Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

January 2005

The Future of Books

Continued from page 1

By Jason Epstein

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Hankering for a revolution
It was all too good to last. At first I did not notice that the publishing business, along with much else in American life, was being reshaped by the great postwar demographic shift from city to suburb. As their customer base disappeared, so did hundreds of city bookstores with their thousands of backlist titles. Today, there aren't 50 independent retailers in the United States that stock 100,000 titles or more. By the mid-1960s, the new retail market, based largely on suburban malls where the dominant bookstore chains were paying the same rent as the shoe stores next door, could not afford to stock their costly shelves with slow-moving backlist inventories. Turnover was important to these chain outlets. Heavily promoted books by television celebrities and by well-known writers of formulaic thrillers and romances were what the chains wanted. Very soon, thousands of backlist titles were going out of print every year.

The effect of these new marketing conditions was to turn the industry upside down. Where previously publishers had depended on their backlists, now most of them survived precariously (if they survived at all) by scrambling after bestsellers. Celebrity ephemera were auctioned by their agents for dizzying guarantees, while the powerful retail chains demanded ever more discounts from publishers, forcing the smaller houses to merge with and be subsumed by the conglomerates that dominate the industry today. Publishers continued to produce as many books of real merit as ever, but as Calvin Trillin put it, their shelf life had deteriorated to somewhere between that of milk and yogurt. Book publishing began more and more to resemble the mass-market-magazine business.

In 1958, I left Doubleday for Random House. My arrangement was unusual. For many years I was the firm's editorial director, but I was also free to pursue my own ventures. By the mid-1980s, I had started a few successful businesses for the same readers for whom I had created ­Anchor Books. I began to look for ways to bypass the marketing forces that were eroding publishers' backlists. In 1986, with this problem in mind, I conceived the Readers Catalog, a directory of some 40,000 backlist titles that could be ordered through an 800 number (the Internet had not yet been commercialized). The idea was to re-create a medium-sized independent bookstore in the form of a printed catalogue the size of a big-city telephone directory. Sales were brisk -- but my business plan was flawed. The average revenue per order was about $35, plus shipping and handling, but the cost of handling small orders was more than could be recouped. By the time the Internet was flourishing, I had decided not to put the Readers Catalog online but instead auctioned it off to Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble -- warning them that their margins would not cover the cost of handling small orders for individual customers. (They have since lost millions of dollars while performing an invaluable service to publishers, writers, and readers.)

It was in the aftermath of the failure of the Readers Catalog that I saw the solution to the prohibitive expense of physically handling thousands of low-cost items. Books, like music, are among the few commercial products that can be reduced to digital files, stored, located, and transmitted electronically at virtually no cost. Publishers had been trying to sell electronic versions of their titles online since the early 1990s. They had failed because the programs were poorly designed and because most readers resisted the idea of reading books on their computer screens or on handheld gadgets. Imprinted paper, folded, gathered, and bound within covers, is still the most durable, readable, portable, and economic medium for books that are meant to be kept. It must be possible, I reasoned, to reconstitute a digi­tal file in the form of a library-quality paperback. What I imagined was the functional equivalent of an ATM -- a device that would quickly print a book from a digital file, bind it, trim it, and deliver it to the reader at low cost.

A rudimentary print-on-demand technology already existed, consisting of a separate duplex printer, binder, and trimmer, but the equipment was expensive and cumbersome and required skilled operators. It was designed to function within the existing supply chain of the publishing industry, but for printings too small for a conventional high-speed press. I wanted something else -- a free-standing, fully automatic machine that would bypass the entire Gutenberg system. A reader would select a file; the file would be transmitted over a secure network; and within minutes, the machine would print a single copy, in any language. The machine would deliver a book at less cost to the reader than books produced by more conventional means. By eliminating the physical supply chain, the new technology would offer readers a vastly greater selection of titles than existing technologies.

The 1950s "paperback revolution" in which I had been so bound up wasn't a revolution at all -- merely the introduction of a new format within the existing supply chain. I hankered for a true revolution, one that would maximize the world market for books and create unprecedented new efficiencies for publishers.

In 1999, I delivered three lectures at the New York Public Library, where I presented my vision of an electronic future and predicted that, sooner or later, such a machine would exist. (I reworked these remarks in my 2002 book Book Business: Publishing Past, Present, and Future.)

At the time, the mall chains had reached the limits of their expansion. Accordingly, by the early 1990s, they were being replaced by the so-called superstores, Barnes and Noble and Borders -- much larger, free-standing establishments whose prom­ise to carry large backlist inventories was often thwarted by costs that mandated instead the usual books of the moment, along with music, magazines, trinkets, and coffee bars. An alternative was more urgently needed than ever.

January 2005

Would you like to read more articles from the January 2005 issue?

This article is from the January 2005 Issue of Technology Review. To read other articles from this issue simply register for My.TechnologyReview.com. It's free.

