Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?
from the business-models... dept
When we talk about business models for content, one question we get asked a lot is how these business models could possibly apply to authors. We’re always told that such business models might work for music, but couldn’t possibly work for authors. To be honest, I find this sort of response incredibly uncreative. If you look around, it’s actually not hard to find authors who are making use of new and innovative business models, and even publishers who are willing to embrace that kind of thinking. This is definitely a good thing, but we’re always interested in hearing new and more examples of this happening.
Ross Pruden alerts us to an LA Times story about a company called OpenSky that is apparently helping authors implement additional business models by helping them find tangible products they can sell in association with their books. Indeed, the whole concept seems to fit in with our concept of using infinite goods to make scarce goods more valuable:
A cookbook author, for example, not only sells books through OpenSky but also hawks a favorite barbecue sauce and grill. The author pockets 50% of the profit, with the rest going to OpenSky and others involved in the transaction.
[…]
David Hale Smith, a Texas literary agent, was about the only one who hadn’t morphed roles since Naples last saw him. After they sat down at a table near that escalator, Smith immediately handed her a copy of a client’s newest novel: “So Cold the River” by Michael Koryta. Smith mentioned that it’s set in an old hotel in central Indiana known for its Pluto Water, believed to have healthful effects.
Naples lit up: “If [Koryta] was on OpenSky, the novel could be tied to a promotion of the hotel. He could have a button on his site for readers to buy the book and the water.” (OpenSky would find a supplier to bottle and ship it.) She described other commercial possibilities: a sneak-peak download of a chapter of his next book, a “webinar” with him discussing his stories.
I can already hear the critics complaining about this sort of “crass commercialism” that I’m sure is “destroying” the concept of “art for art’s sake,” but I find it odd that those who focus on the whole “art for art’s sake” argument are the same folks who also complain that the changing marketplace means content creators can’t make money any more. No one is saying anyone has to adopt these models — just that for those who feel comfortable doing so, it’s now easier than ever to embrace infinite concepts — and use them to make scarce goods more valuable.
That said, after reading about all of this, I went and looked at OpenSky, and I don’t see any of this on their website. Instead, it looks like a plain old store. If they’re really focused on helping content creators, it seems like they would be a lot better off promoting content creators on their site as well.
Filed Under: authors, business models, sales, scarcities, selling, tangible
Companies: opensky
Comments on “Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?”
perhaps a good response.
Perhaps a good response for when someone argues about art for arts sake is that if the author slash creator is doing it for arts sake alone, then there is no need for them to make money off of it whatsoever.
Re: perhaps a good response.
“Perhaps a good response for when someone argues about art for arts sake is that if the author slash creator is doing it for arts sake alone, then there is no need for them to make money off of it whatsoever.”
And many do. Look at all the AMVs/Fanfilms/whathaveyou.
Where it gets interesting is how you define ‘making money.’ Is any income forbidden? What if you’re just recouping partial expenses? What if you get gift cards donated to help with expenses? What if you make more than costs and use that to fund the next film? What if you do it for love of art and put it up on youtube, who then runs ads next to it? Etc.
Just went Open Sky’s website and agree that the promotion of content creators on the site would be a substantive addition; possibly even a way to cultivate a genuine community of interest and collaboration between creators of infinite goods and sellers of scarce item.
Also, I’m curious if anything has ever been written on TechDirt that touches on the idea of a “gift economy” as defined by Lewis Hyde in his seminal work, The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World. If anyone could provide a link to a relevant post that would be great. While Hyde essentially removes monetization from the available actions in a “Gift Cycle,” it seems to me that using scarce goods to promote and often freely distribute infinite goods creates a kind of “gifting” relationship between creator and consumer. Just a thought. Great post.
JNOMICS
Obvious example.
I realize it was very limited but when I was growing up “pop up books” were an interesting thing. Some books made such art really work when I was a kid, others it was just a gimmick that didn’t really do anything for the book.
