Let me introduce you to Chris Anderson, if you don't already know him. Malcolm Gladwell, author of Blink and Tipping Point calls him the man of "Big Ideas." Gladwell says he does not the big idea guy in the same sense of Einstein, though our lovable physicist (in my opinion and maybe Gladwell's too) had a knack for Big Marketing. Everyone knew Einstein's images--both his face and his formula. Trouble is, according to Gladwell, most people found his Big Idea well, not easy to follow.
Gladwell's Big Idea definition applies to ideas that are "transparent." That's where Chris Anderson comes in. I mentioned the term Long Tail "in "Sharing with Writers" recently. Long Tail refers to the concept that we tend to read the same books, magazines or whatever because only so many can be published. Gladwell says, "there is not enough space to give us exactly what we want. So we all agree on something we kind of want."
So here's what Chris's Long Tail theory does for you, the reader. And you, the author. Computers mean you readers can find whatever you want. Bookstores (online or brick and mortar) can stock millions of books in the bowels of a big machine and you can find exactly the little crevice book you are looking for. That means that authors can write these books with you in mind.
So, publishers don't sell 100,000 copies of one book anymore. They may do so, but that's getting to be a rarer occurrence all the time! Instead bookstores (Amazon, say) may sell 100,000 copies of 100,000 books. Authors, that means yours will be (not may be but will be) among them and that means you are not constrained to writing a book that you feel will market well; you get to write what moves you. And readers can find you with technology. And they'll recognize what moves you moves them, too.
Oh, and here's another result of Long Tail that has already started to come true. Writers--more and more -- aren't at the mercy of gatekeepers. You can be in charge of your own destiny, your own creativity. And what if your book or article (think Amazon shorts) does get read by 100,000 just because you followed your heart? It can still happen.
If you want proof, look at Amazon again. Authors, look at your own book's page. Readers, go browse a bit using keywords. You'll find ideas, books you want to read that you didn't see reviewed in the New York Times.
Sure there are some drawbacks to the Long Tails theory. Nothing's perfect. That's progress and it is the new big idea, the reality. Might as well face it and use it to your benefit.
Oh, and about that Chris Anderson. He is a physicist, just like Einstein, who did research at Los Alamos National Laboratories in New Mexico. He first described Long Tail in his magazine Wired. His book is The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More.
--------
Carolyn Howard-Johnson, author THIS IS THE PLACE; HARKENING: A COLLECTION OF STORIES REMEMBERED; TRACINGS, a chapbook of poetry; and two how to books, THE FRUGAL BOOK PROMOTER: HOW TO DO WHAT YOUR PUBLISHER WON'T; and THE FRUGAL EDITOR: PUT YOUR BEST BOOK FORWARD TO AVOID HUMILIATION AND ENSURE SUCCESS.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The Oprah Game: Must We Play by Their Rules? Must We Play at All?
The Oprah Game: Must We Play by Their Rules? Must We Play at All?
One of my longtime favorite authors is Leora Skolkin Smith, author of Edges, O Israel, O Palestine! This year she contacted me because she was going to be on the west coast and wanted to participate in our Authors' Coalition promotional CD program and booth at the LA Times/UCLA fair.
I coach our participating authors on making the most of their appearances. That includes suggestions that they send out media releases, invitations, etc. It also includes the advice that authors make the most of their strengths. Leora happens to be mentored and edited by the venerated literary writer, Grace Paley, and published by that fine writer's own Glad Day Books. Those are definite pluses that Leora should utilize on her own behalf for it fits with her branding as a serious literary writer. Who would have guessed that such advice could get Leora into hot water? Further, who would have guessed that by doing so, the underbelly of the Oprah book selection process would be revealed? Perhaps this is part of what Jonathan Franzen objected to just before Oprah closed down her book club operation a couple of years ago.
Leora says, "Before the LA Times Festival of Books, (as everyone should and did) I sent out press releases. I used Grace Paley, my publisher and editor, on my subject line because I have Grace's COMPLETE permission to do so and because I knew Oprah and her major media hounds are ONLY impressed with big names. It [became] a distasteful and utterly degrading experience and I wish I could bring more attention to the corporation Oprah Winfrey is. Get people to recognize her falseness.
This was the horrible response I got to this press release from Amy Gross, the Editor-in-Chief of Oprah magazine.
'Was this really a message from Grace Paley? I don’t think so. I think your ploy of using that as your subject is disrespectful and off-putting.'
This hit a chord in me which played only the melody of rage, self-defense and intense despair that publishing has come to this. This all happened a few weeks before the O magazine had run a sugar-candied feature on my dearest mentor, Grace Paley, which I know Grace didn't even read because she thinks so little of them. And this timing stirred my anger more. Here she was: MY EDITOR AND PUBLISHER! I wrote them back and I cc'd their public relations department, their president and Oprah herself (who of course never bothered to respond).
