Comments on: What’s the Curation Algorithm, Kenneth?

By: Planner Reads » Blog Archive » Everything You Thought You Knew is Wrong

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:13:45 +0000

[...] weeks ago, I praised Harlequin for their new digital-only imprint, Carina Press, noting that its business model, while not [...]

By: Ryan Chapman

Ryan Chapman — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:37:20 +0000

Some good food for thought. I agree that we need to take the ripple effect into account here. Too many prognosticators see early steps as the final result, and forget how competitive the digital sphere is.

By: Mark Barrett

Mark Barrett — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:17:27 +0000

Solid post. Thanks for putting all this in context.

I'm gunshy about intersections where idealism meets savvy marketing, but on the face of it Carina Press is taking the right approach. I hope the economics allow them to follow through, and I hope the parent company doesn't bleed Carina dry if it starts to profit.

By: Dan Holloway

Dan Holloway — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:06:22 +0000

” people creating excitement about writing who are more interested in giving power to readers and writers than obtaining power for their own jollies.” Lou, exactly! I wish we could all agree that we want readers to be excited about stories – ours or anyone else's. It's when people don't seem to endorse that but go on about abstractions you've got to wonder just who's in it for the glory – the derided “curators” or the writers.

@Jenn – I know I use the word curator in a different sense from lots of people. I DO think it's a valid use of the word, but the reason I do it is because of when and where I grew up. In the 90s curators WERE gatekeepres, sure: but they were gatekeepers who let exciting new stuff in: no gatekeepers who kept it out! And the fact, whether we like that word or not, is that if Nick Serota hadn't pushed the Turner Prize like he did, people would never have asked each other at the bus stop whether an unmade bed could be art.

What worries me sometimes when I read posts like Mike's – and I have a lot of time for Mike because his DIY attitude is exactly mine – is a lack of historical perspective – we HAVE been here before. It's just some pundits would rather pretend it's al knew (thanks to Guy for the reminder of this earlier).

And Jenn, Guy's a smart cookie who's got me sussed – the point of my post wasn't to beg for gatekeepers to come in and police us. It was a call for we writers to get out and whip up a storm (but to recognise, in order to do the job more efficiently) that in doing so we're being curators. As an aside, it's so exciting to have so many people on board at Year zero with the energy and attitude you've got.

By: Dan Holloway

Dan Holloway — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:55:21 +0000

Yes, Moriah, that was my point. At the risk of patronising the mainstream, we can't expect them to be first to leap. And in a way it takes MORE guts to leap second when you're admitting yuo're on a bandwagon (but the other mainstreamers aren't doing it).

You know, I'm sure, that I don't think traditional publishers are the future, but you've got to applaud them for trying to be - and maybe some will emerge in new forms as a result.

None of which means I don't think a whole host of indies are doing it better and more excitingly.

By: Dan Holloway

Dan Holloway — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:51:52 +0000

agree 100% Guy. This is one of the problems with beig a signed author. We need – as authors but in this context as we try to figure out what works in the new landscape – to have the freedom to fail and try again. And again.

By: Lou

Lou — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:07:18 +0000

Right, there is no escaping curators because they grow like weeds in any environment. Which is why it is important to have people creating excitement about writing who are more interested in giving power to readers and writers than obtaining power for their own jollies. And if the internet and the masses are so wild and uncontrollable and powerful, then there aren't any curators (good or bad) who are going to get in the way.

By: Lou

Lou — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:48:56 +0000

By: Guy LeCharles Gonzalez

Guy LeCharles Gonzalez — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:00:12 +0000

"Wisdom of the crowds" is pretty much bullshit, and every tool that's claimed to level the playing field has either been gamed or corrupted, usually just trading one powerful gatekeeper for another.

e.g.: Yahoo used to be King of the link economy (before it was even called that); then it was Google, and if you believe some people, now it's Twitter.

Has the game really changed in any significant way over the past 20 years, though, or is it just the players?

By: Guy LeCharles Gonzalez

Guy LeCharles Gonzalez — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:53:45 +0000

While a not new business model by any stretch, it IS a great leap for a traditional publisher to make. The general assumption seems to be that traditional publishers (aka old media) don't want to transform their business models, and there's rarely a recognition that it's just not as simple as clicking the “Print to Acrobat Distiller” button! (Yes, I'm being facetious. Well, a little…)

Not to shift into sales/soapbox mode, but that's the reason Digital Book World exists. We've heard enough talk about the new technology; let's get to the strategies for implementing that technology that don't involve laying off half your workforce and ignoring the fact that 80-95% of your business is still in traditional formats and channels!