In regards to that, I always liked the maps that J.R. Tolkien included in his books but I could never really take the little triangle mountains and such in the sketches and match it up with my imagination of the locations. I always felt that even the licensed materials trying to illustrate things never really jived with my imagination of the scene from the given description.
So, a new age author could do something cross media. Assume the author in question is looking to do something epic in scale, in order to describe the locations properly he builds a little map with whatever sort of software he wants. Hell, game editors are excellent ways to rough up things like this anymore.
Write the book, have those basic locations mocked up, etc. Give the mockups to an artist, let them rework things as needed, rework the story a tiny bit to correct for bad architecture/etc. Make the result into basically a 10-20 page “popup” book which you sit on your knees while reading (assuming a prone reading position). The book is free, the “experience” is having the combination of the book for story and a pop up built for a reader to look up from book to get a sense of the situation.
I won’t claim this is a good idea, it was a spur of the moment “hmm, I wonder” type of thing.
But, isn’t such an experiment, expansion, tie in, whatever exactly what authors are looking for in this case? I.e. “WHY” to buy a physical item when a best seller is free on the internet within days of hardback release?
Just a goofy and random thought.
Re: Obvious example.
About pop-up books, I saw one based on the CERN machine that detailed the inner workings of the particle collider. It was pretty cool and I wish more books were made like that.
Re: Obvious example.
Yeah, people did put some effort in the pass.
But ther is some cool things like 3D books.
http://augmentedblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/old_school.jpg
Here it will be done on a big scale
Branded Content Lessons From HSN and ‘Eat Pray Love’ – Advertising Age – Madison Vine: News
“To promote the new Julia Roberts vehicle ‘Eat Pray Love,’ the Home Shopping Network is devoting 72 hours of airtime for programming that simultaneously plugs the Sony Pictures film and more than 400 products across multiple categories that are somehow related to the movie.”
I want to read a book. I don’t want a t-shirt. I don’t want barbecue sauce. I don’t want bottled water shipped to me at exorbitant rates via FedEx.
And I don’t want to attend an webinar or lecture or book signing for every single solitary author whose book or novel or series I happen to like.
I just want to read books.
Here’s an innovative idea: how about my paying ten bucks to the author, or perhaps to some publisher, and they just send me the new Dean Koontz novel that I wanted in the first place? No t-shirts. No sauce.
Get enough of us like-minded readers together, and the author can then afford to eat and thus write more books.
The existing publication model is a relatively efficient micro-payment system, whereby a relatively large group of people each pay a fraction of the production costs. Even better, the author produced the book “on spec”, and we get to judge if it has sufficient value (reviews, word of mouth) before we put our money on the table.
Selling “scarce” physical goods that I don’t want simply to pay for what I do want is inefficient, wasteful, environmentally unfriendly and — as far as I’m concerned — just plain stupid.
Re: Re:
I want to read a book. I don’t want a t-shirt. I don’t want barbecue sauce. I don’t want bottled water shipped to me at exorbitant rates via FedEx.
Um. Then don’t.
No one is forcing you to.
And I don’t want to attend an webinar or lecture or book signing for every single solitary author whose book or novel or series I happen to like.
Then don’t. No one is forcing you to.
I just want to read books.
Then read the book. Who’s stopping you?
Here’s an innovative idea: how about my paying ten bucks to the author, or perhaps to some publisher, and they just send me the new Dean Koontz novel that I wanted in the first place? No t-shirts. No sauce.
Sounds great. Why do you think anything we discuss is getting in the way of that?
What I don’t understand is why, just because YOU think you don’t want this, that it’s somehow bad. So odd.
The existing publication model is a relatively efficient micro-payment system, whereby a relatively large group of people each pay a fraction of the production costs. Even better, the author produced the book “on spec”, and we get to judge if it has sufficient value (reviews, word of mouth) before we put our money on the table.
If you believe that, then why are these publishers freaking out?
