Generation Gap: publishing and the on-demand culture

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

My feeling is that the object or experience is the main attraction. The social media aspects a distant second.

Helen

Social *media*? Definitely.
But there is more to social than Facebook, Twitter, et al.
And that drives *some* consumption. Like the teen horror flicks, weekend football parties, sports bars...
It is in the personal, private sphere that the old mass consumption rules are (thankfully) breaking down.

[hardcastle]

I don't think it's a generational gap, it's a personality gap.

People who consume for others and with others are likely to keep doing so, even though they have access to a back catalog of practically endless media. Older generations are quick to assume that younger generations are by nature more extroverted and socially connected, but I believe that's just the slice of the population that always wanted connectivity getting it, and the rest of the younger generation getting swept under the rug for the purpose of this generalization.

Meanwhile, people who consume for themselves, without any motive of communication, will probably not spend much effort trying to keep up with the times. Why would you? Aside from the world becoming saturated with spoilers, there's no downside to waiting six months/years for practically anything.

And we all have our particular tastes and sometimes something just hits that button in a way nothing else has. Jupiter Ascending is an upcoming space opera film I'll likely see within the first few opening days, and it will likely be the only movie that I do so for this year. Few other movies have attempted a true cinematic space opera, and it's something I didn't know I craved so heavily until I watched the trailer. But very few pieces of new content can make my mind spin like that.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by hardcastle

I don't think it's a generational gap, it's a personality gap.

People who consume for others and with others are likely to keep doing so, even though they have access to a back catalog of practically endless media. Older generations are quick to assume that younger generations are by nature more extroverted and socially connected, but I believe that's just the slice of the population that always wanted connectivity getting it, and the rest of the younger generation getting swept under the rug for the purpose of this generalization.

Meanwhile, people who consume for themselves, without any motive of communication, will probably not spend much effort trying to keep up with the times. Why would you? Aside from the world becoming saturated with spoilers, there's no downside to waiting six months/years for practically anything.

And we all have our particular tastes and sometimes something just hits that button in a way nothing else has. Jupiter Ascending is an upcoming space opera film I'll likely see within the first few opening days, and it will likely be the only movie that I do so for this year. Few other movies have attempted a true cinematic space opera, and it's something I didn't know I craved so heavily until I watched the trailer. But very few pieces of new content can make my mind spin like that.

Although I agree for the most part, my generation avidly consumed with others. We had for example, the Beatles and the Singing Nun. We had Mash and the Monkeys and other shows although I don't recall anyone discussing them socially. We had great books, great movies, and great food.

The big socializing discussions were IIRC more likely to be about soap operas, which I steered clear of.

Nowadays some people get more out of a movie by discussing its subtleties and nuances in person, although I can't see the appeal of most tweets. They all seem to say either awesome or sucks. A veritable babble of sameness although I am no doubt missing something subtle here.

I am too old perhaps to understand the phenomena.

Helen

[Jessica Lares]

Good post hardcastle, I agree with that, it is a personality thing. I am the kind of person that consumes for myself. I don't watch or read something to analyze it, I do it for enjoyment, and/or for knowledge.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I'm not sure that this is a generation gap, I think it's more of a general expectation gap regardless of your age. The marketplace is changing.

Hence, 1-click shopping. Putting stuff in shopping carts and checking out? Pffft, that is sooo '90s.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Hence, 1-click shopping. Putting stuff in shopping carts and checking out? Pffft, that is sooo '90s.

Well, the patent expires in 2016, so it will soon be showing up everywhere...but they won't be able to call it 1-click. That is trademarked until the sun goes nova.

[petrucci]

The last part of the linked article focused on metrics. My experience has been that the publishing industry uses metrics, such as best seller lists, as an advertising tool to help sell books. In this world of on-demand publishing, best sellers do not have quite the same meaning culturally. Buyers are no longer forced into consuming a narrow range of books, based on popularity/availability. Today's best sellers may not happen to sell as well as ones in the past, as consumers are not corralled into the best seller and some purchase other books. Thus, a current best seller may not have the universal cultural appeal that a former best seller may have had.

