blog/2010/07/the-future-of-print-continued/feed/ 0 http://www.alexanderlynn.com/blog/2010/06/simple-yet-memorable/ http://www.alexanderlynn.com/blog/2010/06/simple-yet-memorable/#comments Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:05:28 +0000 alex http://www.alexanderlynn.com/blog/?p=317 This great new Ted Talk by Rory Sutherland, Vice Chairman of the Ogilvy Group (very well reputed advertising and marketing group) reminds us that often, problems don’t need big & expensive solutions. In fact, he comically demonstrates how time and time again simple solutions have been the most effective and the most memorable. This should serve as a potent reminder to all marketers: complicated isn’t necessarily memorable, and at the end of the day memorability is what they should strive to achieve. So here is my advice: next time you are trying to find the ultimate marketing solution, do yourself a favor and start by thinking simple. Enjoy the video and let me know what you think!

Stella Artois brings a largely residual advertising medium back to life in this stunning short documentary about wall painted advertisements. All while beautifully capturing the emotions and perspectives of a shrinking group of skilled painters that continuously struggle to keep their trade alive, Stella Artois exposes a largely unsung side of advertising.

It is mesmerizing to think of how quick we have forgotten about a medium, that no so long ago, was an industry standard! Although this form of advertising is virtually obsolete, I think that it can connect with consumers in a highly relevant way, as they will tend to recognize & appreciate its artistic merits, rather than see it as a mass-produced commercial message of limited value. At the end of the day this medium also serves as a valuable reminder that advertising is an art in itself! Enjoy the video and let me know what you think! Can such a medium still be used successfully in this day and age? Is it of any value to the industry? What is your take on the subject?

***

As we all know, the publishing industry has been struggling for some time now due largely to drastic changes in the media landscape that are slowly, yet continuously, rendering their business and distribution models useless. Recently we have seen the rise of a new reading platform: The E-reader! This new platform (which was popularized by Amazon’s Kindle, and is now being picked up by the likes of Apple and HP) is paradoxically being touted as the saver of the publishing industry on one hand, and the killer of print in its present form on the other. While I am not sure what exact effects E-readers will have on the industry (because only time will tell) I am positive that they will definitely be a stepping-stone towards beneficial change and a reinvention of the publishing ecosystem. Now will this totally render paper books useless? I don’t think so.

***

Harold Innis, a reputed Canadian scholar and communication’s theorist, believed that all media are biased and that the stability of societies depend upon a certain balance within their media infrastructures. He argued that there were two kinds of media: those that where time biased and those that where space biased.

Time biased media (such as stone tablets) favored the centralization and conservation of knowledge. In fact their weight, robustness and size, largely increased their durability over time, thus making it difficult to spread the information over space.  Consequently time biased media were used by cultures that were defensive in nature and that thus valued control and centralization.

On the other hand, space biased media (such as the papyrus developed by the Egyptians) were light, convenient and readily portable, thus promoting the displacement of information over space. Such media consequently encouraged expansion, and could be associated with offensive cultures and empires that wanted to spread rapidly. Nevertheless, such media were easily destructible and were virtually useless in terms of their conservation/preservation characteristics.

***

I firmly believe that cultures value the types of media that suit their present needs and that consequently some historical periods have generally favored time biased media, whereas others have privileged space biased media. It appears evident that we are currently in an age that is dominated by space-biased media, as the mobility of information is tremendously valued. To put it in context, consider the stock market: a delay of a couple minutes (sometimes a couple seconds), could either cost or earn someone millions of dollars.

This predisposition towards mobility has unquestionably benefited our culture, by making more information available to the masses than ever before. As a result we have seen a tremendous rise in innovation, development, education and wealth. We are consistently striving to develop solutions that will enable us to acquire information faster all while spreading it further than ever before. Nevertheless, we cannot solely depend on mobile/movable content as this essentially flushes preservation and conservation down the drain. Consequently some value definitely remains in forms of media that aren’t as movable, portable and convenient, as a culture cannot solely depend on one or the other. Furthermore, I would argue that a media’s biggest advantage is also its biggest disadvantage and vice versa (we will come back to this concept a little later).

While paper was once a space-biased media, I believe that it has now transformed into a time-biased media when compared the many new digital alternatives. These new platforms provide brilliant ways to carry information at speeds that were never even imaginable in the past. Yet when we analyze the digital media landscape one can distinguish a common problem: most content is virtually rendered useless almost upon release. In fact, the value that our society places on fresh information is so high that we consistently discard old content thus creating a culture that has made content and information an expendable commodity. One simply has to think of the flow of content that happens on places like Twitter, Facebook or an email inbox to realize that most content or conversations are retired and forgotten of immediately after they where processed. As I said earlier, a medium’s biggest advantage is also its biggest disadvantage. In this case the digitization (and thus the mobility) has annihilated much of the focus on centralization, control and preservation.

