Format change in action – a couple of examples from history:
1. Movies and TV: in the late 40s/early 50s, movie companies fought broadcasters to protect their industry against the upstart television. Their frontal attack failed, and consumption of moving pictures largely moved from the cinema to the home. TV developed wholly new formats (game shows, chat shows), but also reformatted drama (soap operas, seasonal series) beyond what the movies had ever been able to achieve. Much of the talent that had worked exclusively in the cinema found new ways to make new livings.
2. Counter service grocers and self-service supermarkets: another mid-century change. The economies of scale, and the ease with which savings could be passed on to the customer, rendered counter-service stores rapidly obsolete. Supermarkets sold bulk and sold convenience; as the years passed, they progressively improved product quality, all the time managing value.
In both cases, “big business” created the format shift – just as big businesses have created ereaders and tablets; but thereafter, they had to develop those formats as dictated by the customers. Publishers in the post-paper world will have to do the same.
Indeed, pbooks are set to join cinemas and small food stores on the junk heap of history – until they reinvent themselves anew for an ebook audience. But that will have to wait another 10-20 years – a cycle of decline, to be followed by a renaissance in a new and different form?
Hitch: http://jimberkin.wordpress.com; supermarket: business-school.exeter.ac.uk
Some Twittering this morning, inspired by a couple of articles spotted by Jellybooks‘ Andrew Rhomberg. One is a market report from Publishing News, the other a blog entry distributed by ebookporn.
Low prices are transforming ebook buying behaviour from “buying to read” to “buying to collect” http://ebookporn.tumblr.com/post/28845301698/why-publishers-are-having-difficulty-settling-on-a …
Collect, or just accumulate?
bit of both? Some is accumulate “wanted to read” (and then forgot), but also collect “don’t want to miss out” (deal!)
the post certain rang a bell with me in that ebook buying and physical book buying are evolving somewhat differently
you now have genuine impulse buying from the comfort of your home and at genuine “impulse prices”
Front list/back list ratio is 40/60 for print, books, but 20/80 for ebooks! http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/53430-what-happened-to-the-long-tail-.html …
Concepts like frontlist/backlist, based on print runs/reviews/marketing, increasingly redundant in ebook world.
PN notes that Nielsen Bookscan has reported a fall of 30%, almost one-third, in US sales of fiction backlist titles in printed book form, for the period ending 22nd July 2012, compared to one year earlier.
The shift in market shape is accelerating, not slowing down, with the article noting a significant fall in physical book space at retail outlets (over and above Borders’ US closure). One major American publishing group is reporting that 80% of backlist sales are now in ebook format – the pbook long tail is getting shorter and shorter. Assuming Amazon still accounts for a large part of those backlist sales, backlist bread-and-butter in bookshops must be looking very stumpy indeed. And without backlist sales to prop up the discounted frontlist, the book-specific store model looks very troubled. Booksellers need to diversify, and to recognise that the “general bookstore” is probably unsustainable.
But hell, you know that already. What’s piqued my interest today is the effect that all of this will have on publishers – and not so much on the grand strategies of media groups (many of which are quite forward-looking), but more on the basics of seasonality, range management and changing consumption patterns.
Amazon made one of their opaque announcements this week, proclaiming that for every 100 physical paperbacks and hardbacks they had sold in 2012, UK customers had downloaded 114 titles to its Kindle e-reader. Such is Amazon’s dominance in the UK book market that this was headlined “Readers are now buying more e-books than printed books“, ignoring the enfeebled minority of book-lovers who are doltish enough not to use Amazon.
Ebook customers aren’t behaving like pbook customers. Are you a traditional “heavy book buyer”? If so, how many books might you buy for yourself at a time – four, five? Any more, and the weight/bulk will be too much to carry, and once you get home, there’s the imputation that all those pages piled up at your bedside must be read.
Whereas ebooks – pah, easy. Click, download. Click, download. Moby-Dick – always meant to read that. Click, download. À la recherche du temps perdu, twelve volumes for £3.25 – no problem. Click, download. Having it on your Kindle is almost tantamount to reading the thing anyway.