Selling “scarce” physical goods that I don’t want simply to pay for what I do want is inefficient, wasteful, environmentally unfriendly and — as far as I’m concerned — just plain stupid.
Well, there’s your problem. Why are you buying goods you don’t want?!? Seriously. You’re very confused if you think anything anyone is talking about is supporting buying stuff you don’t want.
This is the opposite of that. It’s about selling people what they do want.
Re: Re: Re:
“It’s about selling people what they do want.”
Then sell me a book. Paid content.
Your pitch is that all content (infinite goods) must be free due to economic forces and near-zero distribution costs. Hence, if the book is “free”, the only way for the author to make money is by selling some sort of scarce good… other than the book.
Here’s the thing. I read about 100 books or so a year, with more and more of them being ebooks. As is, I can buy them from Amazon (Kindle) or Apple (iBooks), and the author gets paid. I, in turn, get a book. Value given for value received.
I don’t have to buy t-shirts, or attend seminars, make donations, enter into contracts, or go out of my way to purchase some “scarce” good I don’t want or need for each and every one of those 100 authors. I just pay for the book… which is all I wanted in the first place.
To me, the convenience of the transaction provides the value. RTB.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because paying for a mass produced copy of a work created months ago where the artist/author does dozens (at least) of interviews to plug the book, does all sorts of adverts and generally doing nothing but spending their time promoting it is so much more direct and less crassly commercial, especially with the inclusion of third parties like publishers and labels that set monopoly rates siphoning money from the creator.
The book provides the platform from which to make money. Digital books are the cheap input that allow you to make money through various other means.
In other words, that non scarce good you bought wasn’t the book, but convenience. Funny how your point reinforces what’s being said isn’t it?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then sell me a book. Paid content.
Again, that option is out there. What are you complaining about?
Here’s the thing. I read about 100 books or so a year, with more and more of them being ebooks. As is, I can buy them from Amazon (Kindle) or Apple (iBooks), and the author gets paid. I, in turn, get a book. Value given for value received.
And you’re honestly saying you’d be less happy if you could get many of those books for free? Really?
I don’t have to buy t-shirts, or attend seminars, make donations, enter into contracts, or go out of my way to purchase some “scarce” good I don’t want or need for each and every one of those 100 authors. I just pay for the book… which is all I wanted in the first place.
Again, no one is saying that you have to buy any of those things. If you just want the book for free, you get the book for free.
That’s where you seem confused. You keep assuming that the only way to get the content for free will be that you have to buy this other thing. That’s not the case. If you just want the content for free, just get the content free. Stop worrying about the other stuff. If you don’t want the other stuff, don’t buy the other stuff.
To me, the convenience of the transaction provides the value. RTB.
And, indeed, convenience is a scarcity that people can sell. It works for you. It doesn’t work for others. So why are you complaining about people experimenting with other business models that do NOTHING to get in the way of the business model you prefer, and which might even allow you to spend less on books?
I don’t get it. It’s a strange argument that goes “This sucks because I might not have to pay as much as I do now.” That doesn’t make any sense to me at all.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“So why are you complaining about people experimenting with other business models that do NOTHING to get in the way of the business model you prefer, and which might even allow you to spend less on books?”
Give us a hint as to which publishing company he works for. 😉
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Michael,
I think that I feel much as you do about the free content revolution. I don’t want to have to buy merchandise to support the content creators that I like. Having said that, if an author chooses to use alternative means to get paid, I have no objection to that, under two conditions.
1. The quality of the content remains high and it doesn’t just become an excuse for product placement. (ie: Don’t “sell out.”)
2. The content creator maintains a donation channel so if I want to pay for the content but not for the merchandise, I can.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’ve been mulling over this more since my first post and I wanted to add a few points.
#1 is probably my biggest fear. I don’t like creating incentives for content creators to produce content that is good at promoting other products. I’m not talking about “art for art’s sake.” I’m just talking about art that doesn’t have an ulterior motive.