I also contacted a lawyer. After all, accusing me like this is mildly slander.
Here was their final reply, not from the editor-in-chief, who owed an apology, but from O's publicty department. It seems obviously they feared that Grace Paley would be calling them herself soon.
'Dear Ms. Solkin-Smith,
Please accept our apologies for the misunderstanding regarding your email press release. We are always extremely cautious when people invoke the names of well-known personalities - as you can imagine, we are highly protective of Ms. Winfrey's name and feel the same way about our friends, including Ms. Paley. Your email did not refer to Glad Day Books until the very end, and so it was not immediately clear that you are in fact published by that company.
Best of luck at the book festivals.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Carlin
O, The Oprah Magazine
_______________________________________
Alexandra Carlin, Director of Public Relations
Hearst Magazines
300 West 57th Street, 41st Fl
NY, NY 10019
(o) 212-649-2573
(c) 646-201-6022
(f) 646-280-2573"
Leora goes on to say, "How dare they claim Grace Paley as their friend, thereby making them guilty of the very thing they were accusing me of? Shameless name-dropping and exploitation of a famous writer. Secondly, no one seems to really be able to touch them. Too rich. Unreachable. Protected by so much money one can't even blink at them."
I might add that Ms. Carlin appeared to ignore her editor's inattention to detail (caring enough to read a letter through before blasting an author?), in favor of finding a good excuse for her bad behavior.
Leora continues: "Before this, [the Oprah office] had asked for my novel THREE times, each time asking me to send it by "messenger"—a cost of no less than fifty dollars a shot. They never wrote me back and, like a fool, eager for attention and full of naiveté, I kept sending my novel and paying for the messenger.
"Should any other writer ever believe these people are sincere if asked to messenger their work, please do tell them not to fall for the Oprah game. It's a monopoly board and the only place an unknown writer finds herself is in jail. While Oprah gains more property on Boardwalk and Park Place."
This brings me to a final aspect of the Oprah Affair. Many who are active in the writing community not only seek Oprah (and her publishing empire's team's) attention. Others seek to tell them how they, too, can succeed with this process—often for a fee, sometimes a hefty one. You may be the lucky seeker of Oprah's favor, but do you want to put yourself up for this kind of abuse, this kind of inconsideration for your pocketbook and your dignity? Frankly, I hope not.
Carolyn Howard-Johnson, author THIS IS THE PLACE; HARKENING: A COLLECTION OF STORIES REMEMBERED; TRACINGS, a chapbook of poetry; and two how to books, THE FRUGAL BOOK PROMOTER: HOW TO DO WHAT YOUR PUBLISHER WON'T; and THE FRUGAL EDITOR: PUT YOUR BEST BOOK FORWARD TO AVOID HUMILIATION AND ENSURE SUCCESS.
One of my longtime favorite authors is Leora Skolkin Smith, author of Edges, O Israel, O Palestine! This year she contacted me because she was going to be on the west coast and wanted to participate in our Authors' Coalition promotional CD program and booth at the LA Times/UCLA fair.
I coach our participating authors on making the most of their appearances. That includes suggestions that they send out media releases, invitations, etc. It also includes the advice that authors make the most of their strengths. Leora happens to be mentored and edited by the venerated literary writer, Grace Paley, and published by that fine writer's own Glad Day Books. Those are definite pluses that Leora should utilize on her own behalf for it fits with her branding as a serious literary writer. Who would have guessed that such advice could get Leora into hot water? Further, who would have guessed that by doing so, the underbelly of the Oprah book selection process would be revealed? Perhaps this is part of what Jonathan Franzen objected to just before Oprah closed down her book club operation a couple of years ago.
Leora says, "Before the LA Times Festival of Books, (as everyone should and did) I sent out press releases. I used Grace Paley, my publisher and editor, on my subject line because I have Grace's COMPLETE permission to do so and because I knew Oprah and her major media hounds are ONLY impressed with big names. It [became] a distasteful and utterly degrading experience and I wish I could bring more attention to the corporation Oprah Winfrey is. Get people to recognize her falseness.
This was the horrible response I got to this press release from Amy Gross, the Editor-in-Chief of Oprah magazine.
'Was this really a message from Grace Paley? I don’t think so. I think your ploy of using that as your subject is disrespectful and off-putting.'
This hit a chord in me which played only the melody of rage, self-defense and intense despair that publishing has come to this. This all happened a few weeks before the O magazine had run a sugar-candied feature on my dearest mentor, Grace Paley, which I know Grace didn't even read because she thinks so little of them. And this timing stirred my anger more. Here she was: MY EDITOR AND PUBLISHER! I wrote them back and I cc'd their public relations department, their president and Oprah herself (who of course never bothered to respond).