Back to that ebookporn piece. As the writer notes, people are downloading “huge chunks of content that will never be read”. The piece concludes:
If your download 70 books at $0.99 each you are spending $70 and acquiring years of books to read. Very soon this reader stops purchasing and that sales bubble bursts.
If instead they were to spend not $70 for 70 books but $7 a month for access to 7 million books this reader spends $84 a year, year in and year out. Knowledge is light and it stands to reason that access to all books can be sold like a utility such as electricity, water, and internet access.
This is what might be described, broadly speaking, as the Spotify principle, and it’s one that slashes through publishing, bookshops and libraries as we know them. Which has more value to a reader who has no desire to surround him/herself with dead tree content – 70 ebooks, most of them unread and never-to-be-read, or an almost infinite quantity of content, from classics to trash, all available from the cloud at a moment’s notice?
This brings us back to frontlist and backlist. I can understand how new ebook content can break through and succeed, whether a title starts with word-of-mouth build, typical of self-published hits, or is driven by a professional marketing campaign. However, that approach divides ebooks into Monster Hits and Everything Else. When publishers were putting out a few dozen pbook titles each season, they were reasonably certain that most bookstores would carry/display/promote most of those titles. The books would get their place in the sun, and then (if they’d sold a few copies) earn a position in the backlist, where sales could tick over unto eternity. They would move from frontlist to backlist; most of them heading ultimately to oblivion, and few lasting for lifetimes.
There is no straightforward translation of this old world into the land of ebooks, where hits will be bigger and faster, but will probably also be forgotten more swiftly. The solution, of course, is not to try and force a frontlist/backlist pbook mindset on the ebook world, but to adapt methods that works best for readers – who now have the freedom to behave in a totally different, less considered way.
Note, methods. Sales will fluctuate; surge, recede and return again. Content will no longer be defined by its copyright date, but by its relevance to a particular reader’s needs. Publishers will require a whole range of different sales tactics which are reliant on understanding the end customer. This is best achieved through partnership with sellers, sharing sales data and market understanding, though it runs counter to Amazon’s established strategy – Seattle is determined to hold on to its data and control the customer relationship.
The “Spotify” approach is a rational response to the hangover that will follow downloading excess; alternatively, publishers may have to assume that a high proportion of ebooks will be sampled, but never read, and price them accordingly. Neither solution represents a straightforward “format shift” (in the way that hardcovers were succeeded by paperbacks in the mid 20th century). Consumers aren’t thinking in those terms, so publishers are going to have to change their model fundamentally. And because the book has been such a successful object for so many centuries, that’s a difficult shift for people and corporations alike. Ask any old bookseller – we know…
And to close, a gratuitous photo of about seventy pbooks, all of them pretty well-read…
…who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets.”
The quote, of course, is Disraeli’s, and it was brought to mind after I read this piece by Marcus Leroux in Monday’s paywalled Times.
The gist of the article (for those of you without a Times subscription) is that 25% of non-essential retail spending takes place in just 3% of Britain’s shopping areas. Of course, the crushing dominance of London – West End, City, Knightsbridge, Westfield – will help to skew those numbers, as London’s share of tourist retail is exceptionally high. But forecasters CACI have reviewed 4,000 different shopping destinations, grading them from A to E, with anything below a C having questionable long-term viability.
The retail landscape has become more differentiated in recent years, as a combination of demographic polarisation, plus online, supermarket and out-of-town shopping, has caused the geography of the UK to divide more starkly between winners and losers. I pondered this in a blog I published at the start of this year, seeking to identify 80 centres that I believed had future relevance; in Leroux’s piece, he notes that around half of Thorntons and Argos stores are in D and E banded locations. And when stores close, which centres do you think will bear the brunt?
