Thursday, March 17, 2005
Bravery at the Top: Rainmaker R & D
10:41 PM
Recent corporate restructurings / layoffs /call-them-what-you-will at Bertlesmann, Penguin Putnam and HarperCollins continue (it might be argued) to beg the question of whether, or to what ultimate end, there are real gains to be made in the merger-mania that's consumed publishing (and the rest of the corporate world) in the last umpteen years. In the short-run, of course, such "internal tinkerings" (here I mean personnel cutbacks rather than mergers--the elimination of redundant positions and/or expensive employees) are one way of better serving the "needs" of MultiMerge shareholders, in terms of cutting cuts and thereby increasing profits--again, I stress, in the short run.
There are of course many other views about how shareholders' longterm interests might be as well (if not better) served by the publishing divisions of these larger companies--one that comes to mind is that we make sure to support the up-and-coming writers of today to ensure that we will have bankable "brands" capable of getting around without canes and wheelchairs ten years from now. When one considers recent full-page "milestone" advertisements in the New York Times for books like THE DA VINCI CODE, BEL CANTO and THE KITE RUNNER--books that have sold (according to the ads) in excess of 10 million, 1 million and 1 million copies respectively--one can argue that such ads are good for the publisher's profile, and perhaps crucial to author/agent relations. And--perhaps--celebrating such "breakout" successes is good for the industry, in that it sends signals to those outside the typical book-buying demographic that "reading is fun." (Whether that demographic is found reading the New York Times is debatable, but even so...)
This approach, though, seems to come directly from the current Administration's theory about the proper allocation of scarce resources, which has as its theme song (mother of all ironies...) Billie Holliday's "God Bless the Child"
What if, instead of the Bush/Chaney/Rove allocation of those resources, we were were to employ something like a WPA approach? Let's take the $150,000 ($50k per for a full-page black & white ad, more for color) those three ads cost and stread it around some--toward "emerging stars"--$30,000 each, say, for six writers "on the verge." To me, whether spent in additional co-op or in a series of small repeater-ads (the more impressions the better...), this constitutes an investment in the potential brands of the future.
Another double-page NYTBR ad for Danielle Steele? Full pagers for James Patterson...John Grisham...Nora Roberts... Robert B. Parker...Lisa Scottoline...Michael Connelly...Jackie Collins? They're done because, well, because that's what's done. But--and meaning no disrespect to any of these fine individuals--where are we as an industry going to be a decade from now if we're still promoting the same authors we've been promoting for the last decade? Brands eventually do lose their lustre (anybody know what John Gray's up to these days?), plateau, and fall off. So if Job #1 is reinforcing the brands that are working, Job #1A should be building the brands of the future.
Which requires being encouraged to take the the long view. The problem is, such planning is in short supply when Publishers' performances are measured not over a five-year span but, rather, quarter-to-quarter. They have to "make their numbers" each quarter, certainly each fiscal year, or they'll soon be on the street. Which places an almost impossible burden on the shoulders of these few individuals. There's your own private survival on one side--and then there's the responsibility of the very future of our business on the other... You publishers/eds-in-chiefs--Michael Pietsch and Michael Morrison and Gina Centrello and Bill Thomas and Jamie Raab and Will Schwalbe and John Sterling and Brian Tart and the rest of you--are walking an incredible tightrope. Because the constant scrutiny of your performance relative to your budgeted tagets functionally discourages you from engaging in what we might, in other industries, call R&D. And yet, for the business to sustain itself--and this is why your jobs are so incredibly stressful and demanding--you've got to be able to do exactly that: take chances on writers, and stick by writers, who won't necessarily become bankable brands (if they ever do) within three months, or even three books. With the fate of your kids' college educations on the line, you've got to be able to say to those people above you--the ones who talk to the suits above them, at Viacom and NewsCorp and Time-Warner and Bertelsmann and so on--that sometimes real money must be invested now on "product" that won't really come to market for five years. CEOs--and even shareholders--in pharmaceutical companies understand this. Why not in our industy?
It's a virtually impossible position you're in, and I admire and salute you for undertaking it. I wish you bravery and great success; that you're able to leverage the success (and even some of the assets) that a Sandra Brown or a John Sandford brings you to make sure that the 30 year-old second or third or fourth novelist has the time, and the support, to become the next-generation of hitmakers; and that you are blessed with CEOs with the long-term vision to match your own, CEOs with the vision and guts to explain to their shareholders why a 4% return is sometimes preferrable to an 8% return, because the difference has been reinvested into the piece of infrastructure most essential to our business: talented writers, the next generation of rainmakers.