While one can argue that backup solutions are available I would tend to believe that they currently couldn’t outlive a paper manuscript. First things first, both a hard drive and a manuscript would be destroyed by water damage so none are advantageous from that standpoint. Nevertheless, hard drives tend to be put to use (rather than static objects) and are consequently prone to fail after a certain period of time; sometimes rendering the data useless along the way. Finally when we consider the speed at which technological change is currently occurring, one has to wonder whether a current hard drive would still be compatible with new technology 100 years down the line? But herein doesn’t lie the real problem of digital content, as we will eventually find and create solutions to make digital backups increasingly reliable, lasting and backwards compatible. In fact, the real problem lies in tangibility and ownership!

Printed books are tangible objects that one owns entirely upon acquisition. In other words, once I walk out of a store with a copy of a new book, it is officially my copy (and although I don’t own the rights to the content) I own every single bit of the materials that it (that specific copy of the book) was created with.  On the other hand, digital content is essentially a series of 1’s and 0’s, that acquires context when processed by the right technology. At the end of the day, any digital content (whether it’s a book, picture, song or video) is simply a package of “bits”. Furthermore, bits have no tangibility, which essentially means that every time one downloads a new book on his e-reader he is purchasing a piece of collectivity. No materiality is transmitted in the purchase and consequently one cannot say that he owns anything more than an exact copy of the 1’s and 0’s made available to all, through the same source.  As max states in his post: “using the internet as an example, I am viewing text and images that are loaded from the same source as your text and images. It isn’t reproduction, it is two lenses on the same object.” While digital technology makes access and mobility more convenient it doesn’t favor tangibility and subsequently will always have some disadvantages from that standpoint. In fact, sometimes tangibility is necessary or desired! Our culture idealizes tangibility because it has value; and that value is intrinsic to its physical characteristics.

Herein lies the beauty of the book as we know it: It is a physical object, that can preserve data over long periods of time and whose content is usually valuable enough to keep for extend periods! I consequently believe that printed books will remain valued and will co-exist with their digital counterparts for a significant time. Nevertheless, I definitely predict (and agree with) a huge decline in their production as they increasingly enter the digital space. Their digital forms will be cheaper, more accessible and will consequently promote the dissemination of knowledge (and therefore a continual rise of innovation throughout the world). Furthermore, lowering their production will unquestionably benefit the environment by cutting back on the use of resources. I see physical books as a product that will become exclusive to works that are deemed of sufficient importance, to be valued over long periods of time. Furthermore, an on demand print service may arise for those that would desire a copy of a specific work (because value is a subjective factor that cannot be judged solely by the collective body.)

On the other hand, the same fate does not await newspapers and magazines! Their expendable nature (we usually discard them after a couple days or months) coincides brilliantly with the digital platform that often favors the expendability of the content. Furthermore, the complexities of their distribution systems (let’s face it: shipping tons of paper across the planet is far from being the most economically viable solution in a digital age) become instantly solved, because as we have seen over the past years, the cost of storage and of digital distribution are only going to get cheaper. Finally, the digital nature of the content will open up a world of possibilities thus creating a bona fide experience. Take a look at the future Wired magazine for the IPad if you haven’t seen it yet. I would unquestionably subscribe to this over the print version!

***

So here is my final prognosis: Don’t worry Max! You will have access to way more than enough books to decorate your future home if you wish to, and they will be purchasable throughout your lifetime and most probably years after then (although the cost may gradually rise). Nevertheless, start getting used to that E-reader, because you’ll be reading your magazines and newspapers on it before you know it!

Before altering their practice, companies should ask themselves a few simple questions: What is the problem and is it really a problem?, Where does this problem come from?, how will the envisioned changes help resolve the situation? What is in it for their customers? Doing this could save them from taking decisions they may regret.

Dean Markadakis from Fast Company cleverly exposes a situation where precipitated changes didn’t actually solve a problem, in this video interview produced in association with Google and the Wharton School of Business. Enjoy!

As Andy Marken states in the Public Relations Quarterly, when facing consumer complaints and questions companies should aim to: “Calm that individual down, help him get the right assistance/answer and the company has not just saved a sale but more frequently has gained another company/product advocate who will speak favorably about the firm and experience with others”. Remember that every consumer they convert will potentially help the PR team do their job by praising the company’s actions. And knowing that consumers place so much trust in what they hear online, companies should capitalize on the situation. There was never any good reason not to listen to customers!