Well, here’s the good news (he said, a little acidly): the clone town will be a thing of the past. No longer will there be identical parades and malls of the same jewellers, fashion stores, chocolatiers and gift shops, from Cornwall to the Highlands; instead, we risk a brutally stratified selection of pound shops, pawn shops and cheap booze in struggling towns and suburbs, while chi-chi boutiques and cafes overwhelm the rest.
I’m not convinced this is a good thing (I am a One Nation kind of guy); and I wonder if all of the government’s attempts to focus on local retailers (Portas towns et al) only takes us a short way down the road. I very much support reducing business rates, slackening planning red tape and freeing up parking in order to revitalise a shopping district – but that revitalisation requires strong and solid national chains as well as entrepreneurs and start-ups. Any smart indie retailer understands the appeal of well-known neighbours, preferably robust and well-managed ones.
There is a significant risk that squeezed, mid-market retailers will be closing in the top locations, pushed out by high occupancy costs and sophisticated online shoppers; and closing also in the poorer towns, where falling sales are precipitated by falling employment, collapsing aspirations and a general hopelessness.
We may need to move away from the purist “you can’t buck the market” view to a more nuanced standpoint that recognises that decent communities need a well-balanced high street (as well as good jobs, schools, healthcare, housing…), and that allowing high streets in densely populated areas to fail is akin to leaving broken windows unattended. Of course, those retailers need to provide goods and services that their customers need – which of course is what mid-market chains have always delivered, tweaking their value offer as appropriate to local demographics. But once “some quarters in the City” (Leroux) have prevailed on Argos et al to close their D and E locations, recovery in those towns will become just that little bit more difficult.
Blindingly obvious “two nations” photo: Cheryl de Carteret on Flickr
Retail Week, The Grocer, The Bookseller and others have all reviewed Kantar Worldpanel‘s latest analysis of the UK entertainment market, which focuses on the 12 weeks through to mid-June.
Despite all this coverage, there is a some vagueness as to what is and isn’t included in their definition of entertainment. As far as I can tell, however, we are looking at:
– CDs (and other recorded music)
– DVDs (and other video content)
– console and PC games
It looks as “downloads” includes ebooks, but the sector definition as a whole doesn’t include pbooks.
It’s unclear how broadly downloads are defined – all apps, or just those that have some kinship to traditional formats? If so, that would be a “yes” to Angry Birds, but a “no” to business apps.
It’s also unclear whether all subsidiaries are properly accounted for – so, for instance, are LoveFilm downloads included in Amazon total?
Still, whatever the definition, it all makes for a good story. The changes in percentage point share are pretty predictable – Amazon up, HMV down, Game Group – with multiple store closures following administration – well down.
But I am interested in the scale of some of the gains. Of course, the overall size of the market fluctuates, but for iTunes to move from 6.0% to 8.8% represents an increase in penetration of nearly 50%. And, LoveFilm or not, Amazon’s growth continues powerfully, with no reason to assume it will slow down in the foreseeable future.
Tesco’s tribulations and Sainsbury’s progress are both graphically illustrated here – indeed, if these numbers are a microcosm of current trading at Tesco, that would be a concern.
Meanwhile, Play.com sees its share slide, as it loses consumer visibility. Amazon isn’t just taking sales from bricks and mortar retailers…
That the “Others” are growing their share suggests diversity in the market. I wonder who they might be?
You’ll have to bear with me; I’m a following a train of thought here. There’s nothing scientific about this, but there’s plenty for retailers and mandarins to think about.
I was reading a piece on The Next Web, about the rise in the US of online-only brands. The article (which you can read here) discusses US enterprises like Dollar Shave Club and Warby Parker whose business model is built around having no bricks and mortar availability for their products. As Everlane CEO Michael Preysman says:
We are going to shut the company down before we go to physical retail… Traditional retail models are bloated with unnecessary costs. Online just makes more sense: we’re national from day one, we have a single store, we don’t have to cover costs of physical inventory in stores and we don’t have to pass on a 2x markup through retailers.