There are of course many other views about how shareholders' longterm interests might be as well (if not better) served by the publishing divisions of these larger companies--one that comes to mind is that we make sure to support the up-and-coming writers of today to ensure that we will have bankable "brands" capable of getting around without canes and wheelchairs ten years from now. When one considers recent full-page "milestone" advertisements in the New York Times for books like THE DA VINCI CODE, BEL CANTO and THE KITE RUNNER--books that have sold (according to the ads) in excess of 10 million, 1 million and 1 million copies respectively--one can argue that such ads are good for the publisher's profile, and perhaps crucial to author/agent relations. And--perhaps--celebrating such "breakout" successes is good for the industry, in that it sends signals to those outside the typical book-buying demographic that "reading is fun." (Whether that demographic is found reading the New York Times is debatable, but even so...)
This approach, though, seems to come directly from the current Administration's theory about the proper allocation of scarce resources, which has as its theme song (mother of all ironies...) Billie Holliday's "God Bless the Child"
Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose
What if, instead of the Bush/Chaney/Rove allocation of those resources, we were were to employ something like a WPA approach? Let's take the $150,000 ($50k per for a full-page black & white ad, more for color) those three ads cost and stread it around some--toward "emerging stars"--$30,000 each, say, for six writers "on the verge." To me, whether spent in additional co-op or in a series of small repeater-ads (the more impressions the better...), this constitutes an investment in the potential brands of the future.
Another double-page NYTBR ad for Danielle Steele? Full pagers for James Patterson...John Grisham...Nora Roberts... Robert B. Parker...Lisa Scottoline...Michael Connelly...Jackie Collins? They're done because, well, because that's what's done. But--and meaning no disrespect to any of these fine individuals--where are we as an industry going to be a decade from now if we're still promoting the same authors we've been promoting for the last decade? Brands eventually do lose their lustre (anybody know what John Gray's up to these days?), plateau, and fall off. So if Job #1 is reinforcing the brands that are working, Job #1A should be building the brands of the future.
Which requires being encouraged to take the the long view. The problem is, such planning is in short supply when Publishers' performances are measured not over a five-year span but, rather, quarter-to-quarter. They have to "make their numbers" each quarter, certainly each fiscal year, or they'll soon be on the street. Which places an almost impossible burden on the shoulders of these few individuals. There's your own private survival on one side--and then there's the responsibility of the very future of our business on the other... You publishers/eds-in-chiefs--Michael Pietsch and Michael Morrison and Gina Centrello and Bill Thomas and Jamie Raab and Will Schwalbe and John Sterling and Brian Tart and the rest of you--are walking an incredible tightrope. Because the constant scrutiny of your performance relative to your budgeted tagets functionally discourages you from engaging in what we might, in other industries, call R&D. And yet, for the business to sustain itself--and this is why your jobs are so incredibly stressful and demanding--you've got to be able to do exactly that: take chances on writers, and stick by writers, who won't necessarily become bankable brands (if they ever do) within three months, or even three books. With the fate of your kids' college educations on the line, you've got to be able to say to those people above you--the ones who talk to the suits above them, at Viacom and NewsCorp and Time-Warner and Bertelsmann and so on--that sometimes real money must be invested now on "product" that won't really come to market for five years. CEOs--and even shareholders--in pharmaceutical companies understand this. Why not in our industy?
It's a virtually impossible position you're in, and I admire and salute you for undertaking it. I wish you bravery and great success; that you're able to leverage the success (and even some of the assets) that a Sandra Brown or a John Sandford brings you to make sure that the 30 year-old second or third or fourth novelist has the time, and the support, to become the next-generation of hitmakers; and that you are blessed with CEOs with the long-term vision to match your own, CEOs with the vision and guts to explain to their shareholders why a 4% return is sometimes preferrable to an 8% return, because the difference has been reinvested into the piece of infrastructure most essential to our business: talented writers, the next generation of rainmakers.
12 comments:
Say, am I the only one who finds the language of branding as applied to authors a little . . . icky? I'll confess to having a skepticism about publishing economics and, OK, late capitalism in general that would make the dewiest undergrad wince. But even taking this on its own terms, it makes me uncomfortable to talk about not just James Patterson (who, if the technology existed, would transform himself into pure logo form and upload himself on the Internet) but "up-and-comers" strictly as assets.
Squeamishness aside, this approach would make sense if there are good business reasons for using it. As Max points out, branding may be a good way to develop the next crop of "hitmakers" in order to meet quarterly earnings quotas at the conglomerates. But I feel as though branding is a concept that's gotten spread pretty thin. There's obviously some extensive theory behind it, and it gets applied by Martha Stewart OmniMedia and Hillary Duff's handlers and, we're beginning to see, HarperPerennial and Picador in fairly sophisticated ways, but it's also become another buzzword that's bandied about by just about anyone with something to sell. Often, it seems like just another word for good old-fashioned marketing.