I also contacted a lawyer. After all, accusing me like this is mildly slander.
Here was their final reply, not from the editor-in-chief, who owed an apology, but from O's publicty department. It seems obviously they feared that Grace Paley would be calling them herself soon.
'Dear Ms. Solkin-Smith,
Please accept our apologies for the misunderstanding regarding your email press release. We are always extremely cautious when people invoke the names of well-known personalities - as you can imagine, we are highly protective of Ms. Winfrey's name and feel the same way about our friends, including Ms. Paley. Your email did not refer to Glad Day Books until the very end, and so it was not immediately clear that you are in fact published by that company.
Best of luck at the book festivals.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Carlin
O, The Oprah Magazine
_______________________________________
Alexandra Carlin, Director of Public Relations
Hearst Magazines
300 West 57th Street, 41st Fl
NY, NY 10019
(o) 212-649-2573
(c) 646-201-6022
(f) 646-280-2573"
Leora goes on to say, "How dare they claim Grace Paley as their friend, thereby making them guilty of the very thing they were accusing me of? Shameless name-dropping and exploitation of a famous writer. Secondly, no one seems to really be able to touch them. Too rich. Unreachable. Protected by so much money one can't even blink at them."
I might add that Ms. Carlin appeared to ignore her editor's inattention to detail (caring enough to read a letter through before blasting an author?), in favor of finding a good excuse for her bad behavior.
Leora continues: "Before this, [the Oprah office] had asked for my novel THREE times, each time asking me to send it by "messenger"—a cost of no less than fifty dollars a shot. They never wrote me back and, like a fool, eager for attention and full of naiveté, I kept sending my novel and paying for the messenger.
"Should any other writer ever believe these people are sincere if asked to messenger their work, please do tell them not to fall for the Oprah game. It's a monopoly board and the only place an unknown writer finds herself is in jail. While Oprah gains more property on Boardwalk and Park Place."
This brings me to a final aspect of the Oprah Affair. Many who are active in the writing community not only seek Oprah (and her publishing empire's team's) attention. Others seek to tell them how they, too, can succeed with this process—often for a fee, sometimes a hefty one. You may be the lucky seeker of Oprah's favor, but do you want to put yourself up for this kind of abuse, this kind of inconsideration for your pocketbook and your dignity? Frankly, I hope not.
Carolyn Howard-Johnson, author THIS IS THE PLACE; HARKENING: A COLLECTION OF STORIES REMEMBERED; TRACINGS, a chapbook of poetry; and two how to books, THE FRUGAL BOOK PROMOTER: HOW TO DO WHAT YOUR PUBLISHER WON'T; and THE FRUGAL EDITOR: PUT YOUR BEST BOOK FORWARD TO AVOID HUMILIATION AND ENSURE SUCCESS.
Carolyn Howard-Johnson, author THIS IS THE PLACE; HARKENING: A COLLECTION OF STORIES REMEMBERED; TRACINGS, a chapbook of poetry; and two how to books, THE FRUGAL BOOK PROMOTER: HOW TO DO WHAT YOUR PUBLISHER WON'T; and THE FRUGAL EDITOR: PUT YOUR BEST BOOK FORWARD TO AVOID HUMILIATION AND ENSURE SUCCESS.
Friday, April 13, 2007
On Imus, Intolerance, Iraq and I
Writers and serious readers should be interested in all the political aspects of free speech because they affect us so vitally.
Two stories on the front page of the LA Times Calendar section seemed calculated to consider this most precious of rights--however inadvertently their juxtaposition may have been. One story was on Imus's firing, the other on PBS's inclination to edit (censor!) the words of our US Soldiers in the documentary "Operation Homecoming." Let's take them one at a time.
I believe in free speech. I hate intolerance. I have been writing about both for the better part of my writing career. So, though I hate to see anything done that tends to strangle an individual's right to say what he or she thinks, I couldn't help but root for the corporate giants who finally seemed to get it right by firing Imus. It seems that if people--and, yes, that includes corporate types with a bottom line to consider--don't stand up to invective then how can we expect the person-in-the-street to act when a leader starts name-calling (and, yes, killing) gypsies, homosexuals, the insane and people with genetic and religious histories different from their own?
On the other hand, if we gag the right of individuals to say what they think because they fear recrimination, how can we maintain our free speech, the thing that sets America above so many other nations?
An example of how that was exemplified in the second story headlined "Soldiers seen, but not heard, on PBS." Here we have a station founded to give our nation alternative programming. Thus we have them offering a series called "America at a Crossroads." Hooray for them.
But then we learn that they have censored the very troops they interviewed for this segment because they are "fearful of triggering scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission." They bleep profanities and smudge graphic images. As in all good literature, the writer may find profanity may essential for an audience to fully understand the character, feel the full range of emotion.
