Category Archives: Publishing 2.0

Holy Cow! I’m on the BusinessWeek Home Page

One of my key rules for keeping this blog credible is to avoid the tendency to re-post stories without reading them or to write about new services without trying them. That means I’ll output fewer stories per week, but hopefully you’ll find the content richer and more meaningful.

Thus, when McGraw-Hill launched BusinessExchange a while back I was eager to blog about it, but I needed to get some real hands-on time first.

Why was I eager? I’m interested in BusinessExchange several reasons:

  • I’ve always been a fan of BusinessWeek, which I started reading in business school and have read continuously since then. (Well over a decade for those who count such things.)
  • BusinessExchange represents a big step (in fact, about as big a step as I can think of) by a major, traditional media player to re-invent itself in an Internet / Web 2.0 world.
  • The site is MarkLogic-based, I know the head of the team who built it, and I know it was built using agile methodologies.

Here’s what the New York Times had to say about BusinessExchange when it launched:

With advertising revenue sliding, publications try a lot of things online to get noticed, like — pardon the jargon — verticals, aggregation, user-generated content, popularity rankings and even something resembling social networks.

BusinessWeek magazine is about to introduce a site that combines some elements of all of the above in ways intended to capture new readers and funnel them into niches that will attract advertisers.

The site, called Business Exchange, is one approach to the fast-evolving digital world, where some news sites that experiment have rapidly expanded their audiences while those that do little more than post articles online have been left in the dust. After two years of quiet development, it will go public in late September, accessible through BusinessWeek’s own Web site (www.businessweek.com).

The core of Business Exchange is hundreds of topic pages, on subjects as broad as the housing market and as narrow as the Boeing 787. Plans call for the number of topic pages to grow quickly into the thousands.

I’ve been using BusinessExchange for a while now and was happy to learn last week that, based on my activity, they planned to make the “featured user” next Tuesday. What I didn’t know was how prominently that would feature on the BusinessWeek homepage, and it hadn’t also dawned on me “what else” was happening on that day.

As you can see, I’m most active in the topic of “venture capital” though I’m also pretty active in “information technology,” “business blogging,” and “public relations.” Things I like about the site include:

  • The ability to share stories from any source, BusinessWeek or not
  • The automatic ability it has to parse some stories, with a title and summary
  • The ability to save stories I find of interest
  • The ability to connect with / network to some pretty influential people — not the least of which include many of BusinessWeek’s senior editors and correspondents, including Stephen Baker who I met a few times many years ago when I was at Business Objects in Paris
  • The ability to find and read stories that have effectively been pre-selected by those in my network, essentially a form of collaborative filtering around news
  • The business context

Aside: one of my theories is that social networks will fragment around interest areas and that people will seek to avoid “collisions” where (to use my favorite example) someone wants a 0% probability of their (LinkedIn, Spock, SlideShare) profiles intersecting with their (Facebook, MySpace, Classmates, Flickr) profiles interesecting with their (AdultFriendFinder, Match, Fling) profiles. Thus, collision avoidance will balance against the desire to minimize the number of social network profiles into some equilibrium where your number of active social networks = your number of deliberately unlinked social contexts.

So, if you’ve not tried BusinessExchange, I would give it try. My profile is here. The homepage is here. Come be an early user of in transition of mainstream business media.

E-Books Starting to Take Off

I’m a big fan of my Kindle, so I’m not surprised that e-books are starting to take off. To use what will quickly become a tired analogy: Amazon has done for e-books what Apple did for e-music with iTunes. With Amazon and the Kindle, you have:

  • A online store to buy content
  • A wireless connection to that store (one-upping the iPod which still requires connecting to your computer)
  • An attractive price point (most e-books are $9.95)
  • And, of course, a quality device with high resolution, lots of storage, and good battery life

I’ll consider the adjustable font size (a big plus for my aging eyes) and the ability to buy single editions of international newspapers (e.g., Le Monde) gravy.

From The New York Times article:

“The perception is that e-books have been around for 10 years and haven’t done anything,” said Steve Haber, president of Sony’s digital reading division. “But it’s happening now. This is really starting to take off.”

On Kindle sales:

It is difficult to quantify the success of the Kindle, since Amazon will not disclose how many it has sold and analysts’ estimates vary widely. Peter Hildick-Smith, president of the Codex Group, a book market research company, said he believed Amazon had sold as many as 260,000 units through the beginning of October, before Ms. Winfrey’s endorsement. Others say the number could be as high as a million.

On the future:

“E-books will become the go-to-first format for an ever-expanding group of readers who are newly discovering how much they enjoy reading books on a screen,” said Markus Dohle, chief executive of Random House, the world’s largest publisher of consumer books.