So, beyond Dan Brown, beyond Joel Osteen, does it make sense for us to think of all authors as brands? Does a great review of an Alice Munro collection by a hip, popular novelist give leverage to the Alice Munro brand? Or does it simply pique the interest of potential readers? If we do extend the logic of branding to include almost everyone, will that help the midlist author, or demand of her the superstar sales on which this bestseller-driven industry increasingly depends? (How's that for a leading question?)
All due respect to Max here, whose sincere devotion to his authors and combination of idealism and realism come through in every entry.
Isn't this a prime example of how publishing is poor fit for mega corporation business? Sure, big publishing houses have high profile product and can generate revenues that run into the many millions of dollars, but usually publisher profit *margins* are small--in the cited range of 4% or so--whereas investors and the corporate hierarchy is looking for double-digit returns and strong, steady growth that isn't realistic when the history of publishing as an industry is considered. Isn't the stockholder-widget factory model simply a poor fit for publishing at all levels? It seems to me, at least, this is partly the reason for the lack of long-term planning in publishing. But that's just me.
I don't know if there are other programs like this, but nine years ago, Louise Dennys started The New Face of Fiction program at Knopf Canada.
Each year they choose two or three first time novelists and give them an extra 'push' in launching their careers. Some of the alumni you may have heard of include, Ann Marie MacDonald -Fall On Your Knees, Yann Martel - Life of Pi, Lori Lansens -Rush Home Road, Lilian Nattel -The River Midnight, and Mary Lawson - Crow Lake.
The New Face novels are launched in the spring (generally between February and March) so they aren't competing with the heavy hitter titles that are released in the fall. This year's class was ushered in by Ann Marie MacDonald at a big reading in downtown Toronto. (They had to turn people away at the door) Each of this year's authors have been blessed with press coverage, busy with interviews, book tours and so on.
As far as 'branding' goes...I'd guess that none of the authors included in this program over the years has been made to feel like they are merely grinding out 'product' for Knopf.
In my opinion, Louise Dennys and Diane Martin are doing just what Max is suggesting, giving new novelists "the time, and the support, to become the next-generation of hitmakers"
The New Face of Fiction
Fascinating post. Right on the heels of the PW article I read about poor numbers for some of the major author franchises. Not just a one time thing, but a steady slacking off without new talent to come up and fill the void that's being created at that particular house.
Regarding "branding": I don't find this language "icky" at all. I think it's necessary. When someone picks up a Stephen King novel, they knew what to expect. When someone picks up a Nora Roberts novel, they know what to expect. Readers like plot surprises, but they don't want to be "taken". If they pick up Nora Roberts and suddenly her heroine is killed off by a deranged clown who lives in the sewer, you bet she'll be hearing from her readers!
s/anon suspense writer
a good publishing list needs some big to help pay for the little names. how many minor, sub-5000 copy works of history has knopf been able to do because it has a couple of heavy hitters?
but a list can't survive on big names alone, as harpercollins proved with their disastrous initial foray into mass marketing publishing which had the motto, "all leaders and no followers." how often has a season been saved by some midlist hit that came out of nowhere (dan brown, for instance) just as the heavy hitters went into a slump? remember when r.l. stine went into the tank overnight and scholastic followed right afterwards, only freeing itself with the titanic brand that is harry potter--and notice how crappy their one-tune company does when a potter book is delayed?
a good list is a balanced list.
Once again Mad Max, well said. I would beg to differ only on one point. The pharmaceutical giants as well as other consumer products companies do not invest marketing money unless they have carefully scoped out the risk, as best as they think they can. They in fact invest only in what they perceive as sure bets, much like the publishing industry. They invest only R&D money long term to develop potential, and to some extent, publishers do that by virtue of advances against unknown authors. What the publishing industry might learn from consumer products marketing is to do exactly what you suggest - spend less per unit [although still much overall] on the known brands [Patterson et al] and more per unit on the brands you wish to build... You clearly have a good handle on marketing, as well as your editorial finesse, as your marketing colleagues would be very well advised to invest in frequency advertising in selective markets and venues for the books with potential and a few big hits, that's all that's needed, to promote the big guns. [You know as well as I do that B&N wants to know that there is advertising behind even the sure-thing book.]Publishing only thinks in terms of total dollars and "hits" rather than cost per book, which might be worth considering... None of us wants to think of books as brands, then again, if one wants to get marketing support, perhaps we must.
You have an interesting blog here. Some of the things people put are kind of strange. Another cool site is a home improvement business site that is about Home biz stuff.
Anyway, I like your blog and will proably be back.
Take care.
Great Blog, check out this business. This is the Goose that lays you Golden Eggs! business home internet resource
Enjoy!
