Technology is not inherently good

I’ve never meet a self-proclaimed geek who understands this. Technology is not something that’s inherently good, where more of it solves more problems and improving it improves our lot. If we implement servile AIs and pervasive automation, that won’t be used to create a society of abundance and leisure but to make the rich richer while the unemployed starve. Technology is something that needs to be applied and generally reflect the economy and culture it was developed in.

This means that a society geared towards inequality and inequity will use technology to amplify them. This means that a police state will use it to decrease the freedom and privacy of the citizens. Theocracies will use technology to hunt unbelievers.

Technology does not make the unfair fair and it does not right wrongs. It is a tool and the only way to change the world is to first change the people who wield it.

ETA: Athena Andreadis made this here excellent point over on twitter:

Administrative note on baldurbjarnason.com and feeds

This just a short note to say that I’m planning on doing most of my blogging here at Studio Tendra. I will be pointing the RSS feed at www.baldurbjarnason.com at the one on this blog from now on so some of you might get double entries if you are subscribed to both.

I’ll put a similar note up on www.baldurbjarnason.com whenever I get around to it 🙂

Oh, and I wrote a blog post over on futurebook.net on Amazon-y stuff and nonsense.

The inefficiencies of joy

The following is from Joseph A. Tainter’s paper Social complexity and sustainability (2006):

Subsistence farmers also tend to underproduce, so that labor is underutilized and inefficiently deployed. Posposil (1963) observed Kapauku Papuans of New Guinea, for example, working only about 2 h a day at agriculture. Robert Carneiro found that Kuikuru men in the Amazon Basin spend 2 h each day at agricultural work and 90 min fishing. The remainder of the day is spent in social activities or at rest. With a little extra effort such people could produce much more than they do (Sahlins, 1972)

And:

Even under the harsh conditions in which they lived, these Russian peasants underproduced. Those able to produce the most actually underproduced the most. They valued leisure more highly than the marginal return to extra labor.

Now, I’m normally a fan of Tainter’s thinking, more clearly than anybody else he has outlined how impossible a position our society is in regarding sustainability and energy use, but this quote highlights just how inhumane modern thinking has become.

Walk into your average pub and ask everybody in there if they’d be willing to accept a ten to fifteen years shorter life expectancy in exchange for a lifetime where you’d only have to work two to four hours a day, half of which is fishing.

I’d bet that most of the people in there would think you’re either describing a paradise or their ideal retirement plan.

And that’s if you buy into the idea that you’d have a much shorter life expectancy. It’s likely that the life expectancy of an adult wouldn’t be that different from that of an adult in the States, for example. What would probably skew the numbers would be a high infant mortality rate.

People want to ‘underproduce’ and lead a life of leisure.

This is what modernity and industrialisation has brought us: more work and less free time.

Of course technology and science has brought us a lot of joy, but the end goal should be to create a society where nobody has to work more than four hours a day and can spend most of their time at leisure, where being more productive means having more time for fun.

That’s what we should be aiming for, not a society that tries to maximise the productive value of every single person, where we’re treated like nothing more than cogs in the economic machine.

Winner takes all versus the Matthew effect

Winner takes all

There’s a vague notion going around. For some it’s a suspicion, for others it has become a certainty, the rest of us worry and hope it’s wrong.

It’s the idea that the internet exaggerates the sales inequality of media markets. That, by massively enabling word of mouth and social networking, the web means that we will only get mega-bestsellers or flops, with little to nothing in between. The market becomes just bestsellers leaving the long tail with scraps.

In theory, this should be a simple question to answer. Somebody with access to detailed numbers from the market could calculate the Gini coefficient for book sales revenue over the years. If it used to be lower and is now almost one (or higher, since it’s theoretically possible for books to have negative revenue through returns) then we probably have a winner takes all situation on our hands.

If, however the Gini coefficient has remained the same or stays broadly equal to society’s income Gini coefficient, then we probably just have a regular “the world isn’t fair, boohoo” situation and there’s no need to blame the internet.