While it’s easy to dispute the above point with the case of a specific book (e.g,. my daughter is going to read Twilight whether it’s on the Kindle or not) but in more generic cases Kindle-availability will drive the purchase.

Thus far, in three cases I have first decided that I wanted to read something on the Kindle and then only considered Kindle books for purchase (the categories were income taxes, search engine optimization, and an action novel).

Related articles by Zemanta

StartWithXML Early Survey Results

I’ve previously blogged about the StartWithXML project that O’Reilly is working on with the folks at Idea Logical.

Overall, the project reminds me of the California Milk Advisory Board: get a bunch of diary farmers together to push an idea they can all agree on — eat California cheese. (Which, by the way, was articulated in my favorite way through the famous Grandma commercial.)

Here, instead of dairy farmers, it’s content and publishing vendors (e.g., codeMantra, Jouve / Publishing Dimensions, Klopotek, Firebrand, and Really Strategies). But the idea is similar — get a bunch of vendors together who can agree on one thing — in this case, starting with XML — and go push that idea.

Towards that end, the project is doing a few things. First, they’re hosting a one-day forum in New York City on January 13, 2009. They’ve recently run an educational webcast entitled Essential Tools of an XML Workflow, slides below.

They’ve run a survey and are producing a research report as well. Below are some slides that highlight selected results from the survey.

Some takeaways:

  • Remember that “trade” publishers in this context means book publishers
  • Note that digital publishing is “very important” to 40% of non-trade publishers, but only 18% of trade publishers. This is scary on both sides. It’s a bit sobering to think that it’s 2009 and only 1 in 5 book publishers thinks digital is very important.
  • 43% of trade publishers say they are trying to “understand the importance” of digital publishing. Another yikes.
  • Trade publishers are twice as likely to ignore downstream use and twice as likely to edit with a print focus.
  • Trade publishers are half as likely as others to use XML in the production process

Now, none of this is a big surprise to those who work with the information and media market. The clear leaders in XML adoption were STM publishers (e.g., Elsevier), followed by those in other segments like education and B2B trade. At the mid tier, you see folks like legal, tax, and regulatory publishers and market researchers. Bringing up the rear you have consumer magazines, news, and trade publishers.

While some trade publishers (e.g., Simon and Schuster) are strong adopters of XML, it seems that most others are way behind. This will get increasingly dangerous as the Kindle takes off (I’m a user and a big fan) and the Google Books settlement turns Google into an Amazon-rival online bookseller, overnight.

If a publisher can’t output for the Kindle, pretty soon a lot of people won’t be buying your books. Right now, a quick search reveals about 200K titles for the Kindle out of 24M total on Amazon, but that number will be increasing fast. And if you can’t output in the appropriate format for Google Books to ingest your content, then for many customers, your books won’t even exist.

Trade publishers need to get moving to enable flexible output to both different print (e.g., large print, library editions) and e-book formats. The good news? 46% of trade publishers believe their business will benefit by publishing in more e-book formats and nearly 70% say print-to-web processes are problematic or need to be fixed soon.

I wonder if moving from scrolls to paper was as difficult. Well, I suppose it was.

Is Information Architected for Smart Delivery?

Check out this post by Carl Frappaolo, author of several books on knowledge management and co-founder of consultancy Information Architected, Inc., which he recently created with long-time colleague Dan Keldsen.

The post, entitled Is Information Architected for Smart Distribution? Survey Says Not Yet, discusses some recent research done by Carl and makes many analogies between enterprise content management and, of all things, the movie business. Excerpt:

In my last post I provided evidence that from a capture standpoint we are moving forward. There is momentum building in viewing “content” not just as words and pictures, but also sound, video, and albeit much further in the future, smell, touch and taste. But what “special effects” are we adding to the content upon publishing? Technology from vendors such as Mark Logic and Thunderhead, who partially underwrote the research, enables organizations to virtually customize content each time it is used, evaluating the current reason for access and the person accessing it. Leveraging content “chunking” approaches such as XML, and a series of rules and processes, content can “self-assemble” to provide the highest level of personalization and effectiveness.

I like the metaphor of MarkLogic applying special effects to content.

But, as Carl points out, while the vision is there, the reality in most enterprises is not. See this survey result, a response to the question: to what extent is content re-purposed / recombined to make new forms of output?


For more information, see the full MarketIQ report on which Carl worked.

Here is a copy I uploaded to Scribd:

XML: Why You Should Care

The folks at O’Reilly Media have created an excellent blog around their ToC (Tools of Change for Publishing) meme and event. As part of that, they are running a series called StartWithXML that has some excellent material on the topic of XML and publishing.