Publishers and retailers have not come up with an effective replacement for best seller lists. I know that shopping for books at Amazon is nothing like shopping at a physical store. The online experience does not give me the freedom that I have in a physical store. Online I cannot browse through the books alphabetically by author or title. Conversely online shopping does not provide the guidance that a brick and mortar store provides. Online there are no sales associates who know me to recommend a book. Amazon still tries to corral me into certain purchases. However, I feel that such efforts are shallow, and relate to nothing more than business dealings with the publisher. Quite simply the books that they are pushing are not relevant to me.

[fjtorres]

"Bestseller" listing is no longer meaningful because all it captures is sales volume during a narrow window, usually at or shortly after release. In the olden days this mattered because once the release window (usually three months) everything but the biggest seller became a lot harder to get; this forced even mildly interested to buy during the window. Any sales outside the release window were deprecated so slow steady sellers never reached bestsellerdom, even if their cumulative sales were superior to early spike sellers.

Nowadays, with easy backlist availability online, even pbook buyers are released from the need to buy within the launch window. And then there are the "eternally" available ebooks to further extend availability. The obvious result is that with the pressure to buy early even big sellers are seeing lower early peak sales because consumers now buy at their convenience, not the publisher's.

A side effect of the lowered peak sales bar to achieve bestseller status is that it becomes easier (and viable) to game the bestseller ranking system for fun and profit, which further devalues the ranking. In fact, the label itself no longer tells knowledgeable consumers anything meaningful.

That is exactly what has happened to broadcast TV; the abundance of choice drives viewers to shows and channels they actively like instead of shows they don't object to. Less viewers for the genetic shows but lower expectations and greater survivability for niche shows.

This fall, we're going to see this effect in action over at the CW if, as is likely, they pick up the new FLASH series. A generation ago, CBS ran an earlier incarnation that was critically acclaimed, enjoyed by loyal viewers numbering in the millions yet the show was rated a failure by CBS and preempted repeatedly and eventually cancelled. Not becsuse it was bad but because it never ranked higher than third in its time slot. Of course, the fact that it ran opposite the Cosby show and The Simpsons wasn't deemed excusable in those pre-dvd, pre-DVD set days.
Fast forward to the near future: the new show is guaranteed to be rated an instant hit though it likely will never match the raw numbers of its precursor. First, because today the bar for success is set lower, second CW expectations for their shows are based on targeted demographics, not raw numbers, and third because the show is being launched as a companion and complement to the very successful ARROW. Indeed, a good chunk of the show's cast has already been screentested, in character, on ARROW. With that kind of platform, the odds of hitting the target audience go way up. And that is because TV studios and networks have adjusted to the on-demand world.

In the world of TV, raw release date numbers are the dominant metric.
The dominant metric, instead, is *who* is watching. Teens, young adults, mature viewers? Consistently hit a specific demographic and the network will find and air ads targeted at those viewers. If the audience and ad numbers hold up, the show endures. Even with apparently low viewership numbers. The latter is because the networks are more aware of modern viewing patterns and are adjusting. Go to Hulu and you'll find some shows listing five episodes for viewing, others listing season-to-date, and a few listing the entire series to date. (Fourteen years worth for one of the LAW AND ORDER shows.) And its not just Hulu; most networks are streaming their shows through mobile and stb apps and websites. Where and when people watch now matters less than making sure they watch. And watch the ads attached. Or paid a fee.
As long as they get money or eyeballs or both the TV folks are becoming very flexible. They're not yet quite where consumers really want them but they're getting there.

Publishing, on the other hand hasn't really started to adjust.
They don't have suitable metrics, much less a vision of where they need to be for long term survival. So far its been just short term thinking about propping up quarterly profits and angsting about the success of one of their distributors. About protecting the status quo. And way too much focus on release windows and spike sellers and very little on the psychology of on-demand culture.

Of course, just as the on-demand culture has been good in the TV world for status quo challengers, the on-demand culture is proving to be good for indie publisher. If the big guys won't move, the small fry will colonize the new world.