My suspicion is that the book market is only about as unequal as the economy in general, that the sales difference between J.K. Rowling’s books and the rest is about the same as the wealth difference between the top 1% and the plebeian masses (us).

But, something has changed!

Everything changes, all the time. In uncontrolled circumstances you can’t reliably map specific changes and claim that one causes the other. A lot of the time when we do that we get it the wrong way around (if we’re lucky), and end up claiming that wet pavements cause rain.

There is a related concept that might explain some of the sales patterns we’re seeing but, again, it’s hard to come up with conclusive proof given that big data lets us see what we want in the numbers and a market doesn’t lend itself to double blind experiments.

It is something that has been observed in plenty of other systems.

The Matthew effect

The idea is very simple: the rich get richer and the easiest way to get more popular is to be popular in the first place.

How it would work in a market could be described like this: every sale of a copy of a book increases the probability of selling other copies independently of other variables in the market.

If you couple it with Reeds Law which states that “the utility of large networks, particularly social networks, can scale exponentially with the size of the network” then you get this:

If a book has sold twice the number of copies of another book, it will have four (22) times the sales clout of the lesser selling title. A book that has sold ten times more will have a hundred times the sales clout. And so on.

What does this mean for publishing?

If this theory is even remotely true this has several major consequences:

  • Minor and random variations early on in a title’s sales history can snowball it into a bestseller. There won’t be any logical rhyme or reason for this and predicting these successes will be impossible because they are completely stochastic.
  • Hopping onto known successes (i.e. pushing an already big snowball further down the hill) will have much bigger payoffs than building up sales from scratch. Why go with the lottery ticket probabilities of a new author or completely new title when you can earn so much more by turning a one million dollar bestseller into a ten million dollar blockbuster?
  • Since the big payoffs are governed by randomness and the moderate payoffs by hard work, publishers have an incentive to cut down on the hard work (editorial, acquisition, design) and focus exclusively on the logistics of printing and shipping shit-tons of Fifty Shades of Grey (or whatever the next big thing is).
  • Self-publishers and small publishers become responsible for the research, development, and discovery of new successful titles. And once a title is a proven thing, a big publisher will swoop in and buy it up, promising the author more money than they’d get doing it alone or with a small publisher.
  • The big losers are small to medium-sized publishers who do all of the R&D but don’t have the resources to scale sales up into the stratosphere when they hit a success.
  • The winners are self-publishers and self-pub coops who can build sales up the slow and hard way for as long as it takes and keep a lion’s share of the upside in the unlikely event that they do find a major success. The bargaining position of an already successful author has never been this strong in the history of publishing.

Or, of course, it could all just be wild speculation based on a wild theory with no basis in reality. Time will tell.

What you people read (on my websites)

One of the basic problems with website ‘analytics’ is that a lot of the data is just noise. We have no real insight into cause and effect—that traffic sources section is insidious because it often amounts to little more than misdirection, knowing where people come from almost never tells you why they came.

The scary and frightening fact is that the effectiveness of our online marketing and traffic generation tactics is probably due to random chance—spending time on a particular source of traffic is no different from just buying more lottery tickets. Sure, you’ve increased your chances, but its success is still just down to random chance.

Or, even when something you do does have a significant effect, it might just be the novelty effect. It’s not what you did that mattered, just that it was new.

That said, when you have a statistically significant difference over a lengthy period of time, you probably have a piece of data there you can count on.

For example, it’s pretty certain that most of you lot only read my ebook publishing, production, and analysis posts. If we discount the statistical anomalies (like my posts debunking a few myths on the Icelandic political situation which are the most popular pieces I’ve ever written, unfortunately) an ebook post tends to get more than ten times more traffic than a post on any other subject published at a roughly similar time of day and day of week.

Now, drawing any conclusions from this is risky. Ebooks are the subject that I’ve covered rather consistently throughout my career and they are my subject of expertise, so it makes sense that other subjects haven’t attracted a regular audience.

Still, I always find it a little bit disappointing that the popularity of my blog posts is inversely proportional to how much fun I had writing them.

