 |
| The
Picdar stand (conference sponsors) at PIRA's 'Redefining
the Publishing Process' |
|
PUBLISHING'S
NEW ORTHODOXY
The publishing process has already been redefined. That,
at least, was the strong message that emerged from the “Redefining
the Publishing Process” conference, which took place on
13th and 14th May in Piccadilly, London.
Over
two intensive days, a number of speakers from the publishing
industry gave presentations describing how changing markets
and new technology have forced publishers to rethink their businesses.
A provocative keynote address from Jahan Salehi, of the Los
Angeles Times Syndicate International, set the tone of the event
by emphasising the overall decline in book and newspaper readership,
while suggesting new technologies might provide the means for
published material to compete with the broadcast media.
His assertion that “times are tough” was echoed throughout
the event by many contributors, particularly those in the newspaper
industry still suffering from a serious decline in their advertising
revenues.
Speakers from commercial publishing companies made it clear
that there has been an essential change of thinking since the
arrival of the Web as a serious publishing medium. Previously
at such conferences it would be common to hear presentations
on new business models and the need for redesigned workflows.
Now though, such thoughts – previously theoretical and
speculative – appear to have been internalised by publishers
themselves.
What was remarkable about this event was the clear consensus
– a new orthodoxy perhaps, about publishing production,
which almost without exception was described as requiring a
single workflow, XML, and the ability to “multi-purpose”
content.
Tony Tomlinson (Digital Services Manager, Cambridge University
Press) discussed how new technology has required publishers
to adopt project management techniques more familiar to the
IT sector, and of the impact new workflows can have on staff.
This theme was reprised by Helen Bailey (Production Director,
John Wiley), who described how Wiley had invested in its people
by retraining its production staff while updating its STM journals
production process around XML.
Michael Taylor (Online Information Manager, Elsevier Science
and Technology Books) gave a startling presentation which exemplified
a concept he described as “the dark factory” –
a publishing production department in which people have been
replaced by machines. He demonstrated how Elsevier’s XML
could be turned into production-quality pages at the press of
a key. The proprietary software behind this process (Miramo)
was on show as part of a small exhibition that surrounded the
main conference.
From newspaper publishing, Peter Mayerhofer (of the Swedish
newspaper Sydsvenska Dagbladet) and Morris Packer (Acorn Publishing)
gave a demonstration of how mobile phone text messaging was
used to augment Sydsvenska Dagbladet’s main print offering
by broadcasting text messages of breaking news to its readers’
mobile phones. Whether the pricing model is viable (the speculative
example used was of readers spending £1 to be informed
of Sweden’s victory over England in the World Cup) remains
to be seen.
Overall, the impression made by the conference was that of a
changed publishing industry, aware of its predicament yet willing
to accept the challenge of migrating workflows to reap the benefits
of new technology – even though quite what those benefits
are, and how precisely, they are to be reaped, is still a matter
of debate.
Overview
written by Dr. Alex Brown, Technical Director, Griffin Brown
Digital Publishing Ltd. Website: griffinbrown.co.uk
TOP
REPURPOSING:
CLUTCHING AT STRAWS?
What is behind the latest buzz-word in publishing circles,
asks Dr Iain Stevenson, City University London
As technology advances and publishers consider the impact e-commerce
and the internet may have for their future prosperity, or even
survival, repurposing is one of the many straws that may be
clutched at to reassure them that they will not be overwhelmed.
Publishers own vast stores of information, particularly in reference
works, directories, dictionaries, encyclopaedias and textbooks,
so the argument goes, but the traditional modes of delivery
(print on paper, using conventional search apparatus such as
indexes and cross-references make the user do the hard work
of searching and evaluating desired information.
It is also expensive, since the user has to buy the lot to obtain
what is needful: the traditional gripe levelled at language
dictionaries ('But I know the meaning of most of those words
already'). Shiny, clever new electronic technology shifts the
onus of selection of information from the user to the provider.
The business model becomes 'just in time' rather than 'just
in case': content is 'sliced and diced' so that it reaches the
readers just when and where they want it, and is paid for on
that basis. Rather than selling information wholesale and in
bulk as before, repurposing publishers provide bespoke information
solutions at, it is implied, a premium price.
At a recent conference organised by PIRA in London, I was asked
to provide a publisher’s viewpoint on repurposing, with
something like this model in mind. I am a sceptic when it comes
to technological solutions to the age-old publishing problem
of providing the reader with what they want when they want it.
Certainly, the market is changing and technology can provide
new opportunities and allow new relationships to develop, but
a publisher’s primary concern should be (as it always has
been) the quality, timeliness and appropriateness of the content
they manage and control. Understanding delivery mechanisms is
decidedly secondary to understanding customer needs and expectations,
and how best to fulfil them.
But the information world has changed decisively for both publisher
and user. The traditional model was passive and inert, characterised
by customer-pull; the new models are dynamic and depend on provider
push. Content has to be managed to fit this model, and I would
prefer that publishers envisage their content creation, management
and delivery as 'multipurposing' rather than 'repurposing';
The danger of the latter term is that it suggests it will be
sufficient to warm-over existing information content, or worse,
get extra revenue out of life-expired content. Content must
be genuinely envisaged as multipurpose from its origin, and
must to be structured in such a way that it will serve equally
well in traditional print on paper book form as in on-desk,
electronic delivery. This means serious investment!
