Disrupt This
2022-12-12
It's been a minute since I've heard people complaining about Amazon disrupting publishing. With the lawsuits about price fixing being revisited1, I'd like to discuss what market disruption is, why I believe Amazon did not disrupt publishing, and where I think disruption occurred.
The concept of disruptive innovation comes from Clayton Christensen and Joseph L. Power in a Harvard Business Review article2. Christensen describes two forms of disruption - "low-end" and "new market3.
With low-end disruption, an innovation with lesser performance than existing products attracts buyers who don't need the capabilities of high-end goods. The innovation gets a foothold in the market and either continues to improve, sometimes supplanting the originals.
New market disruption happens when an innovation serves customers whom existing products didn't serve. The underserved market segment spreads as the innovation improves, again, sometimes threatening the originals.
This idea intersects with Amazon's business in two ways.
First, Kindle Direct Publishing opened a wide door for self-publishers. Previous iterations involving Create Space and other paper producers gave entrée to market participation on the Amazon storefront. KDP made ebook production simple.
Second, The Kindle (introduced in 2007) made reading ebooks frictionless for a wide swath of readers. If KDP opened the door for writers, Kindle blew them off for readers when the devices reached mainstream adoption levels for heavy readers in late in 2010. Just a few weeks later, the device entered the mainstream for general readers.
Shortly thereafter, the noise started about Amazon disrupting publishing4.
But disruption involves under served customers.
While publishers license writers' work, they never seem to lack for opportunities to buy. Writers, some represented by agents, line up at the slush pile for the opportunity to license their work to publishers. So few get purchased it's become cliché. Writers collecting rejection notices like trophies they've won in the war to get published. Some paper their walls with them and argue about how many you need to collect before you're considered a real writer.
Publishers don't seem to be underserved.
Perhaps contrary to popular belief, neither are writers. Writers purchase software and computers. They buy word processors and outliners. They don't lack for the tools they need to write. One might argue that they have too many. In this discussion, writers are not customers. They're producers. They're not underserved. They don't lack for things to buy. They lack places to sell. Or they did before KDP and Kindle and the expanding universe of online bookstores.
Following the chain down to bookstores, bookstores could be disrupted only if publishers didn't sell to them. One valid argument can be made that bookstores are not offered a wide enough selection. They're forced to buy whatever the publisher will sell them. Books from women authors? Books from under represented voice? Nope. There's a reason they're referred to as "under represented."
It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bookstores don't order them because publishers don't offer them. Publishers don't offer those books because bookstores don't order them. Prophecy becomes policy and those voices become "I love it but I can't sell it" manuscript rejections.
Bookstores get squeezed by publishers returns policies. A common policy allows bookstores to return unsold stock within 90 days - the "fresh produce" model. If it hasn't sold in three months, it goes back. The policy has been the bane of series writers for decades. By the time the second or third book hit the shelves, the first book had already been returned. Nobody wants to start on book two so "readers don't like series" became common wisdom.
From that standpoint, bookstores might be under served, but bookstores - by and large - shun books that fall outside their normal distribution channels. They have good business reasons for that. I'm not convinced that bookstores are under served as much as economically squeezed between a rock - publishers - and a hard place - readers who want books they can't find on the shelves but can find on their desktops and phones.
What does that leave? Readers. The last link in the chain. The ultimate source of all revenue and the reason writers write. Without readers - and the follow on industries like film and tv - none of this exists.
Amazon and the flood of self-publishing didn't disrupt publishing. They disrupted reading.
Before KDP, Nook, iBooks, Kobo, and the rest made ebooks common and easily available, readers had to wait for the stores to open, get to them and, too often, found the same selection of titles they had already exhausted the previous week. Or the previous month. They're left with whatever remains on the shelf. Whatever the bookstore ordered in the last quarter that hadn't sold. Whatever the publisher acquired the year (or more) before and offered to the bookstores in the latest quarterly catalog.
After 2010, readers no longer had to wait for the bookstore to open before they could get another book to read. They didn't even have to get out of bed or get up from their chair. For heavy readers - those who siphoned up five or more books a week - ebooks became a boon, mana from the literary gods. For general readers, they represent a fast, easy way to pick up a copy of the book their friends kept harping about. The one that wasn't on the bookshelf the last time they went in.
For readers who simply wanted something else, they became a lifeline as self-publishing challenged the status quo. Books by marginalized voices proliferated. Books from women. LGBTQ+ authors writing books representing themselves.
Sure, a lot of the books had flaws. A lot still do. Crappy, amateur covers. A complete disregard for grammar and spelling. Typos abound.
To be fair, typos are pretty common in the mainstream press, too. Their books are far from the pristine field of text many people believe.
So, where's the disruption?
The low-end disruption Christensen talks about happened as the ebook ecosystem evolved and self-publishers became more polished and sophisticated.
In the early days, it was good enough for the people who wouldn't or couldn't get to the bookstores. It was good enough for those readers looking for the stories they couldn't find on the shelves. Those readers turned to the low-end innovation - ebooks - because they didn't need the high-end - physical - books to find entertainment.
The new market disruption happened when millions of readers discovered that stories they'd never seen before became available. Apocryphal stories about men reading romance (GASP!) without being embarrassed because nobody could see the covers on their ereaders. (A stupid by-product of toxic masculinity, but I digress.) New markets developed for self-published LGBTQ+ and women's fiction. For stories representing minorities and other under represented voices. For stories that weren't the same often-formulaic stories they'd been offered before.
Those stories are beginning to show up in publishers' catalogs and on bookstore shelves. They're hitting the big time with the book banning contingent trying to silence the voices that had little or no presence before.
Why? Not because Amazon disrupted publishing.
But because Amazon disrupted reading.
1. Albanese, A. Amazon, Big Five E-Book Price Fixing Suit Is Revived (Nov 22, 2022)
2. Bower, J. L., and C. M. Christensen. "Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave." Harvard Business Review 73, no. 1 (January–February 1995): 43–53.
3. Christensen, Clayton M. (2003). The innovator's solution : creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business Press. ISBN 978-1-57851-852-4.
4. Streitfield, D. (2011). "Amazon Signs Up Authors, Writing Publishers Out of Deal"New York Times
Previous: |
Up Next: |