While all publishers like to have a strong brand, some brands are so prestigious that they actually serve to paralyze the managements responsible for them, making it impossible to introduce innovations and to develop the business. Vast bureaucracies arrive whose purpose is not to develop the business but to protect the vaunted brand. This is a management problem, not a marketing one, but it can stymie a publisher from pursuing a progressive agenda.
Library-based publishing is growing. A recent survey in Australia shows that “increasing visibility of the university brand” is a common objective. Charlie Rapple considers some of the challenges relating to brand for this growing sector.
There will never be a “Netflix for books” if by that term one means a comprehensive collection. Book aggregations must serve the overarching needs of the publisher to generate revenue and are thus best viewed as simply one channel among many.
The name of a journal extends far beyond what it publishes. United brands (Nature, JAMA, Cell, Science, IEEE, PLoS) create powerful signals in the marketplace. They can also be overextended.
In the world of science blogging, there are those who cite the literature, those who don’t, and never the twain shall meet.
Can tweets predict future citations? A study of article tweets raises validity and ethical concerns.
At some point book publishers will begin to copy the Netflix model of selling by subscription. This changes the nature of the business from one where products are sold to one where publishers attempt to monetize readers’ attention.
Publishers’ brands matter very much to consumers, but sometimes people are unaware of the role brands play in purchasing decisions.