If the Kindle fails so will ebooks

I don’t get why anti-Amazon people get up in arms whenever they find an author who links to the Amazon pages for their books. Or whenever a publisher out there seems to favour the Seattle Behemoth over the ‘honourable’ opposition.

I get why people don’t like Amazon. They are a big, competitive, ruthless, anti-union tax avoider that treats low level staff (like, say, warehouse employees) like slave labour. There’s a lot not to like.

What I don’t understand is what do people expect us to do?

Even if every publisher, every author, and every editor out there studiously avoided sending traffic to Amazon in any way, that wouldn’t even cause a measurable dent in Amazon’s book or ebook revenue.

People go to Amazon, they aren’t sent there.

Pointing people anywhere else will only result in lower affiliate fees for the author or publisher as people follow the link, close the tab, and then go to Amazon directly to buy it there anyway.

The only thing the publishing industry can do to harm Amazon is not to sell their titles there, and even then, unless they are colluding illegally to withdraw their products from Amazon all at the same time, that action is more likely to harm the publisher than Amazon.

Hoping for Amazon to collapse or fail is equally self-destructive. There are few things more dangerous to a publisher than having a big retailer or distributor go bust on them. It locks up inventory and money for a long time and usually result in the market shrinking in the short term.

Moreover, I’m pretty sure the fate of ebooks is intertwined with the fate of the Kindle.


The only ways Amazon can be beaten by a ebook competitor is if a competitor:

  • Focuses on a genre and on being the best store for that genre. Take the niche not the market.
  • Consistently outperforms Amazon and slowly takes market share over, say, a decade. This will take years and the ebook market will probably be disrupted by something else by the time they’re done, anyway.
  • Be the first. This is Kobo’s tactic and it isn’t wrong. Amazon hasn’t rolled out in all territories yet so there is potential for being there first in a lot of countries and be the incumbent once Amazon arrives. The only downside is that Amazon is in all of the lucrative territories already.
  • Collude and manipulate the market illegally. That’s what publishers have basically been doing so far, managing to push Amazon down a bit but they haven’t made much of a headway lately.
  • Finally, you can hope that Amazon makes some sort of misstep that leads to a collapse or deterioration in performance leaving space for others to step in.

This last possibility, at first glance, seems like it would be the ideal scenario for Amazon’s competitors.

The problem is that ebooks are the Kindle and Amazon as far as most buyers are concerned. Most of those buyers have non-book alternatives competing for their entertainment dollars as well. If Amazon had a major misstep, that would be more likely to result in the ebook market contracting than in somebody else taking over.


Here’s a thought exercise. Let’s imagine that we could magically retcon the ebook market so that it was now evenly split between all five major aspirants (Amazon, Kobo, B&N, Apple, Google).

You might haggle about who the runners up should be but most would go with those five.

What do you think would happen tomorrow? What would happen the day after the retcon when our magical reality-bending powers faded and the personalities and capabilities of those employed at each retailer took over again?

Over the next couple of years Amazon would retake its marketshare until it owned at least 60% of the ebook market again. Why? Because it would build on its ecommerce expertise in general (they don’t just do ebooks), because it has better customer service than the others, and because it would have lower prices. Amazon will always have lower prices because it is willing to aggressively give up revenue to do so and its executives passionately believe that it’s the right tactic for them. Other companies don’t have the guts to match it completely.

No two ways about it. Amazon has earned its marketshare.

That doesn’t mean that, taken as a whole, Amazon isn’t manipulative and utterly ruthless. They are. And they have a frightening amount of resources. That’s why they’d retake the market in record time.

So, how do you beat Amazon? You don’t. You can’t beat a tiger at being a tiger. If you are afraid of a tiger, the only sensible strategy is to avoid it.

Stop selling books through Amazon. Raise your prices and sell direct, making sure to provide a world class service. But you’d have to make damn sure that your books are interesting because otherwise none of your readers will bother.