This moves us on from showrooming, and into a world where the showroom has been specifically designed out of the equation. In terms of business planning, this is a big leap forward from “omni-channel” – the message from companies like Everlane is that, while there may be multiple ways for brands to communicate with each their customers, there is only one channel through which they will make their goods available to you.
This marinaded in my mind for a little while, then we started Twittering this morning about the sad closure of a fine record shop. Record shops have been in the advance guard for physical closure and collapse in the retail sector for many years; however few we have left, it seems as they though they keep on failing. As Steve from Rounder Records wrote:
We are closing because we can’t make it add up any more. We are a business that has been decimated by downloads (both legal and illegal), VAT avoidance by the big online retailers, a double dip recession, & the decline of the high street. Our lease has ended and we have nowhere to go.
So, I started to think, how many properly staffed, paying-their-taxes retail businesses (or indeed retail categories), anchored in bricks and mortar and supporting a vibrant high street, have to go to the wall before HM Treasury starts to feel the pinch?
Here are some purely illustrative and not properly audited at all numbers to think about. Let’s assume – as the British Standards Institution believes – that total retail sales in the UK are worth around £300 bn. (That’s 300,000,000,000 in pound coins.) And, to keep it easy, let’s assume that half of those sales – excluding food, children’s clothes etc – attract VAT.
20% VAT on a gross £150 bn equals £30 bn. That’s a lot of schools’n’hospitals. Of course, most online retail transactions attract VAT at the appropriate rate, but some don’t – all those downloads from Luxembourg, for instance.
Right, £150 bn less VAT equals £120 bn. Stick with the train of thought:
Business rates at, say, 4% of ex-VAT sales, will raise £4.8 bn.
Staff costs, at 10% of ex-VAT sales, will raise £2.4 bn in income tax on those wages, assuming tax is paid at a flat 20%. (Netting out personal allowances against higher tax band payers, for the sake of argument.)
Employers’ NI on those same staff raises around another £1 bn.
And if all those retailers make 5% net profit (happy thought) ,on which they pay 20% corporation tax, that’s another £1.5 bn.
Of course, online retailers have the same cost-heads, but with fewer staff, cheaper premises etc, the tax-take from their business activity is going to be significantly smaller than from a traditional bricks and mortar retail model.
Now, I probably ought to be having this debate over a third pint on a Friday night, but somewhere in this maelstrom of lower prices for consumers and lower operating costs for online retailers (yes, I know, they have to spend much more on marketing), there’s a lower tax take.
If online becomes progressively more dominant, as this graph from The Daily Telegraph suggests:
– and as I discussed in this blog at the end of last year, at what point will the current tax regime start to feel the strain?
It rather looks as though the Exchequer will need to raise more money – either from online merchants, through some form of additional levy (which in due course would lead to price inflation); or from consumers, either through raising VAT (though this is vulnerable to corporate strategic avoidance) or by raising income tax.
The channel change is gradual, of course, but inexorable. We won’t end up buying everything online and nothing from physical shops, but there’s a lower-tax trend. Looking to the future, our Chancellor and his shadow could just carry on flicking each other with wet towels, but – in the absence of real economic growth (driven by eg significant job creation in other parts of the economy) – I hope there’s someone in the Treasury giving this longer-term structural change some serious thought.
I’ve written a column for The Bookseller on Sainsbury’s acquisition of the majority of the Anobii business from HMV – you can read it here:
To read more on the background to the deal, click here.
Philip Jones, deputy editor of The Bookseller, presents The Naked Book, a fortnightly radio show “dedicated to ripping the covers off print books and finding out what lies beneath”.
I was invited to participate in the most recent edition, Face the Bafflement and Do It Anyway, where I was joined by Dublin publisher/commentator Eoin Purcell, and Laura Owen of New York City’s Paid Content. We covered the waterfront at an indecent speed, and with a high degree of candour, and low levels of obeisance. It’s the longest day today, and it’s pouring with rain – what better way to pass an hour than to log in and enjoy.
You can listen to the broadcast here.