（法新社a倫敦二B十WE四日電） 「情色二零零七」情情色電影趣產品大產自二十三日起在倫敦的肯辛A片下載頓奧a片林匹亞展覽館舉行，AV女優倫敦人擺脫對性的保守成人網站態度踴躍參觀，許多穿皮衣成人電影與塑膠緊身衣的好色之色情徒擠進這項世界規模最大的成人生活展，估計三天展期可吸引八萬多好奇民眾參觀。
活成人影片動計畫負責人米里根承諾：「要搞浪漫、誘惑a片人、玩虐待，你渴望的我們都有。」
他成人電影說：「時髦的設計成人影片與華麗女裝，從吊飾到束腹到真人大小的雕塑，是我們由今年展出的數千件產品精選出的一部分，參展產品還包括時尚服飾、貼身女用內在美、鞋子、珠寶、玩具色情影片、影片、藝術、圖情色電影書及遊戲，情色更不要說性愛輔具及馬成人網站術裝備。」
參觀民眾遊覽AV兩百五十多個攤位，有性感服裝、玩具及情色a片下載食品av，迎合各種品味情色。
大舞台上表演的是av女優美國野蠻搖滾歌手瑪莉蓮曼森的前妻─全世界頭牌脫衣舞孃黛塔范提思，這是她今年在英國唯一一場表演。
色情以一九四零年代風格演出的黛塔范提思表演性感的天堂鳥、旋轉木馬及羽扇等舞蹈。
參展攤位有的推廣情趣用品，有的公開展示人體A片藝術和人體雕塑，也有情色藝術家工會成員提供建議。
お見合い
有料老人ホーム
会社設立
障害者
ショッピング枠 現金化
カラーコンタクト
コンタクトレンズ
フランチャイズ
育毛剤
育毛剤
グループウェア
幼児教室
電話占い
探偵
薬剤師 求人
国内格安航空券
おまとめローン
留学
インプラント
CloneDVD
電報
矯正歯科
初音ミク
看板 製作
ウォーター サーバー
網頁設計
別れさせ屋
格安航空券
クレジットカード 現金化
キャッシング
ダンボール
アダルトDVD
水 通販
小吃餐車加盟連鎖「一條龍的創業模式」複製成功開店經驗
更新日期:2009/08/25 17:19
(中央社訊息服務20090825 16:19:17)大環境不景氣，工作難找，有不少人就想乾脆自己創業當老闆。為強化國內創業能量，五路財神開店總部於8月20日-9月20日舉辦「2009夢幻小餐車創業成果展」歡迎蒞臨參觀。針對國內一窩蜂創業加盟潮，餐車達人陳滌五總監提醒創業者，加盟不失為一條創業捷徑，但若選擇加盟，品牌知名度、產品獨特性及是否擁有差異化優勢就顯得格外重要。
近年來以成本低的小吃餐車最受創業者青睞。沒經驗的失業族 大部份都選擇餐車擺攤，最多人都想在創業市場闖出一片天。在台中成立的五路財神開店總部，小吃餐車用品牌方式來營運，總經理陳滌五用自己的經驗來現身說法。以國人創業首選的小吃餐車來說，如何在同質性高的市場中殺出重圍？雖然是路邊攤小餐車，營運上的重要撇步是關鍵；在企業經營戰略中，唯有領先核心競爭，保持差異化優勢才是生存之道。
陳總分享成功關鍵，「五路財神餐車與其他路邊攤最大的差異化，在於餐車外觀亮眼與眾不同的加分效果，及秉持結合好的小吃產品用品牌方式來經營的理念」。總部成立初期因觀察到傳統路邊攤想要爭得一席之地，大多考量商品創新的迷思，卻忽略創業者經營能否持久性的問題。所以五路財神餐車將傳統小吃商品，用創新工法為策略，顛覆傳統路邊攤的概念，長期下來在台灣建立起最多元品牌的餐車王國。
很多創業者最憂心沒經驗，業界首創從餐車打造、生財器具、原物料配方、技術教學、促銷廣告、開幕指導，「一條龍的創業輔導」模式，使得五路財神餐車品牌特色更為彰顯。陳總說，不景氣下小吃餐車經營是加倍艱辛，建議創業者不但要瞭解小吃經營的核心價值，凸顯產品獨特性及差異化之外還要定期和你商圈的客人互動，「好餐車、好商品、好客人」，三個好，如此才有可能成為「不敗的小吃攤」。
|加盟創業|滷味加盟|加盟|餐車|安親班|廚具||開店|新民管樂|哈比|Eric|校友隊|高中畢旅|全國音樂比賽|特優|痞子英雄|薩克斯風|東大附中|星條旗|離開地球表面|牛仔很忙|陽光宅男|新民管樂畢業生|墓仔埔也敢去
Post a Comment