Last but not least, I firmly believe that public relations should increasingly become part of the management strategy. It has too frequently been used to resolve problems instead of preventing them. Having a PR counsel work as a part of the management team would help companies make the appropriate choices and decisions to maintain a proper image and preserve stakeholder trust. Edward Lordan states in one of his Public Relations Quarterly articles: “Public relations should be integrated into the strategic decision-making process in an organization, not exclusively as a reaction to events inside and outside the company.” I must say that I totally agree. Many scandals could have been prevented if their management system had been organized in such a way. In fact, The PR counsels could have helped the companies take appropriate ethical decisions, maintain high levels of transparency and preserve employee and stakeholder relationships.

Blatant misconceptions of the field, plummeting consumer trust and the new media ecosystem should all be reasons for companies to readapt their PR goals and strategies. Although it is already late, it’s better to reform now than never. Moreover costs shouldn’t be an issue because it will cost less to adapt now than to compensate for the failure to do so. As Gerald Kane states in The Harvard Business Review: “companies as diverse as Kaiser Permanente, Comcast Domino’s and Amazon have learned that not having a social media team can cost far more than having one [...] each learned it’s lesson the hard way.” So here is my advice to companies: embrace the new media landscape, listen to your stakeholders, build your corporate practice and guidelines off of their advice & opinions and remain open to suggestions. You will rapidly see the return on investment, as you won’t be on your own anymore. You will be a better company backed by better customers. Do yourself a favor, and take the opportunity while its still here!

The new media landscape has created huge PR opportunities for companies and organizations yet many have failed to recognize these. One of the great advantages is the simple shift from a media landscape based on control to one based on openness. This situation is caused by the unique fact that consumers can now cheaply and effortlessly create content. In the past the high costs of production forced the content to be produced by large and specialized media companies. They subsequently had the final word on what they wanted to distribute. But, in a world where anybody can produce content at minimal cost, the gatekeepers are bypassed and companies can independently decide what they deem to be newsworthy. This valuable opportunity enables them to keep their publics informed day-in day-out and increases their ability to react rapidly in the event of a crisis. More significantly though, this shift has enabled them to be directly connected to their audiences.

Some will argue that this is not beneficial to PR, as skipping the gatekeepers also does away with the opportunity to benefit from “3^rd party credibility”. While this might seem like a valid point, I tend to believe that the shift in the landscape hasn’t completely altered the phenomenon of credibility and that the benefits brought on by the changes firmly outweigh the disadvantages. Remember that any new medium also brings new producers, and that it is inevitable that some of these producers will become more trusted than others. Hence, contrary to public belief, organizations can still benefit from 3^rd party credibility in new media platforms on the Internet. The credibility just doesn’t belong to the same people they used to deal with. Chris Brogan, a media consultant, author and respected marketing expert calls these new sources of online credibility ‘trust agents’. He defines them as: “people who use the web in a very human way to build influence, reputation, awareness” (Brogan, Smith) While they can take many forms, trust agents are most commonly bloggers that gain high amounts of authority & trust on the Internet and subsequently develop a huge community of readers.

Engaging with and using such new sources of credibility is part of the changes companies must make. As a matter a fact, in some cases it may be more beneficial for organizations to get online ‘trust agents’ to preach their message than to use traditional large-scale media outlets. This is due to the fact that their (trust agents) communities are extremely targeted, specialized and dedicated to the subjects they follow. This relevance is crucial. In other words, speaking to 1 million people is useless if only 50 are interested in your cause. Ultimately, the goal is to get these dedicated followers to preach the organizations messages as well. It becomes a virtuous circle of word of mouth.

While some might want to stick solely to traditional media, I would argue that developing relationships with ‘trust agents’ is a compulsory part of corporate public relations in this new media landscape. Not engaging with these agents and their communities could very well be fatal. Consider the following: “A recent PEW study found that nearly 40% of Americans say they have doubted a medical professional’s opinion or diagnosis because it conflicted with information they’d found online. If users put that much faith in what they learn on the Internet, what will they be willing to believe if members of a social media forum start trashing your organization?” (Kane, Fichman, Gallaugher, Glaser) The reality of the current situation is that people will be talking about brands and companies online whether they like it or not. Chris Anderson, a bestselling author and the chief editor at Wired magazine comically expresses this idea when he states:  “Your brand is not what you say it is, it’s what Google says it is.” (Anderson Chris) Consumers have been voicing their ideas, thoughts, concerns, worships and complaints over these online media channels for years. It is now up to companies to do the same. Doing so will ensure that they remain in control of their image and reputation while portraying engagement. In the end, this will also enable them to develop better relationships with their stakeholders; which was the goal of public relations in the first place.

Brian Solis, author of "Putting the Public Back In Public Relations" presents this brilliant graph that exposes the multitude of new media channels available to PR in this day and age, while giving some quick insight on how to use them. Creative Commons photo courtesy of briansolis.com

]]> http://www.alexanderlynn.com/blog/2010/01/companies-public-relations-and-the-new-media-landscape-part-2/feed/ 0