This ebook is a lemon

It’s no secret that I’m a huge fan of both Akerlof and Romer, not just the paper they co-wrote on looting in the financial system but also their work individually. Turns out one of Akerlof’s most famous papers is directly relevant to the ebook market.

For starters, a few basic premises. If you disagree with any one of these you can feel free to ignore the entire argument. I can easily pick apart any one of these statements myself, so I’d understand it very well if you disagreed with them. However, if you find them somewhat likely then the overall picture of the ebook market is a bit dark.

  • Ebook buyers buy more than they read. Book abandonment is high and out of proportion with the return rate.
  • Sampling the first few chapters is a lousy predictor of how much the reader will enjoy the book. You can only assess basic stylistic issues from a sample, not storytelling quality. Ergo the reader has to buy the ebook to assess the quality of the story.
  • Reviews are an extremely unreliable indicator of quality. The average quality of most reviews themselves is very low. Many reviewers are paid shills or just extremely overworked.
  • Luck is one of the biggest determinants of bestseller status.
  • Striking, marketable, differentiation is difficult in ebooks without having the reader actually read the book.
  • The marketing differentiation that is possible without having the reader actually read the ebook (sex, scandal, celebrity) is at best orthogonal to the book’s actual quality and at worst inversely correlated to quality.
  • Quality in this piece being defined as whatever the reader values, no matter how rubbish it looks to an over-educated twit like me. I’m not making any assumptions about writing, genre, or style.
  • The majority of ereader vendors implement style and design overrides to preserve a baseline of readability and usability, not to commodify their product’s complements. (I.e. they are well-meaning, rational actors.)
  • Distribution is becoming mostly self-serve with a very porous filter. (Like, for example, the self-publishing services run by Amazon, Kobo, B&N, and Apple.) Almost anybody with a computer has access to the publishing industry’s full ebook distribution chain.
  • Ebook development is underpaid and so will not attract experienced talent from the web industry.
  • It’s easier to make a bad book than a good one and so the vast majority of ebook supply will be bad.

The argument I’m about to make is that this situation gives publishers (both self- and non-self) an incentive to market poor quality books (remember the definition of quality I outlined above), that the average available quality of books will fall, and that the overall publishing market will shrink in terms of overall revenue (even though the the number of units sold increases).

First, the basics…

A market of lemons

It has been seen that the good cars may be driven out of the market by the lemons. But in a more continuous case with different grades of goods, even worse pathologies can exist. For it is quite possible to have the bad driving out the not-so-bad driving out the medium driving out the not-so-good driving out the good in such a sequence of events that no market exists at all. (Akerlof, 1970)

In 1970 Akerlof published a paper describing exactly why a new car loses a lot of its value as soon as you drive it newly bought out of the showroom.

With new cars you can assume that most cars of the same make will be of a similar quality and that if something goes wrong you are probably covered by a warranty.

Anybody who is in the market for a car doesn’t have access to the information that would let them tell the difference between a good car and a bad car (otherwise known as a ‘lemon’, hence the title of the paper).

If a new car is a lemon, i.e. has some sort of manufacturing flaw, neither the buyer or the seller are aware of the flaw and the manufacturer usually covers the repairs if the flaw is discovered within the warranty period.

However, because used cars have a history, the seller of a used car is likely to know which are lemons and which aren’t. This asymmetry of information in the used car market is, according to Akerlof, the primary reason why there is a pricing disparity between a new car and even the most recent of a used car.

Both bad and good used cars are likely to sell for the same price because the buyer can’t tell the difference between those that are lemons and those that are not. And because the buyer knows this there will be s strict upper limit to what they will pay for a used car—the seller of a good used car will not get its full value.

The sellers of good cars have an incentive not to sell while the less well-meaning sellers of lemons have an incentive to sell. The information asymmetry means that less scrupulous will, at least while the market is still maturing, get more than their ‘lemon’ car is worth.

The Lemons model can be used to make some comments on the costs of dishonesty. Consider a market in which goods are sold honestly or dishonestly; quality may be represented, or it may be misrepresented. The purchaser’s problem, of course, is to identify quality. The presence of people in the market who are willing to offer inferior goods tends to drive the market out of existence- as in the case of our automobile “lemons.” It is this possibility that represents the major costs of dishonesty – for dishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the market. There may be potential buyers of good quality products and there may be potential sellers of such products in the appropriate price range; however, the presence of people who wish to pawn bad wares as good wares tends to drive out the legitimate business. The cost of dishonesty, therefore, lies not only in the amount by which the purchaser is cheated; the cost also must include the loss incurred from driving legitimate business out of existence. (Akerlof, 1970)

What worries me…

Reliable information about ebook quality is increasingly hard to find in the market. Reviews have almost completely been gamed; a casual reader has few reliable indicators that tell them whether a review is an honest one or not. Rubbish books, ones that most buyers don’t even read to the end before giving up, shoot up the bestseller lists due to viral marketing. Bestseller lists themselves are increasingly either gamed by publishers or by ebook retailers themselves who are trying to shift their sales in one direction or another.

Even some big publishers are getting into the game by dumping cheap OCR converted ebooks full of errors onto the market. Again, a casual reader has no way to know whether this particular big publisher is one that does a quality ebook version or one who pumps out ebook ‘lemons’ by the virtual truckload.

The same applies to self-publishing. The casual reader doesn’t have access to the information to help them tell the difference between the self-publisher who has invested substantially in the quality of their book and one who is dumping something onto the market looking for a quick profit that requires next to no cash outlay. That is without mentioning the publishers and authors who have been paying for reviews, engaging in sock-puppetry, and astroturfing left, right, and centre.

My worry is that the ebook market has all of the hallmarks of an early stage ‘market of lemons’. The information asymmetry—exacerbated by the information hoarding done by the big ebook retail players—the growth in dishonest actors, and the increasing disincentive for honest actors to even participate at all, make ebooks an ideal candidate for the lemon dynamic.

What this would mean, if true, is that publishers and self-publishers will begin to experience massive pressure to lower prices if they are to move their product at all.

I think this is already happening with self-publishers.

Alternatively, revenue might become a function of your reputation and your maximum addressable market. That is, once you’ve surpassed whatever necessary lower reputation bound that is required by your addressable market, the price becomes elastic within the bounds set by the market (e.g. there are only so many steampunk fans in the universe).

Below that reputation bound you will have problems even giving away your product.

If the former model is correct (i.e. the ‘we’re all screwed’ model) then the ebook market can only be saved by the ebook retailers. They’d have to begin to practice complete information transparency and put in place aggressive returns policies (yes, even more aggressive than the one Amazon currently practices). Sales information, return rate, who exactly is that reviewer and where did they come from—anything and everything about the book would have to be shared in a digestible manner. A culture of secrecy at this stage would risk killing the market off entirely.

If the latter model is correct (i.e. you can only charge when you’ve built up a reputation) then we enter a world where the publishing industry needs to learn how to engage directly with readers to build their audience. This means that they would have to give a lot more stuff away for free.


A note on free

Free creates the most value when it is specifically being used to build a community and decrease information asymmetry—transferring the burden of risk from the reader to the publisher. Short term free offers are of little use. You need to go long term and do it with work that is representative of what you do.

Free at the moment is used by exactly the crowd that churns out the most rubbish (Smashwords) and Amazon makes offering titles for free needlessly difficult.

A free offering is always preferable to a cheap offering for the seller because it suspends the buyer’s value judgement temporarily but in exchange buyers can assess the quality of the good at their own leisure. A mixture of free and higher or variable priced goods is likelier to result in a fairer exchange of value between the reader and author than an oversupply of cheap (the free offerings build reputation).


What to do?

If Akerlof’s theory is right and is applicable to the ebook market then it predicts that prices in the market will be driven down below what can sustain the good actors and investment in research and development will cease.

I.e. the books will all be rubbish, look like shit, and the big tech companies will cease to invest in their ebook platforms.

This isn’t a problem that can be solved through code or UI design. It requires a fundamental change in business tactics. You can’t solve structural business problems with code.

The biggest measure retailers could take to ease this asymmetry is an extended, no questions asked, refund policy. If a reader asks for a refund they should get it even if they bought it ages ago. A year should be enough. A market that is developing ‘lemon’ dynamics requires a generous refund policy.

(This is in addition to the radical information transparency I mentioned above.)

This would obviously shift most of the economic power back to the reader but it would also have several consequences. Low quality books would be hammered in the market. Publishers would no longer have incentive to market bad books. Prices would rise to account for the returns and the portion of readers who dishonestly return ebooks but readers would likely accept the rise because of the generous refund policy. The market would contract sharply at first as the bad actors get shaken out but would begin to grow aggressively as the good actors, who are rewarded with both a higher price and a lower return rate, reinvest their profits in product development.

That’s the theory, anyway.

I hope we are in for a world where reputation becomes the key to survival, where publishers and authors with a good reputation in a market segment can make a decent profit, because the alternative is horrifying. I don’t think it is likely that ebook retailers will take the measures necessary to correct the dynamic once it becomes more apparent that the ebook market is a market of lemons.


ETA:

One thing worth mentioning:

If you assume that the above applies to the iOS app store as well then that would mean that the best pricing strategy for a new app is freemium. That is, the app itself should be free to use/play with variably priced add-ons and features you can buy once you know you like the app.


ETA 2:

I’ve posted a followup to this post addressing some of people’s criticisms and misconceptions.


References:

Major update to Studio Tendra’s Oz project

The Oz Reading Club has been updated with books seven and eight. And since I forgot to blog about books five and six, that means we’ve de facto got a massive four book update on our hands.

And we’ve reached a major milestone.

Yup. We’re more than halfway through L. Frank Baum’s Oz series.

What do you think about the covers Jenný has illustrated so far?

The Scarecrow

1. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

The Scarecrow and Tin Woodsman

2. The Marvelous Land of Oz

Cowardly Lion

3. Ozma of Oz

Hungry Tiger

4. Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz

Dorothy

5. The Road to Oz

Toto the dog

6. The Emerald City of Oz

The Shaggy Man

7. The Patchwork Girl of Oz

Polychrome

8. Tik-Tok of Oz

What are self-publishing’s biggest pain points?

I’ve found that the more time you spend in a problem area the more you realise how many of your preconceptions were mistaken.

So, instead of just assuming I know what the pain points of self-publishing are based on my own experience, I figure the best thing to do is to simply ask people.

In general, publishers face two separate problem areas:

  1. Making the book as good as possible. This means making the text as good as possible (writing and editing) and making the product as good as possible (typesetting and design).
  2. Finding a paying readership for the book. (Selling, marketing, PR, events, etc..)

I’m pretty sure most problems self-publishers face fall into those same areas but I also suspect that their specifics and details are going to be unique to self-publishing.

And by self-publishing I basically mean any publisher with only one or two employees and who publishes only ebooks.

So, what are self-publishing’s biggest pain points? I’d really appreciate any answers, either in the comments below, twitter or, if you want, in email. (My email is baldur.bjarnason@gmail.com for those who prefer not to contribute in public.)

Continue reading

Peasants

I have moved from Iceland to the UK three times in my life. The third, which not so coincidentally took place in 2008, is likely to be the last.

(The two attributed quotes in this post are thanks to Íris Erlingsdóttir’s awesome blog post where she collected them all in Icelandic.)

The first time I moved back to Iceland was in 1984 when my parents returned after finishing their studies abroad. Of course, knowing our luck, we returned at the start of what ended up being one of Iceland’s longest general strikes, lasting from the 4th of October to the 30th.

Iceland was in an economic crisis, what we call ‘kreppa’. What most foreigners don’t realise is that Iceland has been in a bipolar boom-bust cycle ever since we declared independence from the Danish. And before that we were in a poverty spiral of misery, hunger, and sky-high childhood mortality rates.

Continue reading