Furthermore, as an aspiring author, I feel very cautious about thinking about my content as a marketing platform. When I’m writing fiction, I don’t want my readers to second guess my plot or characterization by connecting them to the products I endorse. When I’m writing nonfiction, I don’t want them to judge my information or my conclusions based on the appearance of conflict of interest.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“#1 is probably my biggest fear. I don’t like creating incentives for content creators to produce content that is good at promoting other products”
This is a problem that solves itself (as a whole). If the content gets bad, it will have less value (not cost – don’t mix them up). Abundant content with less value will do less to increase the value of scarce goods. Simpler terms – if the content sucks, people will not be as inclined to buy the promoted products. Unfortunately, this could result in content creators that were creating work that you liked creating work you do not like because it sells scarce goods better that way. Oddly – this is the same thing we have now. Look at classic novels vs. the paperbacks of today. The content that sells is the content that gets created. If society changes to focus on a type of content you do not like, you are out of luck – but that is not something you can do anything about and it has happened throughout time.
“as an aspiring author, I feel very cautious about thinking about my content as a marketing platform”
This is good news and the attitude that will likely generate most of the good content. Does it mean you may not make as much money as you could? Possibly. Has it always been that way? Yup. Some of the best artistic works in history were ahead of their time and nobody cared when they were first produced.
What is different now is that instead of a publishing company looking at your book and deciding if enough people like it for them to make a good profit, you can now produce the work that appeals to a small group of people with little cost investment and possibly make money off of it. You can also – as an independent artist – produce something that is a big chance. Ten years ago, a publisher did a cost-benefit analysis on your book that included production, printing, and distribution costs that they HAD to pay for to see if people liked the work. Now, you can write it, upload it, generate a following, and go to the publisher with a list of people that will buy your next book and a printed copy of your current book – as well as coming up with some other creative way of making a living on your work.
The content creators win. Publishers probably lose a little – until they come up with a way of helping you with the creative business models you do not want to deal with yourself. In your case, you trade in your unlucky lottery ticket (winning a publishing deal) for a reasonable chance of a steady (possibly hard-working) living.
Re: Re: Re:
“If you believe that, then why are these publishers freaking out?”
Mostly because they’re afraid that all of the free riders will capsize the boat.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mostly because they’re afraid that all of the free riders will capsize the boat.
Do you not realize that you just proved the exact opposite point of what you were claiming before?
Astounding.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
There are a lot of people who simply don’t understand how these concepts work. Once they get off into the weeds, they tend to get confused very easily. And when people are confused, they get angry.
The typical “RRRAAARRLLL Book Terrists” is just code for “I don’t understand what’s going on or what this whole ‘INTERNET’ thing is all about”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damnit why wont the economy just let me get rich?! Why do I have to keep up with the times and think up new things?! I am entitled to financial success. I would have it if it weren’t for all those commies, er, freeloaders! JNOMICSSSSSS
Re: Re: Re:
Mike, the example you give is not a viable one for authors. Just like a cookbook author can sell a grill, a musician can sell their favorite brand of instrument. Those are equatable.
What still hasn’t been offered is the author’s equivalent of the musical performance.
Unless you can come up with something that compares to that, saying the effects of going to ‘free’ are similar for authors and musicians seems a bit unfair.
I fully agree with you on ‘free’ and how new models can work, but like seemingly everybody else, I haven’t been able to say how authors can adapt at an even close comparison to the music industry.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike, the example you give is not a viable one for authors. Just like a cookbook author can sell a grill, a musician can sell their favorite brand of instrument. Those are equatable.
It’s the same with sports. Most sports sponsorships are related to the equipment and clothing they use. There’s a logical connection for a professional golfer to get free equipment and perhaps even financial support from a company that makes clubs, a company that makes balls, a company that makes bags, a company that makes golf attire, etc.
The golfer gets free stuff and sometimes money from the manufacturer, and then the manufacturer makes its money by selling the items.
