Ingram Sees Big Changes Ahead for the Retail Book Market

This week's issue of Publishers Weekly includes an article by Phil Ollila, Chief Content Officer of Ingram Content Group, that, based on a mass of data they've collected, offers a number of changes Ingram expects to see in the book retail market.

First, a little background on Ingram Content Group: they are a U.S. based service provider to the book publishing industry formed in 2009 as Ingram Lightning Group (if you've published a book independently, you may be familiar with Lightning Source, which is one of the Content Group's operating units). Ingram Content Group has the industry's largest active book inventory with access to 7.5 million titles, according to Wikipedia, and is a major distributor for independent book stores. In addition to print distribution, they provide digital content services and distribution.

Some findings from Ingram's data (which is all from their own sales and distribution, and largely focused on independent book stores):

• Unit sales have declined in independent bookstores, but the number of unique titles have gone up. In other words, independents are buying more 'unique' books, but selling less units overall. Ingram sees this as a problem for independents.
• Independents are still focused on fiction (68% of what they buy from Ingram is fiction, 32% is nonfiction). However, the opportunities for independents, based on the data, are to "develop category strengths outside of fiction." In other words, independents would be well advised to carry more nonfiction titles.
• Fiction is shifting to e-book formats, and aggressive discounting in fiction in internet and mass merchant channels makes competitive pricing difficult for independent bookstores.
• Fiction sales are largely concentrated in a low number of titles and few publishers, primarily the big six.
• "Going Vertical' is a good option, meaning "communities will be built around enthusiastic categories." He doesn't mention it, but think Mystery Bookstores or SciFi Bookstores.
• If you are a nonfiction writer, here are the categories Ollila thinks will do best at independents: travel, cooking, art, and other visual or reference.
• The industry has changed toward easier developing, editing, acquiring and distributing books (by people who are not traditional publishers), so publishers, Olilla thinks, will have to acquire better content, market to both retail accounts and consumers more specifically, and be prepared to contend with a huge number of competitive titles.
• Prediction: a massive change in distribution strategies for publishers. Many will trade their infrastructure and distribution costs for content development money. "The most nimble publishers will have great content, marketing, and distribution reach—and no back office or warehouse."

There's more, but this is enough to chew on . . . and chew and chew. Of course it's important to keep in mind who this information is coming from--a non-traditional and fast growing book distributor and producer with a focus on independent bookstores and e-books. Ollila does make his points somewhat difficult to understand with a lot of insider language, but nonetheless, this does appear to be solid information worth considering. 

The Rules

In an article from the New York Times, Colson Whitehead gives us a new version of one of our favorite topics— the rules for writers, with interesting twists and humorous common sense that's a little different.

Among my favorites in the eleven rules he provides: Show and Tell, because "when writers put their work out into the world, they're like kids bringing their broken unicorns and chewed-up teddy bears into class in the sad hope that someone else will love them as much as they do." He also makes great points about other rules, like the importance of silence in writing: what isn't said is more important than what is; and about how to kill your darlings: never use three words when one will do (including an example that will make you think). And the main rule: there are no rules. You can do anything, as long as you do it well.

Enjoy.

Social Media Time vs. Writing Time

Can you be a social media mavin and write the book you really want to? It's an old question by now, and I'm sure plenty of you are yawning or rolling your eyes. But that might be a mistake. Tweeting and FBing and even blogging are certainly very different media efforts than novel writing. Do you have to have a split personality to do both, and split your creative time between them? Or do you try to do both at once?

If you find you are drawn more to flash fiction and/or journalistic analyses than taking hours to flesh out scenes with tension, metaphor, powerful description, action, dialogue etc., perhaps that novel will have to wait.

Voices are once again weighing in to make sure we all understand that nobody can write a polished novel (or a great song or poem or any such thing) in a first draft or an online splurge. Check out this article from Forbes, and be sure to read the John Mayer section.

What do you think?

New Commentary on the DoJ Case Against Apple/Publishers; and, What To Do With a Bad Review

This week in the New Yorker, Ken Auletta writes an update and commentary on what's happening in the Department of Justice's lawsuit against Apple and five of the big six publishers for price collusion using the agency model. This is the most thoughtful commentary I've seen so far on this action, which essentially aims to hand Amazon the right to reclaim it's previous 90% of the e-book market, or more. There isn't a lot of buzz still happening in the writer community about this, but I believe there should be. The results of this lawsuit could affect each and every one of us dramatically, and not long from now, either. While even this article gives minimal coverage to the effects on authors , it does point out that, along with publishers and bookstores, authors may experience "profound repercussions" of this fight between Amazon and book publishers. John Sargent, CEO of MacMillan, is quoted as saying, "Books . . . are in danger of becoming roadkill. . ."

This is a longish article, but well worth the read for anyone trying to strategically place (or keep) themselves in the topsy-turvy world of published authors.


Now for a lighter moment. What do you do when you get a bad review? Commentator Adam Gopnik has the answers. A couple of his points:

You should probably not respond in the way you want to, because you're likely to inflame the situation, and not in a good way, by writing a response late, late at night:


"The late-night letter to the reviewer, or the place the review appeared, is by far the most impassioned literary genre that exists . . ."


Then, how should you respond? Mr. Gopnik passes on excellent advice from a friend:


"(wait) exactly four months - less would be too obvious, more too many - until (the) enemy, Mr or Ms X, writes something else, anything else. (T)hen write a warm letter, or email, of congratulation to him or her. Not anything too ornate or obsequious. Just: "Hey X, Really liked your piece on David Foster Wallace and the ambiguities of irony. Fine job on an important subject, Hope you're well, Y."


Bombard your bad reviewers with advice, admiration and counsel, encumber them with your affection, afflict them with your over-bounding warmth. Guilt and remorse will pour from them as surely as if they were ripe grapes that had been stomped on by a willing peasant.


Let the word go out from this day forth from author to reviewer - write that bad review, and I will… recommend you to my friends, crash cocktail parties given for someone else to make a toast in your honour, until at last you develop a haunted look in your eyes, fearing my embrace.

Write that bad review - and you shall have me for your life long friend. Ask yourself - is it worth it?"

Want more? For the full treatment, go here.