Best...Chapter...Ever. ~ by Laurie Steed [09.11.2009]
Simon and Schuster recently announced a new eCommerce “solution” whereby they plan to sell individual chapters of books to customers.
On the Dr. Oz site, readers can find answers to specific medical questions from different authors. Having found the answers, they can then buy individual eChapters of the title instead of buying the whole book.
Simon and Schuster Chief Digital Officer Ellie Hirschhorn was enthusiastic about the project’s potential, claiming that “it opened up a new world of opportunities for where and how our digital content can be distributed or sold, and we plan to expand both the chapter selling model and use of our eCommerce widget to other content categories.”
For non-fiction texts, such an approach makes sense, as many a student’s budget is whittled away buying books that will in future years be used primarily for bunging up the sink. For a tradesman or home handyman looking for particular advice, it seems progressive, portable and indeed ingenious.
Short fiction holds similar potential, particularly when taking digital solutions and applying them to a print paradigm. Personally, I’m excited at the thought of constructing my own books, for myself or as gifts, where great poems and stories are compiled into my own personal anthology, with my own carefully chosen cover art.
Shifts forward in technology are fraught with danger, however. This danger is usually presented by money-hungry businessmen, their souls heavy with profit-margins but light with common sense.
In his 2008 manifesto Print is Dead: Books in the Digital Age, Jeff Gomez waxes lyrical about how, among other things, single chapters of Jane Austen could be purchased and mixed into each other to create new and exciting end products.
Firstly, I thought this was a big call on Gomez’ part. While I can easily make my way through Pride and Prejudice, I’m not particularly keen to tackle Mansfield’s Persuasion in the House of Sensibility. But in the end, what really got my goat was that Gomez would suggest such profiteering under the illusion that it is “what the people want.”
Fiction is filled with cases where events, people, and places have been the starting point for some of the finest mediations in literary history. Organisations such as Creative Commons hope to give authors back their copyright to encourage mutually beneficial collaboration and exploration.
I am all for the potential that digital publishing offers both publishers and readers, but Gomez’ dreams are not about the sharing of ideas or the development of a creative commons. They are about the hijacking of open source philosophies and then charging for the privilege.
Gomez, like Google and Amazon, are looking not towards the future, but towards future income. And to be blunt, none of these parties would be interested in the next reading revolution if it wasn't going to line their own pockets first.
Digital publishing is full of advocates, most of which either own digital technology or want to own the content being produced. Now, more than ever, we must be cautious of decisions made (or rights sold) for the common good.
Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
Comments
Paul Squires — 10 November at 08:24AM
That is an excellent article and you have pinned the issue. Google offer valuable tools, but the do not create content. I think it is fair that they seek some compensation for providing the tools which we all use. If google made no money, would we still have access to all this amazing free gear? How would they pay their employees? The problem is maintaining the flow of money all the way to the people who provide the content. The best way to do that, it seems to me, is to have as few as possible intermediaries between the creator and the audience. Or to create a culture in which correct attribution is seen as a tool for success. But I look forward to people much smarter than I working on this problem.
lisa — 11 November at 01:15PM
Lonely Planet have been selling 'pick & mix' chapters online for a while now... definitely makes sense in a non-fiction reference context.
Laurie — 12 November at 10:25AM
Thanks for your thoughts guys. I agree with you Paul, in that third-party intermediaries often cause undue (and to my mind unecessary) face-offs "in the interests of creators". If the author holds the rights, then they can choose how and where they reserve said rights.