Generally the sports that offer the greatest opportunity for sponsorship are those where there’s a big recreational market with average people buying lots of equipment for themselves to use. In contrast, a sport like figure skating doesn’t come with lots of endorsement deals because the number of recreational athletes buying figure skates is pretty small.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The difference is that for music and sports, the creation of the product is the scarce item. There are only so many live games and concerts available and that you can possibly go to.
For authors, the creation of the product (the book) isn’t a marketable commodity. Unless watching someone write or type becomes something of interest to people…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So change the model. Why are they authoring before getting paid (or a contract to get paid)? I don’t go to work each day without that promise, so why are authors?
In the past, they leveraged the scarcity model by selling physical goods through distribution channels.
Today, the need for inefficient distribution channels is nearly eliminated and the scarcity is superseded by technology. So authors need to adjust their business model, fight the hopeless fight for return to yesterday, or pack up shop now.
Good business people adjust to the times and/or diversify. Bad business people go out of business.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“What still hasn’t been offered is the author’s equivalent of the musical performance.”
Not all music lends to live performances either. An author may make money by talking, that would be the obvious equivalent, but still not a catch all. An author could write on commission, perhaps doing poems or short stories to compliment a fictional work with the advantage of having the insight to make sure everything is canon and therefore valuable even beyond the air of officialness. It’s also worth pointing out that even live musicians sell t-shirts and such at gigs. Why not get paid to give a talk and then sell signed copies of your work afterwards?
Innovative business models for authors - (and comics)
Great example of this is the Piled Higher and Deeper online comic strip that is so popular w/ PhDs all over the world.
http://www.phdcomics.com/
Also known as the “PhD Comics”
The author, Jorge Cham got his PhD in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University, and was a full-time Instructor and researcher at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) from 2003-2005.
He writes a daily comic that is delivered for free via an email link, and sells goods on the side, as well as gives paid talks to PhD student bodies all over the world.
Relentless commercialization isn't *new*.
Just look at your collection of Star Wars action figures and you’ll know I’m right. To me, toys and trinkets tied-in *cheapens* the experience, and makes me avoid the major item in the first place: “what kind of idiot do they think I am?”, and “the [major item] must be cheesy crap contrived soley to sell Chinese-made junk”. — And then I think, “they’ve made *plenty* off idiots buying stupid toys, so they don’t *deserve* for *me* to reward them further, even if the major item actually has value” — or, *had* value before cheapened by the product tie-in.
And what about licensing? Doesn’t this breed the rabid “copyrighting” you mocked for (I think) the “Twilight” series? Will the first author to tie-in to “Pluto water” have a lock on it forever?
(And how is this to work for science fiction? Where are you going to get “Martian joola-joola water” (that *is* from an old book), let alone di-lithium crystals?)
Re: Relentless commercialization isn't *new*.
Just look at your collection of Star Wars action figures and you’ll know I’m right. To me, toys and trinkets tied-in *cheapens* the experience, and makes me avoid the major item in the first place:
If it cheapens the experience, then you’re *doing it wrong*. We’re saying do the exact opposite. Don’t cheapen the experience at all. Instead, find LEGITIMATE value that people WANT. What you describe above — in terms of “contrived to sell Chinese-made junk” — is the exact opposite of what we’re talking about. We’re talking about figuring out what people actually want and value and offering that.
And what about licensing? Doesn’t this breed the rabid “copyrighting” you mocked for (I think) the “Twilight” series? Will the first author to tie-in to “Pluto water” have a lock on it forever?
I honestly have no idea what you’re asking here?
(And how is this to work for science fiction? Where are you going to get “Martian joola-joola water” (that *is* from an old book), let alone di-lithium crystals?)
Um. Who said you have to sell martian joola-joola water or di-lithium crystals?
Re: Re: Relentless commercialization isn't *new*.
“(And how is this to work for science fiction?)”
