Advertisements

Archive

Tag Archives: verleger

ValueCheck Inkjet Printing.001

Die Buch-Krise ist größer als angenommen. Dem Buchmarkt sind von 2013 bis 2017 6,4 Millionen Käufer abhanden gekommen. Grafik: Andreas Weber. Foto: ZDF, Mainz.

 

#Think!Paper—  Edition 1, Volume 4

Von Andreas Weber, Head of Value

Die Frankfurter Buchmesse offenbart durch ihre Stärken die Schwächen der Verlage. Für fünf Tage im Jahr passiert das, was Leser sich wünschen, aber sonst nicht bekommen können: Persönlicher Kontakt mit Autoren, Büchermachern und tausenden anderen Buch-Liebhabern aus aller Welt. Somit ist man Teil des Geschehens.

Im wahren Leben ist das anders. Verlage kennen ihre Kunden nicht. Und schätzen deren Bedürfnisse falsch ein, was zu einer existentiellen Krise führt, die aktuell schlimmer denn je erscheint. (Anm.: In Deutschland sind dem Markt in den Jahren 2013 bis 2017 6,4 Millionen Buchkäufer verloren gegangen; das ist ein Minus von 18 %; Quelle: ZDF-Bericht vom 10.10.2018).

 


Die Umsätze mit e-Books liegen in Deutschland auf niedrigstem Niveau. Quelle: Statista.de


 

Der Fundamental-Irrtum der Verlagswelt (neben der Tatsache, dass das Kerngeschäft Print nicht innoviert resp. transformiert wird, sondern der Fokus nur auf Senkung der Herstellungskosten liegt): Nicht das e-Book wurde zum Feind des Gedruckten. Vielmehr sind es Zeit und Gelegenheit. Leser wenden sich den Plattformen und Blogs zu, die Inhalte anders, v. a. multimedial, per Movies und Bildwelten, inhaltlich kurz, prägnant aufbereiten und das ‚Konsumieren‘ einfach und angenehm machen; gerade auch, weil Inhalte sich damit an den Regeln der Mobile-Welt ausrichten. 

Hinzukommt: Die Menschen schätzen immer mehr, sich mit anderen auszutauschen und Konversationen zu betreiben. 

Ergo: Buchmesse top, Verlagswelt flop! 

#transformation #publishers # fmb18 #PDA #ThinkPaper

Lesetips

Zum Start der Frankfurter Buchmesse 2018 erschien die neueste Onlinestudie von ARD und ZDF.

Siehe auch den Kommentar von Beate Frees und Wolfgang Koch: „Onlinestudie von ARD und ZDF: Über 90 Prozent der Deutschen sind online“

Und: Sieben Fakten zum deutschen Buchmarkt (zdf-mediathek)

 

ARD-ZDF-Onlinestudie-Infografik.jpg

 


English Abstract

#ValueCheck: Potemkin villages?

The Frankfurt Book Fair / Frankfurt Book Fair 2018 reveals the weaknesses of publishers due to its strengths.

For five days a year it’s possible to get, what readers want, but otherwise can not get: personal contact with authors, book makers and thousands of other book lovers from around the world. The beauty: you are part of the action.

It’s different in real life. Publishers do not know their customers. And therefore misjudge their needs, leading to an existential crisis that is currently worse than ever.

The fundamental error of the publishing world (in addition to the fact that the core business of print is not innovated or transformed, but the focus is only on reducing production costs): Not the e-book became the enemy of the printed book. Rather, it is time and opportunity. Readers turn to the platforms and blogs for different content, via  multimedia, movies and image worlds, short in terms of content, concise processing and making ‘consuming’ simple and enjoyable; also because content aligns with the rules of the mobile world.

In addition, people are increasingly appreciating the opportunity to interact with others and to engage in conversations.

Ergo: Book Fair top, publishing world flop!