One of the first posts in the StartWithXML project is entitled Why You Should Care About XML by Andrew Savikas, with whom I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at the Gilbane conference in San Francisco a few months back. Excerpt:

But there are several reasons why it’s really really important for publishers to start paying attention to XML right now, and across their entire workflow:

  • XML is here to stay, for the reasonably forseeable future. While it’s always dangerous to attempt to predict expiration dates on technology, I think it’s fair to assume XML will have a shelf life at least as long as ASCII, which has been with us for more than 40 years, and isn’t going anywhere soon.
  • Web publishing and print publishing are converging, and writing and production for print will be much more influenced by the Web than vice-versa. It will only get harder to succeed in publishing without putting the Web on par with (or ahead of) print as the primary target. The longer you wait to get that content into Web-friendly and re-usable XML, the worse.

Many in publishing balk at bringing XML “up the stack” to the production, editing, or even the authoring stage. And with good reason; XML isn’t really meant to be created or edited by hand (though a nice feature is that in a pinch it easily can be). There are two places to look for useful clues about how XML will actually fit into a publisher’s workflow: Web publishing and the “alpha geeks.”

He then goes on to examining both web publishing and alpha geek behavior in order to provide a lay of the future publishing land. See the post for more.

O’Reilly is also hosting a StartWithXML one-day forum in New York City on 1/13/09 at the McGraw-Hill Auditorium.

A New Media Plan for Weathering the Storm

Check out this post by Gawker Media’s Nick Denton entitled A 2009 Internet Media Plan. It’s a publisher’s wake-up call and the Sequoia RIP Good Times presentation rolled together, all in one. Valleywag, itself a Gawker property, entitled its story about the post Publishers are Sleeping their Way to Extinction (supposedly the draft 1 title, according to them).

Denton offers six pieces of advice for (largely consumer-oriented publishers) the future:

  • Get out of advertiser-averse categories, e.g., politics
  • Renegotiate vendor contracts
  • Consolidate titles
  • Move more offshore
  • Implement variable compensation plans
  • Deliver more value for marketers

To SaaS or Not To SaaS: That is the Question

[Revised, rewritten, and replacing a post from yesterday]

One question we encounter with our Information and Media customers is whether they should buy MarkLogic Server and build an application on top of it, or use a SaaS offering (which may or may not be based on MarkLogic) and effectively rent the use of an application to meet their online publishing needs.

The primary arguments in favor of the rent (SaaS) approach are:

  • You get up and running faster because you’re renting the use of an existing application
  • You have lower up-front fees because you need neither to build your application nor buy the hardware/software platform on which to run it
  • You can focus on what matters because you are liberated from the nitty-gritty of building and deploying production systems

The primary arguments in favor of the build approach are:

  • You create a unique offering which you can use to differentiate from your competition
  • Your costs are potentially lower over the mid-term (SaaS’s relatively high annual payments reverse the initial savings over a few years; if you don’t believe me, remember that Wall Street values a dollar of SaaS revenue at about 2-3x a dollar of perpetual revenue)
  • You create a strategic platform on which you build future applications, reducing the marginal cost of experimentation and new product development

To me, SaaS is not a religious issue; it’s a practical one.

While we typically sell our software on a perpetual license basis, we nevertheless are a big user of SaaS solutions at Mark Logic. We happily use Salesforce and somewhat less happily use Netsuite. I was also a champion of bringing Salesforce into Business Objects, where we became one of their earliest, large enterprise customers. (As I told IT at the time: if you won’t treat me as a customer, then I’ll go find someone who will.)

Turning back to the question of publishers and SaaS, like most questions in business, the answer should derive from strategy.

  • If you are trying to compete solely on the basis of your proprietary content, then you should consider a “rent” strategy.
  • If you are trying to compete on the basis of mixing content and its delivery mechanism, then should consider a “buy” strategy.
  • If you are in between, then you’ll need to figure out where you are on the continuum and what you’re willing to trade for what.

As I always say, there are two things that money can’t buy: love and competitive advantage. Applied here, if you can rent a solution then your competitor down the street can rent it, too, and no amount of application configuration is going to result in competitive advantage (or disadvantage) for either of you.

What does this mean? It means that SaaS is great for what Geoffrey Moore calls “context” and rotten for what he calls “core.” Excerpt from the referred page:

Core – See Core/context analysis
Any activity which creates sustainable differentiation in the target market resulting in premium prices or increased volume. Core management seeks to dramatically outperform all competitors within the domain of core.

Context – See Core/context analysis
Any activity which does not differentiate the company from the customers’ viewpoint in the target market. Context management seeks to meet (but not exceed) appropriate accepted standards in as productive a manner as possible.