*Raises hand*
Oh! Me! Pick me! Oooooooooh!
This is something I plan on showing everyone shortly 😉
Re: Re: Re: Relentless commercialization isn't *new*.
“This is something I plan on showing everyone shortly ;)”
Dark Helmet Bobble Heads??? 😛
Re: Re: Re: Relentless commercialization isn't *new*.
**Disclaimer I am not actually related to DH**
How about a hooded cloak? 🙂 I can’t wait for your next book to come out. If you need a proofreader, let me know!
50% of the profit?
Sometimes I become immediately suspicious when I hear things like 50% of the profits. As the record industry / movie industry have shown us; it is pretty easy to hide profits on the balance sheet.
Hi, my name is Sum Guy, and I’m a pirate. I read your blog almost every day, and find myself agreeing with you about 90% of the time, but when I read your posts about CwF+RtB I can’t help but think that you’re missing the point.
I consider myself a fairly typical pirate. I watch 20-30 movies a year, but haven’t bought or rented a dvd in years. I read 75-100 books a year, but haven’t touched a book in years. Up until about a year ago, I pirated all my music, but now I buy almost everything from Itunes. Why the difference? Because I don’t really care about the price, or the “content producer”, or the publisher, or any of that really. What I care about (in typical hedonistic fashion) is convenience. Getting what I want right now. When I want a tv show, I go to the studio web site (nope not there). How about Itunes (nope not there). How about the pirate bay (yep there it is). Books? Nope won’t be published in ebook for 3 months. So why is music different? Because I’m not paying for the file. I can get that for free. I’m willing to pay for the service. Easy to find, fits in to my organization software with no fuss. Easy to move to any device I want to put it on. I agree with some of the above posters in that I don’t care about t-shirts, or bbq sauce, or any of that. If that content producer would just give me the content when I want it, I would pay a reasonable price for that and they can make a living. It’s not ideology that drove me to piracy, it’s their stupid and quiotic drive to control how and when I consume.
P.S. Author Brandon Sanderson has done a lot of the things you suggest in terms of trinkets, charts, self publishing free books in ebook format. Plus he is a really good author. Check him out at http://www.brandonsanderson.com/
Re: Re:
p until about a year ago, I pirated all my music, but now I buy almost everything from Itunes. Why the difference? Because I don’t really care about the price, or the “content producer”, or the publisher, or any of that really. What I care about (in typical hedonistic fashion) is convenience.
That does agree with me. I’ve said over and over again that *convenience* is a key scarcity that can create a reason to buy…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100125/1631147893.shtml
Re: Re:
“If that content producer would just give me the content when I want it, I would pay a reasonable price for that and they can make a living. It’s not ideology that drove me to piracy, it’s their stupid and quiotic drive to control how and when I consume.”
I find that for myself the issue is less about convenience and more about control over my money. One factor in convenience is choice of format, I would never buy from iTunes because they (I believe) only offer compressed formats. More importantly though, I’d never buy from a major label because more of my money will be working against me than for me. Two ways that can happen is the support of organisations such as the RIAA and the way the labels tend to work meaning that more of my money may go to artists I don’t like than the one whose music I bought.
What tends to happen
When the focus shifts to selling things related to the brand, you often see the “things” begin to dictate the content. So you see films in Hollywood produced because of licensing opportunities more than the potential quality of the film. If the studio knows it can make money selling toys, it may favor that movie over a film that has a stronger story but can’t be merchandized as well.
Look to Disney for cross-promotion
The ultimate example of cross-promotion has been Disney. Develop a character and then license it for multiple products, create films, create a ride at a theme park, write one or more songs related to the character, develop games.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about transmedia. In some cases people just mean cross-media and cross promotion. And in other cases they mean something new and different.
An Overview of Transmedia
Art for Art's Sake
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
They favor a ‘fair wage’ rather than an economic of market driven one.
Which is why they use the term ‘rights’ rather than ‘earned’