I recently read a blog post by my friend Max Campbell that really got me thinking about the future of the print industry. In his post Max tackles several complex, yet extremely interesting, issues in relation to the future of print in an increasingly digital world. He goes on to question whether a world without tangible books is possible; all while considering the affects that this would have on the series of sub-cultures that have risen out of the tangibility of their present form. In his own words: “what is going to happen to those people who enjoy having bookshelves as a sort of wall paper or room decoration?” The McNally Jackson Bookstore’s café in New York is definitely a more than noteworthy example of this phenomenon.
***
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!