#transformation #publishers # fmb18 #PDA #ThinkPaper

 


 

Jürgen Boos 2018 IMG_4961

Juergen Boos, Direktor der Frankfurter Buchmesse, will im Interview beschwichtigen: Auch wenn die Buchkäufer-Zahlen rückläufig sind, gelesen würde so viel wie immer. — Foto: Screenshot aus ZDF-Interview vom 10.10.2018

 

Kommunikation will gelernt sein.

Kommentar von Christian Kopocz via XING

Sehr gut auf den Punkt gebracht, verehrter Andreas Weber. 

Verlage kennen die Kunden nicht. Das wird ein wichtiger Punkt sein. Vergleicht man mit den Teststores von Amazon. Ein Beispiel: Das Geschäft in Chicago zeigt prominent die Bestseller aus dem Viertel/regional bezogen und aus Online- und Offlinewelt gesammelte Informationen. Das macht nicht nur neugierig, es macht auch Sinn.

Verlage, die noch immer lieber in Massenproduktionen zu günstigstem Preis und einer Platzierung im Buchhandel kalkulieren, ohne einen Weg zu finden, die Informationen der Leser zu sammeln und vor allem sinnvoll zu nutzen, die haben einfach keine Zukunft. 

Doch es passiert einfach noch immer zu wenig. Perspektivlosigkeit, Alter, allgemeine Situation. Alles Ausreden für fehlenden Willen und Fähigkeit.

In der Tat ist der persönliche Kontakt schwer. Da haben es Verlage noch schwerer als der Buchhandel. Auch hier findet man nur selten wirkliche Konversation. Lesungen allein sind nicht das Mittel. 

Doch Kommunikation will gelernt sein. Da war wieder das böse Wort. LERNEN. Da liegt ein weiteres Problem. Lebenslanges Lernen. Tut nicht weh, doch wie oft soll man das noch sagen und beweisen?

#handel #buch #buchhandel #book #transformation #learning #change #customercentric

 

Bildschirmfoto 2018-10-10 um 13.41.42.png

 


 

Advertisements
Newspapers dead caused by publishers.001

© 2014 by Value Communication AG, Mainz/Germany

 

By Sudarsha Rambaran, Value Art+Communication Fellow, Mainz
(This blog post is part of a new Value iBook “The Real Value of Print” which will be available soon)

 

ValueLearnings

• Beyond craziness? — The Woeful Tale of the Newspaper and its War with the Internet

• Publishers’ strange behavior (since decades): they ignore the needs of their customers

• The biggest enemy of print & publishing are newspaper publishers and their partners in the traditional media business

 

Five years ago, in an interview with Horizont, media expert and author of What would Google do?” Jeff Jarvis made some visionary comments about the future of the newspaper industry. He stated that society is being massively restructured because of the internet, however, Google is not the instigator of this process as many believe, but rather a result of it. These days, if you cannot be searched on the net, you cannot be found. The mass market for newspapers may be dead, but there is still a niche for them in the world. The news itself must change: it has to be tailored to target audiences, which is why regional newspapers can benefit so much from Google. Google itself is currently changing their whole marketing approach. They are concentrating on making the advertising relevant to local markets by personalizing the stories (nice example here). They no longer want to mass produce messages that work on a global level, and it’s working brilliantly!

The advantages of the online world for newspapers are many; low costs, cheap distribution, fast updates, and discussions with the readers. There was the nice example with the New York Times. They took down the paywall on their  site and their internet traffic rose by 40%, which started a snowball effect: they earned more money from advertisements, and they moved up the list on the Google search page, which led to even more readers.

Currently, the German regional newspapers are rebelling against Google, because they believe it doesn’t help their sites, especially on the Google News side. One prominent example of this is the “Braunschweiger Zeitung”, which has abandoned the Google News feature. Their  reasoning for this, in my opinion, made little sense: they wanted to show their confidence and independence from Google. They also want Google News to suffer for it; if many regional newspapers leave it, Google will have a problem. Yet in reality it would be their problem if they can’t be found! The whole story reminded me of this:

On the other hand, the Zeitung went about this in a clever way, as they started a massive marketing campaign in order to raise awareness and advertise the newspaper. However, They could have done the marketing campaign without leaving Google, and Google would only have supported it! The marketing campaign did increase the visits to their website by 27%, though, but I still don’t see how leaving Google helped with this.