And violence? We get so much that panders to humankind's tendency to enjoy retching during any B-rated movie, but when we get an opportunity to see it where it can help understanding how vile it is in real-life situations like the war in Iraq--the situations we get to vote for or against-- we are told "No, no, no!" As if we are babies, unable to be trusted to make our own decisions.
This has come about because the fines are so stiff that a noncommercial entity like PBS couldn't afford them. So the very public domain that could be trusted to tell it like it is, must withhold and the ones making the big bucks get to calculate say, a $15,000 fine against the huge fees they get for commercials and run whatever they darned (get that darned?) well want as long as the profit margin is great enough.
Is there something wrong with this picture? How do we balance this nation's need for free speech--our individual need for free speech--against an equally important need to stand up against intolerance. I'll tell you how. Personal integrity. Personal interest in trying our best not to use our free speech rights to malign others on the basis of anything other than their deeds.
Does that mean Imus should have been fired? I don't think so. Does that mean we should all quit listening? Absolutely. And that goes for many other crabby radio hosts who have no analytical skills and no ethics. Let's all find something better to do with our time than let a blow-hard incite our least appealing, most undesirable human instincts.
-----
Carolyn Howard-Johnson, author THIS IS THE PLACE; HARKENING: A COLLECTION OF STORIES REMEMBERED; TRACINGS, a chapbook of poetry; and two how-to books, THE FRUGAL BOOK PROMOTER: HOW TO DO WHAT YOUR PUBLISHER WON'T; and THE FRUGAL EDITOR: PUT YOUR BEST BOOK FORWARD TO AVOID HUMILIATION AND ENSURE SUCCESS.
Two stories on the front page of the LA Times Calendar section seemed calculated to consider this most precious of rights--however inadvertently their juxtaposition may have been. One story was on Imus's firing, the other on PBS's inclination to edit (censor!) the words of our US Soldiers in the documentary "Operation Homecoming." Let's take them one at a time.
I believe in free speech. I hate intolerance. I have been writing about both for the better part of my writing career. So, though I hate to see anything done that tends to strangle an individual's right to say what he or she thinks, I couldn't help but root for the corporate giants who finally seemed to get it right by firing Imus. It seems that if people--and, yes, that includes corporate types with a bottom line to consider--don't stand up to invective then how can we expect the person-in-the-street to act when a leader starts name-calling (and, yes, killing) gypsies, homosexuals, the insane and people with genetic and religious histories different from their own?
On the other hand, if we gag the right of individuals to say what they think because they fear recrimination, how can we maintain our free speech, the thing that sets America above so many other nations?
An example of how that was exemplified in the second story headlined "Soldiers seen, but not heard, on PBS." Here we have a station founded to give our nation alternative programming. Thus we have them offering a series called "America at a Crossroads." Hooray for them.
But then we learn that they have censored the very troops they interviewed for this segment because they are "fearful of triggering scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission." They bleep profanities and smudge graphic images. As in all good literature, the writer may find profanity may essential for an audience to fully understand the character, feel the full range of emotion.
And violence? We get so much that panders to humankind's tendency to enjoy retching during any B-rated movie, but when we get an opportunity to see it where it can help understanding how vile it is in real-life situations like the war in Iraq--the situations we get to vote for or against-- we are told "No, no, no!" As if we are babies, unable to be trusted to make our own decisions.
This has come about because the fines are so stiff that a noncommercial entity like PBS couldn't afford them. So the very public domain that could be trusted to tell it like it is, must withhold and the ones making the big bucks get to calculate say, a $15,000 fine against the huge fees they get for commercials and run whatever they darned (get that darned?) well want as long as the profit margin is great enough.
Is there something wrong with this picture? How do we balance this nation's need for free speech--our individual need for free speech--against an equally important need to stand up against intolerance. I'll tell you how. Personal integrity. Personal interest in trying our best not to use our free speech rights to malign others on the basis of anything other than their deeds.
Does that mean Imus should have been fired? I don't think so. Does that mean we should all quit listening? Absolutely. And that goes for many other crabby radio hosts who have no analytical skills and no ethics. Let's all find something better to do with our time than let a blow-hard incite our least appealing, most undesirable human instincts.
-----
Carolyn Howard-Johnson, author THIS IS THE PLACE; HARKENING: A COLLECTION OF STORIES REMEMBERED; TRACINGS, a chapbook of poetry; and two how-to books, THE FRUGAL BOOK PROMOTER: HOW TO DO WHAT YOUR PUBLISHER WON'T; and THE FRUGAL EDITOR: PUT YOUR BEST BOOK FORWARD TO AVOID HUMILIATION AND ENSURE SUCCESS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)