Nice one. There is a “future of the book” category at our blog, here:
http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/category/publishing/future-of-the-book/
(it probably works equally well as the future of publishing)

However, blogging still feels like preaching to the converted…

thanks very much for your comments both on this post and the wider debate around the future of digital marketing.

My original post was never intended as ’snarky’, I simply wanted to get some perspective on what is an interesting subject.

Sara’s piece is inspiring and informative, especially for those of us that work in digital marketing. However I tried to imagine presenting the manifesto to editors and publishing directors and what the possible reactions would be. This is where the ‘doom and gloom’ aspect to my piece came in, the Manifesto provided a myriad of digital opportunities, but the tone suggested to me that it was an absolute future for the book, rather than a series of choices for publishers. On reflection I can see how I’ve exaggerated my point in my article, but then I also understand the tough realities of being a digital evangelist in publishing. Peter is absolutely right, it sometimes feels like your preaching is a touch futile.

I would ask therefore that the ‘digital evangelist’ somehow evolves into a person that can assist, communicate and teach publishers about how their business practices can change with mutual benefit for everyone. It’s time to get out of the pulpit and in front of the blackboard. Then away from the blackboard to the realities of the boardroom. Some give and take is needed.

I tried to illustrate this with my comments on the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ Crowdsourcing is an excellent opportunity, it can also been as fundamentally flawed from a business method point-of-view.

What I have learned both from Sara’s piece and the subsequent debate is that there needs to be more discussion on the ways forward. I would therefore like to invite Sara, A Brown, Richard Charkin, Richard Nash, Chris Meade and Peter to write articles on the Future of Publishing, to not only be published on this blog, but shared across Pan Macmillan’s Digital List and whichever Publishing projects and houses would like to run them.

John

John - the author of this piece - is writing from a privileged position at one of the few UK houses that invests seriously in digital - both as a publishing platform, and as an experimentation about what it means to be a publisher. Lucky for him - I happen to think that Richard Nash’s quote above on the ownership of his company by “Luddites who will never read this comment” is probably more representative of the experience digital evangelists have in publishing.

John is experienced enough to know that in the digital domain, some things work, and some don’t - and acknowledging this situation (like publishing books) is at the heart of a digital strategy. Whilst John’s piece is thoughtful, I have to agree with Mr Charkin that it’s hard to get an angle on exactly what John’s argument with Sara is. If it’s just that publishing is OK - then this is what Sara was railing against, and it’s a bit depressing, given John’s position, and could come across as snark (which charge Mr Charkin makes at John).

Sara’s piece was clearly meant as a provocation to the apathetic and inert forces in publishing, but, rather than provoking fierce debate, has actually (mostly) garnered cheers of support from people who - from my position - it is very hard to see effecting the sorts of change the manifesto calls for. As such, the support feels a little empty.

I am a little dispirited that Sara’s digital manifesto has failed to ignite any serious debate around it: the fact remains that it is still very hard to persuade publishers that digital matters as much as we - the commenters on (and authors of) this blog - believe.

Whilst there may be digital strategies being formulated throughout the business, a highly visible, centralised, and successful execution of these strategies is (I think) absent. Where are the companies doing what OReilly, Harlequin and others have done in the states? Just trying - winning some and losing others - across the business?

Whilst our American partners make a success of digital (or at least fold digital into each area of their business) we barely recognise that in our (trade and) popular media, reporting, retailing and reviews/recommendation - everything about books - have slowly been matched with news about digital’s inexorable rise. As headlines about iPhones, Kindles, Amazon and broadband proliferate - where is publishing’s response? One argument - Sara’s, and mine - is that on the whole, that response is with, with one voice, with its head firmly in the sand. All of us agree here that that is not where publishing’s head should be at right now.

The survival of the book and single author and the new phenomenon Lloyd discusses are not mutually exclusive but nor are they independent. The publishing industry seems slow to come to grips with new opportunities and challenges of the ‘digital era’ whereas others have already begun to grasp and capitalise on them.

Much more debate, like that sparked by this manifesto, is needed to ensure that the publishing industry remains relevant and central to the creation and distribution of written material. Admittedly it was a provocative piece but in managing to spark some debate this seems justified.

P.S. Is the remark about ‘driving people to your blog’ meant to be clever or simply rude?

P.P.S. I should declare an interest. I have worked with Sara and think she’s doing a great job for Macmillan.

One of the reasons I wrote is was to stir people in the publishing industry out of their lethargy a bit and provoke some debate.

I guess I thought that writing something along the lines of, “Don’t worry too much. Everything will probably be OK. Let’s all continue assuming books won’t be affected by digital even though every other aspect of our lifestyle pursuits has been turned on its head. And let’s just bury our heads in the sand and ignore the potential power of Google, Amazon and the like to disintermediate publishers” wouldn’t have been particularly stimulating.

Ask anyone who knows me to offer you one word that describes me and they will probably say, “Hopelessly optimistic.” (OK. That’s two words). So, I didn’t write this to be ‘gloomy’ or to ‘doom-monger’.

I wrote it because I am passionate about books, about the future of writing and reading, and because I believe publishers do fulfil very useful functions but that to continue to do so they need to engage much more actively both in the digital debate and the digital landscape.

My point about books becoming more ‘porous’ isn’t designed to imply that all books will seep endlessly into each other or that there will no longer be a beginning, middle and end to a really good story; more that publishers (and indeed old school book reviewers) have to date largely been too arrogant to recognise the significance and passion of the online ‘conversation’ that is going on around and between and about books. They just haven’t engaged with it.

I won’t answer all your points one by one, but I did want to respond to your post. I acknowledge that what I have said sometimes appears extreme; but I was trying to explore the extreme possibilities in order to push people out of their comfort zones a bit.