So the big question we asked ourselves here was: why blame Google for the decline of the newspaper industry when all it’s doing is helping? (And why not Twitter, which would have made far more sense?). The facts:

  • Google is a great source of promotion. We send online news publishers a billion clicks a month from Google News and more than three billion extra visits from our other services, such as Web Search and iGoogle. That is 100,000 opportunities a minute to win loyal readers and generate revenue—for free.
  • In terms of copyright, another bone of contention, we only show a headline and a couple of lines from each story. If readers want to read on they have to click through to the newspaper’s Web site. (The exception are stories we host through a licensing agreement with news services.) And if they wish, publishers can remove their content from our search index, or from Google News.
  • The claim that we’re making big profits on the back of newspapers also misrepresents the reality. In search, we make our money primarily from advertisements for products. Someone types in digital camera and gets ads for digital cameras. A typical news search—for Afghanistan, say—may generate few if any ads. The revenue generated from the ads shown alongside news search queries is a tiny fraction of our search revenue.

Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google Inc, writing for the Wall Street Journal

It all speaks for itself, really. Readers also don’t necessarily want to read newspapers solely on digital platforms, as many in the newspaper industry fear. The actual percentage of people who do exclusively want digital content is at 10-12%.

“News is not one-size-fits-all” – Jeff Jarvis

The newspapers do not just have a problem with the Internet, they also have a content problem. They need to change their approach by tailoring news to target audiences rather than trying to reach everyone, which is why regional newspapers, like the Braunschweiger Zeitung are so important today. Dr. Andreas Vogel put it quite nicely in a study:

“Bloß die Verlage glauben, [dass sie] mit einem Einheitsprodukt alle Leser [gewinnen können]”

Roughly translated, this means that only the newspapers themselves believe that they can reach all types of readers by creating one mass product.

Dr. Vogel believes that one possible solution to this content problem is to differentiate the product by offering different versions of it. Not too many, however; perhaps three or four intelligently created versions, which can be decided on by polling the readers and asking them about their interests. These versions might be smaller/thinner than the original edition, and cheaper. This is a great idea, as it is more personal, which is so important these days, and it views the buyer as a reader/consumer. Many newspapers seem to ignore this; fact is, what might be academically recognized as quality journalism may not be something the reader can cohere. Newspapers need to connect to their readers, or at least write pieces that their readers can relate to.

Now back to the evil that is Google, according to publishing companies. A German organization, VG Media, own by a number of media companies like Axel Springer SE, sued Google for copyright reasons; they claimed that Google was stealing from them by showing short snippets of their articles on the search page. The result was a law, called the Leistungsschutzrecht, which forbids Google from showing these snippets (it is rather vaguely written, though). The result of all of this ridiculousness was this: October 1st, 2014, Google announced that it would no longer show the snippets, instead just the name of the article and maybe the author. They don’t even show the paper’s logo on the search page. And the papers are crying wolf at Google again. At the end of the day, what really happened is that the newspapers blamed Google for the problems they were having (and still are). They were simply afraid that Google was taking business away from them and thus making more money. Whereas in reality, Google only promoted and linked to their content, thus delivering readers to them on a silver platter! The PR brochure promoting this stated that “If someone wants to use our content, they have to ask.” It’s pretty easy translate this into what they really meant, and German blogger Stefan Niggemeier did so flawlessly: “Google must use it and pay”. Now Google isn’t using it or paying, and they’re left crying in the corner because they got what they wanted; Google doesn’t showcase their content anymore. And they will lose clicks.

Newspapers dead caused by publishers.001

%d bloggers like this: