The Risks of Risk Aversion
Leadership at organizations of all kinds often justifies inaction with the statement, “We’re risk averse.” But is being risk-averse itself courting a set of risks? Is there any risk-free choice?
Leadership at organizations of all kinds often justifies inaction with the statement, “We’re risk averse.” But is being risk-averse itself courting a set of risks? Is there any risk-free choice?
The question of when print will end is often framed as if it is a natural occurrence, an evolutionary question, or the likely outcome of a sporting event, rather than a business decision that publishers may revisit on a regular basis.
The way Netflix unbundled DVD-by-mail and streaming video services, flipped branding strategies, and made it all a public show created a focus on strategic inflection points and betting for the long-term.
The demise of Borders is a lesson in management pitfalls. Are STM publishers up to the challenges they’ll be facing soon?
The tablet wars are on, with special significance for STM publishers.
Why hasn’t scientific publishing been disrupted? The question created one of the year’s most-read posts.
Cyber Monday is the footprint of disruption. How did the former disruptors fall? And what can we learn as we shop?
How do we gain a better vantage amidst the dust and din of an ongoing information revolution the likes of which the world has never seen before?
It appears that the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) will be holding another “IN” meeting next month over my strenuous objections as a long-standing member of the society. My objections are not concerning SSP holding a Fall meeting – indeed, the autumn is my favorite time of the year to repair to a fine club, properly provisioned with brandy and cigars, to discuss the affairs of the society with other learned gentlemen. ather, my concerns are regarding the topic of the meeting. “IN,” I am told, stands for INnovation, INspiration, and INteraction. I am wont to think of a more unholy trinity of concepts and think “INfernal” is more apropos!
Some early observations on the iPhone 4. I will leave the technical reviews to others and just focus on what the new iPhone 4 means for publishers, and particularly STM and scholarly publishers.
The supply chain around trade publishing is “broken,” according to publishers. But are they what has broken?
I am pleased to announce that the Scholarly Kitchen will soon be offering our very own electronic tablet. The briSKet, or binary roaming integrated Scholarly Kitchen electronic tablet, is a purpose-built device, designed to support all of the scholarly publishing needs of our readers. The Scholarly Kitchen’s business development team has spent the better part of the last year designing the device and its array of scholarly functions and applications.
Publishers may have won the pricing war, but the real struggle is now on for users’ attention. Because the iPad is not a dedicated e-book reader there are, unfortunately, many things that users can do with the device other than read books. Unlike the Kindle, where publishers have the device all to themselves iPad users will be able to surf the Web, play games, watch movies, view their photo collections, listen to music, watch TV, send e-mail, work on a presentation, or access over one hundred thousand applications that do any number of distracting things.
The iPad moves electronic reading to a multi-function device, marking the end of proprietary interfaces controlling commerce for e-reading.
Publishing can’t attract the best and brightest until it markets itself correctly — as being about more than the containers of the past, and being all about the ideas and communication approaches of the future.