A fundamental aspect of multipurposing content is creating a
new and lasting relationship with the user. In traditional publishing
models, the needs of the ultimate user, the reader, were often
vague and poorly-understood, and came a long way behind those
of the other participants in the value-chain - the publisher,
the editor, the printer, the bookseller, the librarian and so
on. To deliver multipurposed content effectively and make money
from it, the publisher has to provide dedicated customer service.
In the jargon, it is a 24/7/365 activity, and implies instant-response
customer service. At its best, this means an on-going and mutually
beneficial relationship between creator and user; at its worst,
a frustrating and sterile experience for the customer.
The financial basis of the transaction between publisher and
user is also transformed. Content is now being leased or rented,
rather than sold, which is clearly more satisfactory for the
publisher. I am sceptical whether e-commerce, particularly 'pay
per view', offers the immediate way forward, despite the advances
in secure micro-payment technology and the great success of
internet auction services like E-bay in promoting these. For
the foreseeable future, I think site licensing, where information
products are provided to a group of nominated users in a controlled
environment such as a library or an academic institution.
This is an exciting time to be an information publisher. We
are replacing a single transaction (selling a book) with an
ongoing service, and that can be a taxing, challenging as well
as a rewarding mode of business. To function effectively, it
needs a complete rethink of the publishing organisation, the
courage to invest in a rapidly changing and volatile market,
and the ability to value and celebrate the traditional skills
that ensure quality and timeliness of content. Publishers will
need luck and courage to succeed - but then, haven’t they
always?
Contact Dr Stevenson, Director, Publishing Studies: W.I.Stevenson@city.ac.uk
TOP
XML
– GET CONVERTED!
Nick Reed, Director of Product Strategy, Easypress Technologies,
talks about the benefits of XML and advises on how to achieve
the ideal conversion process XML is being adopted by publishers
because of its strengths in enabling cross-media publishing
and interoperability between multiple systems.
As an open standard for structured data, it offers many benefits
to publishers over the traditional, proprietary technologies
that have been used for storing and transferring data.
However, most publishers use QuarkXPress for their page layout,
and QuarkXPress does not natively support structured XML data.
This has caused considerable difficulty and expense for publishers
needing to convert between ‘unstructured’ QuarkXPress
and 'structured' XML. Hence it is important for publishers to
implement this conversion as efficiently as possible.
What constitutes a successful XML conversion process? Typically,
time and cost are key factors, but also ease of use, practicality,
low impact on existing workflows and flexibility are important
ingredients to a successful solution. Publishers must define
their own criteria for success, based on its available resources
and staff.
The type of software tools that are appropriate will be dictated
by how XML is introduced to the publishing workflow. Will authors
create content in XML format ‘at source’; will XML
be created as the print pages are built; or will XML be created
from the finished Quark documents as a ‘post-production’
technology?
The first case can be called a ‘full XML workflow’,
which requires XML authoring tools, an XML repository of some
kind (this could be just a file system) and XML import and export
tools for QuarkXPress.
The second and third cases require tools to create XML from
within QuarkXPress, either as a manual or automated process.
There are multiple tools for each category, each of which has
its own strengths and weaknesses and, again, the right tools
can only be found by matching those strengths and weaknesses
against the requirements of the business. Those business requirements
are derived from the analysis that needs to be done to define
the success criteria.
It sounds straightforward, but it is surprising how rarely this
process is followed rigorously.
So far, the discussion has centred on software tools. But the
most important factor in managing a successful XML conversion
process is people. The people involved need to buy into the
process; this means explaining why change is taking place and
spelling out the benefits to the business. In many cases, the
nature of the work done by production staff will change. Ensuring
the printed page looks right is no longer enough. Production
staff are likely to be structuring content, not just styling
it.
A common problem that must be addressed early on is that of
turf wars breaking out between print and online departments.
Often, the Quark conversion issue is pushed backwards and forwards
between the two departments. As long as the process is seen
purely as a cost, without recognising the benefits arising from
the efficient use of XML, buy-in from either department will
be difficult. Any implementation of a conversion process requires
a Project Owner who is sufficiently senior to provide strong
leadership, and who must include both print and online teams.
Risk needs to be managed. Pick a simple publication to start
with and run some tests. (Hint: don’t do anything near
press day – the pressure of deadlines will not inspire
goodwill) If successful, proceed to a more complex publication.
If not, go back and assess what went wrong.
By phasing deployment, risk is managed by ensuring small, successful
steps are taken rather than large, unsuccessful ones.
Ultimately, XML can deliver significant business benefits for
publishers – and that means higher revenues and lower costs.
Getting the XML conversion process right can make the difference
between a new business proposal being profitable or unprofitable.
Get it wrong, and you are saddled with a slow, expensive, demoralising
process. Get it right, and a new whole sector of profitable
revenues opens up.This article is based on a presentation given
at the Pira Conference 'Redefining the Publishing Process' in
May 2002. Nick Reed can be contacted at email: nick.reed@easyrpess.com
Web: www.easypress.com
TOP
