Show All » » Welcome
Thursday, October 08, 2009Protecting Your Website, Online Business & Reputation
In past posts I've commented upon the rise of "e-books" and their associated issues. Now comes word that "e-publications" are on the verge of being "Napster-rized." It seems a Swiss website is now allowing anyone to post any content for free download, no matter the content nor how it was obtained. For those publishing e-books, and even those holding the rights to popular "p-books" which are being illegally scanned and posted, this situation isn't very different from what happened to popular music over the past decade. Music "sales," even accounting for the i-Pod downloads from Apple, have fallen precipitously since illegal downloading was enabled.
Printers who aren't "in the book printing business" however, ought not breathe a premature sigh of relief. Turns out Google, the same company which scanned and posted millions of books without paying any rights fees beforehand, is on to something much more disturbing these days.
Google is now "pushing" a new feature on the free "Google Search Bar" commonly referred to as a Google Sidebar.wiki. So what you may ask. Well, here's what this means to everyone with a website. Once folks download the sidebar.wiki feature (and I believe they now also have to also have a gmail account), they can visit your website and post ANY COMMENTS THEY CHOOSE right alongside each of your web pages. It gets "better" - every posted comment (true, false or downright malicious) will be seen alongside your web pages by every future visitor who has (perhaps unwittingly) downloaded this new free Google toolbar utility. Oh, and Google has unilaterally decided that when these folks visit your website(s), about 40% of each screen image they will see will be the "wiki comments section" taking up the entire left hand side of the screen.
Ponder what you just read. Yes, a hostile competitor can now post comments designed to frighten off your customers and visitors...encouraging them to leave for a competing site. Yes, someone now can literally "blackmail" a website owner by threatening to post almost anything on that person's site. One extreme example posted a few days ago was the possibility of someone being labeled a pedophile or other type of criminal...right on top the site they (or you) paid to build, pay to operate and have spent years developing into a responsible platform. In effect, Google is now enabling the universal "hijacking" of every website (albeit under the guise of "advancing social networking"). Doesn't matter how much you invested in your site, SEO, keywords or links. Anyone can now post anything they wish right on top of your privately owned content 24/7.
Where does this place you? First, and foremost, it almost literally "blackmails" you into downloading the Google sidebar.wiki application (spreading the menace) just to be able to check every single one of your web pages every single day...simply to ensure you've not been unfairly maligned or become a victim of libel or slander. If you don't download the new Google sidebar.wiki, you can't see what every visitor (who has the wiki feature) sees when they visit your sites. In this case, ignorance is not Bliss. It's downright reckless. No doubt the legal profession will earn plenty arguing cases about whether "posted comments" are libel...or simply "free speech" (no matter how irresponsible or false). Google, just in case you were thinking of contacting them to quickly and easily remove disputed and offending comment, has so far announced "they will decide" whether to remove offending comment (on their terms, on their timetable). This month, perhaps there are only a few hundred of website owners complaining. How fast do you think Google's response will be to "remove unfounded slurs" and other totally objectionable content once millions are complaining weekly? How outrageous might this behavior become? As irony would have it, two of the first sites to have seriously objectionable "reviews" posted on top of them were "google.com" and "microsoft.com." Face it, if Microsoft cannot prevent the posting of garbage on top if its own site, how successful do you expect to be?
Yes, there is already an e-entrepeneur selling (for $27 at present) a line of code you can buy and install to "block" unapproved "wiki posting" on your site, BUT he clearly states at point of sale: he cannot guarantee how long the code will work before Google makes changes which obsolete your ability to block their wiki.
If your business depends upon website traffic, you'd be wise to start emailing Google about your displeasure right away. Otherwise, all the time and money you've invested there has, basically, just been confiscated from your control. My guess: only when millions complain to Google and appropriate legal agencies, will the unauthorized right to post on top of your webpages be overturned. Certainly it's taken years for Google to negotiate an agreement to begin paying rights for all the "books" (read: intellectual property) they've essentially confiscated via unauthorized book scanning over the past several years. Last I knew, the proposed settlement in that case was still under discussion. One wonders, when the intellectual property of millions of businesses is comprised, how much will be at stake in financial terms. No doubt some smart class action lawyer is already pondering this question, but the only way you can now protect your online content from Google's new sidebar.wiki feature is to download it thanks to Google. As was said about pornography, "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it." What I'm inclined to say about Google's new sidebar.wiki is: "I can't say it's illegal (not being a lawyer), but I know grossly irresponsible behavior when I see it." What I suspect will get Google's attention fast: WHEN those paying them millions every month for Adwords and other Google products...simply "turn off" their spending until the "unauthorized wiki posting" feature is withdrawn. "Opt Out," a likely future negotiating ploy, simply ISN'T a responsible alternative. "Opt In" is the only acceptable way to bring this feature to the marketplace, but I seriously doubt the majority will "opt in" simply because so many lack the time and resources to check every web page every single day. Those who do "opt in" will be voluntarily subjecting themselves to whatever comments the most irresponsible visitors choose to post 24/7...in hopes of a reasonable number of "praise posts." Oh, and just as spam proliferated, how long do you think it will be before someone figures out how to post "mass hostile wikis" (with irresponsible or false content)? Guess we'll have to endure still another clever pejorative word (since phishing is already taken). Who knows, maybe Google will sponsor a naming contest for the new "hostile message" tool they've now enabled on "your" website (while "commandeering 40% of viewable space"... without bothering to ask your permission or pay for the privilege).
I don't expect Google to worry much about my opinion, but for what it's worth: my 'year's-long' Google searchbar is now "Bing," my Adwords test is over, and I'm looking to replace Postini with another spam blocker (hopefully a comprehensive software which will also enable blocking of Google's sidebar.wiki spam).
Hugh Griffin
Posted By: Hugh Griffin @ 2:48:24 PM
Top
Show All » Printing » General
Wednesday, August 12, 2009The Impact of "E-books" on "P-books" (Printed books)
Presently (August 2009) debate rages about the net impact of e-books upon the book printing industry. Unlike music downloads to iPod's and MP3 players, books are generally not "replayed" (re-read) many times, and most prefer to pass along their books (something impossible with e-books because downloaded books are never "owned," only "rented" with a restricted license).
While "one-feature" e-readers are less likely to become as ubiquitous as iPod's and iPhones, and as Amazon's Kindle and the Sony E-reader face increased competition (and rumors of a new, full color, multi-purpose tablet from Apple run rampant), I expect e-readers will become more popular as their cost and utility improve. But that doesn't infer that printed books are "over" (in the words of those zealousy promoting the latest e-reader-gizmo's).
Certainly publishers appear to have the most to lose if and when "e-reader" companies come to monopolize content distribution. In effect, publisher's pricing and profits could become dictated by dominant e-reader vendors. While there's no clear evidence that the "middle-man" role of publishers is going to be virtually eliminated, already one sees "downward price pressure" upon them. Add to this the ability of e-content to severely reduce or eliminate the outdated, expensive and inefficient business model of allowing "returns" (which now dominates traditional publishing), and it becomes apparent major publishers are likely to be printing fewer books overall in the years ahead.
On the other hand, the vast majority of new titles now being introduced (in printed and e-versions) are "self-published" works. While none so far have approached the mass sales of books like the Harry Potter series, the number of new self-published titles coming out each year is staggering...and steadily increasing. For book printers, this seems to indicate "short run book printing" has a much brighter near-term future than "mega-run" traditional book printing, and while I expect there will always be a need for that printing service, it's logical to presume "consolidation" will eventually shrink the number of mega-run book printers. Those who will survive are already mastering the art of digital printing "short run" books to meet both demands. Ironically, this trend has actually brought more competition into the book printing business, as skilled digital printers expand their expertise in bindery, packaging and distribution.
At some point, the "Green Movement" may eventually 'awake' to what's happening in the book industry. As e-readers proliferate, their multitude of negative impacts upon the environment are likely to be addressed, and their endless demand for energy will have to be considered. Unlike printed books which use recycled content papers and reduce landfill impact, it's conceivable "e-books" could eventually be targeted as "politically and environmentally incorrect." I'm not holding my breath for that awakening however, as "green activists" appear to have, so far, totally ignored the net impact of disposable technology products and their seller's claims.
Another potential "force to be reckoned with" at some point could be those concerned about the "constitutional rights" aspects of e-reader monopolization. As irony would have it, Amazon recently "unilaterally," and rightly, removed e-versions of Orwell's "1984" from its customer's Kindles to resolve a copyright and distribution dispute. But the dark side of that experience is now clear: when e-content is monopolized, those who "run the show" completely control content. Just because one has "purchased the right to read a book" is no guarantee the transaction cannot be reversed anytime the seller chooses. From there, it's a very short step to arguments about "freedom of the press," censorship and mis-use of authority to "shape" or "spin" information and content. And that realization could eventually lead to a renewed appreciation for printed books (whose content cannot later be controlled by those who've already sold them).
In the larger context, just as radio and television did not kill the "motion picture industry," now it's possible to recognize the internet and new devices are not "killing" other mediums, including printed books, outright. They are simply new, competing forms of distribution which afford authors and "content creators" a new medium. I suspect the argument that "the fundamental battle is between e-books and p-books" simply mis-characterizes the current situation. What I see is actually "a battle bewteen e-books and the inefficient, traditional printed book business model." That leaves plenty of room for digitally printed "books on demand" (be they short run esoteric self-published works, backlist books from major publishers or other booming channels like business books and micro-niche special interest publications).
In my view e-books won't "kill" printed books for many reasons, but they will change demand and how it's met. Fundamentally, just as motion pictures not only survived but thrived, book printers will do fine as long as they adapt to the new landscape. Just as the "Big Three" networks no longer dominate and dictate television viewing, the "medium for reading" won't eliminate demand for quality content but will, in fact, spur demand for more quality content and enable more to appreciate the advantages each medium offers.
Posted By: Hugh Griffin @ 11:47:07 AMTop
Show All » Printing » General
Monday, March 30, 2009Green Publishing is Good Business
With public awareness and concern about environmental issues, independent and large publishers wishing to maximize sales are responding by producing printed books featuring recycled content papers.
When dealing with your book printer, clearly tell them you want to use recycled content papers and ask for free samples before making decisions. With careful selection, using recycled content papers (cover and text stocks) should not increase your cost or diminish quality. If your printer is U.S.-based, you may reasonably presume whatever papers they suggest will be responsible choices (due to U.S. regulations) and enable you to print "Recycled Content" wording and/or a logo in your book.
Bear in mind when designing a book, if your content requires the use of "ultra white" stocks (for the cover or interior pages), you may end up spending an extra 5 to 10 cents 'per book' owing to how the recycled content versions of these stocks are made. Most recycled content papers are not "brilliant or ultra white" because recycled content papers are generally not chlorine bleached in the re-pulping phase. A word of caution: Just because a paper is labeled "Chlorine Free" (often referred to as ECF - Elemental Chlorine Free) does not mean that "chlorine derivatives" were not used instead (thanks to chemical industry lobbyists). The one sure way to know how a recycled content book will look is to get samples and compare them for "visible particulate," color and overall appearance before making paper decisions.
Ironically, what constitutes "Green Publishing" now seems to have spawned several disagreements. One of the biggest arguments is between those championing "e-books" over "p-books" (printed books):
Those who condemn printed books in favor of e-books somehow overlook the environmental impact of strip mining, heavy metals, plastic, energy and landfill demands required to build, use and dispose of electronic devices.
Those who favor printed books over constantly obsolescing e-devices correctly point out that using recycled content papers reduces pressure on landfills but somehow overlook the environmental impact of inefficient traditional distribution and return practices.
My view: both types of books "have merit," but using only one path to publish virtually guarantees lower sales. When printing books, make it a point to use recycled content papers. When doing e-books, make sure your versions are widely readable on ALL types of existing electronic devices (to minimize e-waste). These two choices alone will significantly reduce environmental impact while enhancing your sales and marketing results.
Another disagreement exists "within the ranks" of those who agree that using recycled content papers is the best course of action:
Several "Non-profit" organizations (which actually have their roots in various industry marketing campaigns) spend very serious money to convince print buyers they must "prove their Green-ness" by requiring printers to add one specific recycled content logo or another to publications (ignoring the reality this simply pushes more ink into the recycling loop). What's behind these powerful marketing campaigns: huge amounts of money are changing hands. Before a printer can "print" many certification logos, they must pay large, and usually ongoing, fees to whichever organization's logo they print. Ultimately, that overhead falls onto the printer's customers.
The simple truth: most any book printer can buy and print papers certified by these various organizations, but unless "money changes hands" between the printer and the certifying organization, that printer's work cannot inlcude the organization's trademarked logo (or "name" in many cases). Given the universal Recycled Content logo and wording are in the public domain and free to use, it sadly becomes apparent that some are more interested in protecting their "non-profit income stream" than in encouraging and enabling the widest possible use of "green" papers for their own sake.
Cutting through industry jargon and confusing claims, here's the basic information you need to know:
* First, recycled content papers no longer cost significantly more, and many are not a noticeable downgrade in appearance or quality (paper color, opacity or visible particulate).
* Second, recycled content papers come with varying types and amounts of recycled content. There are two categories of recycled content used: "pre-consumer waste" and "post-consumer waste." The higher the "post-consumer waste content," the more environmentally friendly a paper is.
* Third, both text and cover recycled content papers are readily available nationwide. Various paper companies and printers have their own particular trade names for their lines of recycled content papers, and because these names are generally more "marketing-driven" than "content-driven," it pays to specify exactly what recycled content you want.
Currently the most popular, and therefore lowest priced text papers feature 30% post-consumer content, and cover stocks feature 10% recycled content.
Posted By: Hugh Griffin @ 4:04:08 PM
Top
Show All » Printing » General
Monday, March 23, 2009Engraving - The "Green Printing" Process
Engraving is the only printing process using fully recyclable water-based inks which emit zero VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) on press and do not require the use of chemical solvents to clean presses.
With the explosion of digital communication and arrival of "virtual businesses," companies and professionals are recognizing a growing need to differentiate themselves as "Green and credible businesses." Designers requiring exacting and consistent color and fine detail, as well as professionals dependent upon security and "the ability to authenticate originals" choose engraving for its unique benefits.
The ever increasing uses of engraving often go unnoticed by a casual observer. While engraving has been the process of choice to project a distinct and "premium brand image" for 500 years, contemporary stationery, packaging, certificates and negotiable documents use engraving for many reasons. With product counterfeiting rampant, many labels and packages now use engraving because it's a "tactile" process which cannot be easily and anonymously faked with 'flat' digital printing.
Engraving, perhaps the oldest known printing process, ironically turned out to be ideal for use in modern desktop printers because water-based inks don't melt and contaminate printer drums.
While some presume engraving is an expensive printing process, actually it's not when designed thoughtfully. Frequently found on premium social stationery, the use of engraving often has less to do with the final cost of those items than the "nature of the social stationery business" itself - being typically a 'low volume, high mark-up' enterprise in expensive locations.
While some intricate designs can be very labor intensive and expensive to engrave, they tend to be exceptions amongst the millions of engraved impressions produced daily. Engraving presses generally cannot apply multiple colors in a single impression like an "offset" or "litho" press, but that's because they apply 4000 pounds of pressure to imbed inked images directly into papers.
While Law, Finance, Accounting and other professions have long recognized the prestige, archival life and security advantages of engraving their stationery on watermarked papers, other businesses rely upon engraving's ability to produce unique images which hold their color and quality indefinitely. Many specify engraving for art printing, "collectibles" and other graphic products created to appreciate in value over time.
Perhaps the most interesting trend over the past 20 years has been the incorporation of designer typestyles, new and unique colors, and finishes which are the antithesis of "your grandfather's engraving" (even though the use of "classic" typestyles" and black ink still dominate). With advances in technology, engraving not only remains "contemporary," it's becoming steadily less costly, easier and faster to get (thanks to digital composition and automation replacing the days of "hand-cut dies" and hand-fed presses).
Posted By: Hugh Griffin @ 12:31:52 PMTop
Records 1 to 4 of 4 |