Subscribe today and save up to 41% »

Comments

  • Bad Idea!
    Guest (Jason Bourne) on 01/08/2006 at 6:28 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Paper is going out and fast.  It would not be cost efficent to download a text file and then print it all out.  The cost to the consumer for paper and ink would be outragous.  It would be so much easier to simply download it and read it from there off of a tablet PC or PDA device.  There is no important reason to print off the book when you can store it on your hard drive and read it using e-book software.  Paper Sucks!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Mr. Bourne's opinion
      Guest (Dan LeMaire-Bauch) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      The cost of paper and ink is really not "outragous" (sic) unless you're talking about "rag paper".  For commercial acid-free paper, it's quite tolerable in the opinion of this reader.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Good Idea!
      stevedefeo on 10/28/2006 at 8:29 AM
      Posts:
      1
      With all due respect, it appears that Mr. Bourne is barking up the wrong tree.  The primary benefit provided by on-demand-printing is not simply the minimization of book costs to the end-user, but rather the tremendous advantage afforded to the reader by this technology's ability to locally produce what is needed, when it is needed.  For those of us fortunate enough to reside in or near large metropolitan centers with their abundant sources of reading material, this may not be particularly interesting.  However, this is certainly not the case for the vast majority of the world's population.  It is in this regard that the benefits of on-demand-printing are most needed and would be most appreciated.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Bad Idea!
      morris.ward on 12/09/2006 at 7:32 PM
      Posts:
      1
      A book printed on acid-free paper will last 100 years and more.  No one in this discussion of
      using files of digitized books ever mentions or questions how those digital files will be digitally preserved, error-free, retrievable, interpretable, and repurposeable, for 100 years or more.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Bad Idea!
        sebakunstpaul on 10/23/2007 at 2:08 PM
        Posts:
        3
        Digital files will last because the backward-compatibility that IT industry have to keep. I give only pdf file type as example, then databases will spread, so there will be many backups... probably users will be able to keep own file collection... and so on.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Bad Idea!
      Colin Walsh on 08/28/2007 at 10:27 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I don't think that the comment 'paper sucks!' adds any value to an argument against paper-based information.  Pulp is a crop, mostly wood, that is grown for just that - paper. It is planted and harvested like any other crop. Take away the pulp forests and not only will the environment be damaged, but housing estates will rapidly appear on the cleared land.  It's silly to argue media against media.  It's a question not only of what works but what is preferred.  Of course, IT advances means that e-readers are now more flexible.  Everybody knows that.  It still doesn't mean that the paper-based book is redundant and certainly, Print On Demand means fewer numbers being printed on the basis of guesswork.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Bad Idea!
      sebakunstpaul on 10/23/2007 at 2:17 PM
      Posts:
      3
      Digital files have their advantages (portability, environmental benefit, zoom... just thinking about few...), but finally a printed book is a printed book... doesn't require any power supply, will not crash, will not be corrupted... will not deceive you.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • bks on demand
    pstream on 12/29/2006 at 3:35 PM
    Posts:
    1
    I co-owned a bookstore in Boulder during the 1970's, with thousands of titles. It was really like a current library, with overstuffed chairs, oriental rugs, plants and no food. Very hip and now.
    In the '80-2000 years I worked for the state government geological program in the infomation/publishing section.
    I remember that a print on demand was available, but I was not able to convience anyone that it was the publishing future. No more warehouse of slow moving inventory. Geology being popular, but by no means profitable.
    I was able to scan/digitize their sizable map collection, (almost 2 years non-stop to complete),
    that is now available in full color as print on demand. I just could not convience them that book publishing had to change.
    I am glad to hear that someone is moving forward with this, and I hope to be able to have access to the publishing industry of the future.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • a new website that challenges
    steve81 on 07/17/2007 at 6:43 PM
    Posts:
    1
    A website was launched this week that challenges the traditional publishing model. It differs from others in that it is free, totally interactive between readers, authors, editors and publishers. I'd like to invite your members to view the site and provide comments, criticisms and suggestions.The site is www.novelmaker.com  I would especially like Mr Epstein's opinion.  Steve Weinstein Sc.D.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Perspectives...
    sebakunstpaul on 10/23/2007 at 2:37 PM
    Posts:
    3
    Print on Demand for Books is most advantageous because of many reasons.

    First readers will not have to wait for new editions to be published, this particularly will be a benefit for readers to reach good titles, which are not so often published for example. There are many titles with not so broad audience, what I mean culture isn't mainstream yet...

    Then authors will have an easy way to publish their works to promote and sell on demand, being affordable to publish few... bringing "user generated content" into the traditional printed media.

    Also I would like to remind about corporate market, that uses print on demand at a large scale... reports, studies, etc. I think now about smaller businesses that could benefit from more accessibility to printing services, as cost, time, professional look of documentation, etc.

    Print on Demand is the future of printing, if not the only future...
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review November/December 2008
Sun + Water = Fuel
An MIT chemist has opened the way to making hydrogen fuel from water using sunlight.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology