The danger for content providers is a surfeit of good enough

December 25, 2011 · Posted in Culture, Technology, The Content Business · Comment 

From a Dec. 24 New York Times story on the continued attempts of publishers to extract more value from libraries when it comes to e-books (or just sit out the e-book library lending game all together):

While many major publishers have effectively gone on strike, more than 1,000 smaller publishers, who don’t have best-seller sales that need protection, happily sell e-books to libraries. That means the public library has plenty of e-books available for the asking — no waiting.

This is an aside to the main thrust of the article, but it’s the most important bit. Because here’s the thing: as long as library collections (or Netflix streaming or Hulu or ebooks that cost $7.99 or less) have enough works that are good enough, consumers are going to go the cheap and easy route. Yes, there are still premium titles that some consumers will pay old-content company prices for. But more and more, it’s clear that there is a surfeit of good enough.

To speak more directly to the library vs. publisher tug-of-war detailed in the article: my library system has gone on an ebook buying spree this past year. I have the Overdrive app on my iPhone. Yes, there are a select few books that I will buy or that I will check out from the library in hard copy, but I also find myself reading books that may not be the number one choice on my list of to-reads because they are available as an ebook from my library. It’s just so easy to check it out and read it on my iPhone.

My wife and I also decided to drop our DVD plan with Netflix and just pay for streaming. Yes, there are things that may not be available. But between Netflix streaming and Hulu (the free, non-plus version), we have more than enough shows to watch. We have a surfeit of good enough. And that’s a problem for publishers and studios stuck on the old ways of generating revenue.

Tags: , , ,

Persistent conversation among people I trust

July 6, 2010 · Posted in Culture, Education, Journalism, Technology · Comment 

I recently went in and cleaned up the more than 900 items I had starred in Google Reader going back to 2006. At least half of them  were on recurring topics — personal finance, literary criticism, social media tracking, economics, food, etc. — that I like to follow closely (thus why they had been starred).  But I had no trouble letting most of them go because, well, the conversation has moved on and things change and, to be honest, part of me was saying “hey, they’re only blog posts.” Don’t get me wrong — I love form and have been reading blogs since Instapundit just started out and have regularly blogged since 2004. But although blogs are a good way to generate current conversation, they suck when it comes to persistent conversation across time. Digging into archives can be very hit or miss (and tags and categories only take you so far, especially with a blog that has been around awhile). And even if comments aren’t closed on an older post, chances are the conversation is not going to be re-ignited. Also because of the semi-casual nature of blogs, both posts and comments don’t focus on real tight writing on thought.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is excellent for persistent content over time. Entries get updated, refined and fleshed out. Changes to the page are tracked and made available to the casual reader. But the problem with Wikipedia is that it’s only an encyclopedia. It’s tone and scope is focused on factual, relevant content.

And finally, scholarship, as it is made available in academic journals, and public intellectualism, as it is made available in magazines and newspapers, can often be great and producing polished work and work that is in conversation with others in the field. But you often have to slog through a lot in order to get to what you find interesting and conversations get off track and some of it is just too specialized.

So here’s what I want: a way to read a persistent, focused conversation on specialized topics I’m interested in undertaken by people I trust, admire, tolerate, hate or whatever but at least am willing to listen to that is set up in such a way to occur over days, months, years. I’m still mulling over what form this might take. More later when things have fully coalesced.

Tags: , ,

Trend alert: Whoopie Pies are the new cupcakes

May 5, 2010 · Posted in Advertising, Culture · 4 Comments 

The Trader Joe’s Fearless Flyer arrived today. One of the offerings is a container of six Whoopee Pies (presented, of course, as advocacy for a regional American tradition). So I’m hereby calling Whoopie Pies a trend because:

  1. The Cook’s Country Cookbook I received for father’s day (or was it my birthday?) last year contains a recipe for Whoopie Pies.
  2. The latest Penzey’s Spices catalog contains a recipe for Whoopie Pies (and a photo of one on the front cover).
  3. The latest issue of Costco’s magazine for its members contains a recipe for Whoopie Pies.

Of course, the New York Times beat me to the punch back in March 2009. But based on the evidence above, it now appears to have solidly trickled down in to the middlebrow. So if you are one of the countless people who opened up a cupcake shop in the past four years, you better add this to the menu. And if you are having a cutesy trendy wedding this summer, you might want to switch out the cupcakes for Whoopie Pies. Or not — I mean, once it hits Costco’s magazine, the trend is rather played out.

Let’s see. Red Velvet Cake has already had a run and Boston Cream Pie is doing well too so I’m going to call it now — the next major American dessert trend is going to be the rehabilitation of Baked Alaska, which I believe has already happened on the fine dining scene, but as far as I know has yet to make it seriously mainstream. Or maybe it’ll be icebox cake.

Tags: , , , , , ,