NYTimes goes Global

I bet every one who reads this blog reads the NYTimes and so you will have seen the banner across the top of the page that suggested you view their global edition. I think it's great they are experimenting but I was both bemused and affronted. Firstly, I thought they already had a global view. To me the NYTimes isn't the provincial Daily News or Newsday: it's The Times. It has a global perspective so why would I be inclined to narrow my view; why isn't the international/global perspective inculcated into all the news and in-depth items in the newspaper? I thought it was, and it probably is (where appropriate) but of all the 'segmentation' they could do with the newspaper this one strikes me as a little off.

They stumble on execution. I hit the 'switch to global' version and the first thing I did was look at the opinion section. As I expected, they seem to have done is make more prominent those editorials pertaining to the global marketplace. They do have 'foreign' contributors but surely in this section these need to be more prominent. More egregiously, I can't seem to find bio information about who these people are. I know who Ban Ki-Moon is but without consulting wikipedia I don't know who Evgeny Morozov is. Even the comic is American. Wouldn't opinion be where the Times could set its self apart? Since that's what they appear to want to do.

Ticket to Surf

We all know about the USAir landing in the Hudson and we also know the pilot "Sully" signed a book deal (and good on him). Perhaps little known is where the news about his book deal is likely to show up - and remember this is a plane that took off and landed three minutes later in a river.

Cheapflights.

Black Plastic Glasses

I think that's a great name and in this case it is the name of Evan Schnittman's newly birthed blog. In his first post he tackles pricing and revenue from ebooks.

"And therein lies the dilemma ... how does the publishing industry fund the creation, editing, design, production, marketing, e-warehousing, and sales of ebooks, if the income isn’t there? How do ebooks cover the huge advances needed to buy books if we cannot generate the cash, especially at their extremely low, discounted prices, cover the advances that an entire industry has come to require? The answer is that ebooks, alone, cannot.

"What this means is that unless a very different model evolves, ebooks can never become the dominant version of content sold by book publishers. It means that ebooks will always be priced to sell, but sold as an afterthought, not as the primary version of a work. It means that the need for blended e plus p models will evolve, in order to take advantage of all the great qualities of ebooks, while providing the financial support and structure that print offers. It means that consumer ebooks, as a stand-alone version of an intellectual property, must fail."

And it is nice of him to place a link to PND.

Google Orphans: What Revenue Opportunities?

Mike Shatzkin (and I) look at some potentially untapped IP in the GBS orphan class: Link

"Let’s say there are 5 million orphan works and 1/2 of 1% of them are worthy of a press run of 5,000 or more. With a few bigger winners in there, let’s say that’s an average of 6,000 press run across the 25,000 estimated titles. That’s 150 million units. Average retail of $15, average discount of 50%, conservative royalty of 5% of retail calculates to $1.125 billion in revenue to publishers and $112.5 million in royalties.

"Cairns says that maybe these numbers are too high by a factor of ten. If he’s right, we’re still talking about $112.5 million in revenues to publishers and $11.25 million in royalties to authors. I have to believe those numbers are still larger than licensing revenues will be, although Cairns and I have not explored that more complicated question seriously yet. And the truth of the press run potential probably lies north of Cairns’s number (although perhaps south of mine.)

"Why was that element left out of the settlement? Did the negotiating parties even contemplate it? And exactly how useful is the “orphan” relief if this huge portion of the potential revenue (and public value) is omitted? Were the parties so fixated on electronic exploitation that they just didn’t notice this? "

Best of PND

With over 1000 blog posts since I started back in mid 2006 some of the more interesting material is now buried, so I have decided to retrieve a wide selection of material which I consider a level above the average. I have manipulated Blogger a little by creating a new blog and I have linked from the new site back to PND for the full content.

As always, feel free to email any of these blog posts to colleagues since I am always looking for more subscribers.

The Best of PND is located here.

Also don't forget I am on Twitter @personanondata.

I have also created a web site for Information Media Partners which gives some information about my consulting practice.

Springer On the Block

The Guardian is reporting that private equity owners Cinven and Candover are seeking 'strategic advice' from Goldman and UBS with respect to a possible sale of Springer Science. Springer Science and Business Media is the love child of a combination of Springer and Kluwer back in 2003. At the time, it is believed the private equity owners were attempting to roll up several properties (including Informa) in advance of a listing.

Where they are now will be difficult to ascertain. Today, their business could be fairly stable but most executives I speak to who have significant revenues in the academic, library and media segments believe that this coming year and 2010 will represent real tests just to keep revenues from falling off a cliff. Any publisher with 'second tier' products is going to face a torrid time keeping their subscription base. It is the subscription model that has helped many of these publishers weather the storm thusfar; however, this will not last as library and academic funds are slashed.

Candover and Cinven will face a difficult task and if they want £2bn as the Guardian suggests then this will be a big ask. Everyone is familiar with the protracted Reed Business auction that was ultimately abandoned and while this is a different market the example is indicative of the risk-averse nature of the M&A market for media properties.

From the Guardian article:

Rival private equity groups are regarded as the most likely buyers, although the head of one competing venture capital firm said he thought it was unlikely Springer would attract much interest, given the poor short-term prospects for the global economy.

Media companies have also seen their valuations fall in the wake of a global advertising downturn. However, unlike other media groups, many of which are heavily reliant on advertising, Springer has a relatively secure source of revenue. It publishes more than 6,500 new book titles every year and owns 60 publishing houses in about 20 countries in Europe, Asia and North America.

The company employs more than 5,000 people and its British operation, based in Surrey, oversees the publication of 20 journals.

Springer has been (from the outside) fairly innovative with respect to eBook and new publishing models. They were one of the poster children for the Google Book program and professed to have seen impressive sales results from many older titles that they had given up on years before. Perhaps, the eventual buyer will be taking as much a flyer on Springer as they will be on the potential for the wider market to turn around in the short to medium term. Good luck with that.

Archer Trophy Wall

Apparently, Jeffrey Archer is looking for every edition of his 'break-out' book Kane and Able. No reason is given for the requests although I believe he is building a giant trophy wall of bookshelves of every edition of every title he has published. Periodically, he will scan the titles in awe and perhaps turn some of the titles so they are face out. In a mosaic of sorts.

Independent