That’s why we happily use Salesforce and Netsuite at Mark Logic — we aren’t trying to differentiate on the basis of our accounts receiveable or pipeline management systems. (We are trying to differentiate on technology, market focus, and services excellence.)

So, for publishers

  • The more your basis of competition is ownership of a proprietary content set, the more delivery becomes context, and the more you should consider SaaS
  • The more your basis of competition is (1) uniting your content with other content, (2) delivering content in unique in-context ways, and (3) rapid innovation in online product development, the more delivery is core, and the more you should build custom applications (i.e., new information products) on a standardized platform.

What Publishers Still Don't Get About the Web

Just a quick post to highlight two great posts by Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 on what traditional newspaper and magazine publishers still get don’t get about the web.

The posts — and the comments — should be required reading for traditional publishers.

The Publishing [R]evolution

I’m posting the slides that Darin McBeath from Elsevier presented at the XML Holland conference a few months back. I’m sorry about the delay, but I wanted to be sure it was OK with Darin and the process got stuck on my back burner.

In addition to an all-around great speech, Darin introduced two concepts that I liked a lot.

  • Fewer moving parts
  • Find the ringtones

“Fewer moving parts” was Darin’s metaphor on simplicity in building pure XML-based systems (with XML content and XQuery as the query / programming language). It’s always hard to argue the business benefits of simplicity without doing detailed costing analysis. I thought it was creative of Darin to use this metaphor to drive the point home. We know jet engines are safer than piston engines because they are simpler and have fewer parts. The same could be said of Nokia vs. Motorola phones. Fewer parts works. When you build content applications on XML content with XQuery and an XML content server, you have fewer moving parts. No Java layer. No relational mappings. See this post, The Virtues of Top-to-Bottom XML, for more.

“Find the ringtones” was another cool Darin idea. As you probably know, ringtones are a multi-billion dollar business. The amazing thing about ringtones is that you can charge $3.00 for fifteen seconds of a song which in its three-minute entirety would sell for $0.99. Less really can be more. Darin’s challenge to publishers was to “find the ringtones” in their content. Where, in different sections of the publishing business, can you deliver higher value and increased revenue — by offering less? That’s a cool question. And in an increasingly information-overloaded world, a smart one.

In the better late than never department, here are Darin’s slides.

Should Publishers Buy Platforms or Solutions?

This seems to be one of the age-old questions in publishing and, on returning from the SIIA Summit this week in New York City, I thought I’d weigh in with a quick answer.

My answer is rooted in Geoffrey Moore‘s idea of core/context analysis introduced in his book, Living on the Fault Line, though also referenced in subsequent works (e.g., Dealing with Darwin). Moore defines core and context as follows:

  • Core: Any activity which creates sustainable differentiation in the target market resulting in premium prices or increased volume. Core management seeks to dramatically outperform all competitors within the domain of core. (Note this use of the term is unrelated to either core competence, which describes differentiated capability, or core business, which describes categories accounting for a high percentage of overall revenues.)
  • Context: Any activity which does not differentiate the company from the customers’ viewpoint in the target market. Context management seeks to meet (but not exceed) appropriate accepted standards in as productive a manner as possible.

Simply put, I define context as “everything else.” There’s no argument that context (e.g., payroll, sales pipeline management, accounting) isn’t a lot of work. And there’s no argument that context isn’t important (e.g., get accounting wrong and go to jail). In a logic sense, I’d argue that successful execution of context activities is necessary but not sufficient for business success. What’s sufficient is successful execution of core.

The thing I like about Moore’s model is it clarity and simplicity. Core is where we get competitive advantage, context is everything else. For context activities, we should use the same solutions as our competitors because we are not trying to get competitive advantage from context. So we can all use ADP for payroll and salesforce.com for SFA. In fact, I’d argue that we benefit from a group economy of scale when we generally use the same suppliers for the context activities (mitigated only by those suppliers becoming monopolists and then overpriced and under-responsive).

But for core, we should be different. Core is where we provide uniqueness. Ergo, the right answer to me is clear.

  • For context activities, publishers should buy solutions
  • For core activities, they should buy platforms

There is no question that “product development” is a core activity at publishers. Ergo, publishers should buy platforms (to accelerate product development and avoid re-invention of infrastructure technology) and not buy”solutions” that effectively give them the same offering as the competition and — worse yet — allow the solution supplier to productize any customization or innovation you do back into the solution offering and sell it to your competition.

I’d again argue that there is a second-order argument where all publishers are better off when many of them use the same platform (e.g., hiring, training, vendor responsiveness to industry feature requests), but we won’t get into that here.

Hoping to derive competitive advantage from a prepackaged publishing solution is, in my opinion, oxymoronical. There are two things that money can’t buy: love and competitive advantage.