Eastman Kodak’s recent filing for bankruptcy protection in the US has been met with a plethora of explanations detailing the company’s supposed failure to embrace the digital age in camera and image technology, but perhaps the real lesson in Kodak’s potential demise is more general and potentially affects all companies that have a longstanding and high-yielding knowledge base in an industry that undergoes rapid technological change. But the issue of Kodak is not so simple as the emerging mantra that the company failed to respond to the digital age of imaging. Eastman Kodak did respond to that change (specifically for more than 25 years), but the problem perhaps lies in how they responded.

For those of us who worked in the commercial news and magazine sectors in the 1980s onwards, the claim that Kodak failed to respond to technological advance is odd – and I certainly have a very different set of memories about this company in addition to the yellow envelope of sentimental family holiday snaps that currently swamps the mass media.

In 1984 I was a skint student and started doing some freelance and temp work at Time Out, mostly on the new (and 1st) TO Film Guide, but due to a shortage of staff cover in the music section, increasingly on the listings side of the magazine and with occasional forays onto the news desk. At that time, the daily round consisted of typing onto column lined paper, complete with the need for typed hyphenation and other page furniture. But this laborious process, in which the line between the average journalist and the print room was far closer than it is now, was quickly replaced by the arrival of a large quantity of large grey computer terminals that displayed, if memory serves me, text in a kind of sickly yellow/brownish colour. From that point onwards, all text would be entered into these machines and the print process changed for good.

The name on the programs running on these grey terminals was ATEX, a company owned by Eastman Kodak. ATEX had been producing cutting edge newsroom computer systems from the early 1970s in its base in Lexington, Mass., and by 1979 it had patented its Text Editing & Display System that enabled text to be typed and displayed with the guarantee that every line would end with a complete word (source: The Cole Papers: http://www.colepapers.net/tcp.archive/cole_papers_01/TCP_01_01/atex.html), and technology that enabled text insert in 1975, and the move toward interactive page makeup systems was in place. In 1981, ATEX was sold to Eastman Kodak for $77million (same source).

The acquisition clearly heralded Eastman Kodak’s early move into computer technology in an industry in which there was an opportunity for commercial activity with early adopters. In 1984 ATEX launched its Total Publishing Environment system on the market, running on AT&T computers. Two years later ATEX combines with Eikonix - a company that made its name in digital imaging - to launch an electronic prepress system. Over the next couple of years, Eastman Kodak’s strategy of corporate alliances continues and ATEX is working in close partnership with IBM, but ultimately to no avail other than the significant fact that ATEX systems would run on IBM computers.

By 1992 according to The Cole Papers archive, Kodak had decided that ATEX was no longer a part of its future plans, and was sold. In the mid 1980s the systems ATEX were developing and bringing to markets across Europe and America, were cutting edge and transformative, clunky in retrospect, yes, but nonetheless they were early entrants into an industry that would become a major driver for digital, technological innovation.

Apart from the various machinations of ATEX, this episode clearly belies the claim that Eastman Kodak was a moribund and slow adopter of computer and digital technologies. It is evidence that prior to 1981, Eastman Kodak had identified the changes that were taking place and were trying to adapt to the new technology. As recently as 2005, Eastman Kodak was working with IBM on digital imaging systems that enhanced picture quality in mobile phone cameras, but seven years later, the company is facing closure.

Yes, Kodak failed to make an impact in the home consumer digital market, but the failure was not one of denial, as is being claimed, but perhaps one ultimately of the inflexiblity of corporate structure. But even as recently as 2004, leading business academics were highlighting the efficiency of Kodak’s adaptation to the new technology and its markets through strategic corporate alliances. The FT states that Eastman Kodak’s revenues peaked just two years before these strategies were recognised ‘at more than $16bn, while employee numbers reached some 130,000.’

According to Robert M. Grant and Charles Baden-Fuller’s article ‘A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances’ (Journal of Management Studies, January 2004, (c) Blackwell Publishing), on Eastman Kodak’s transition from chemical to digital imaging:

‘During its first 100 years of development, Kodak established a highly integrated corporate structure that was very effective in integrating knowledge of optical, polymer, silver halide, technologies; consumer and professional markets; largescale, low-cost manufacturing; and worldwide distribution. However, the digital imaging revolution required Kodak to extend its knowledge base into ‘infoimaging’ – including new technologies ranging from electronic sensing to file compression.

‘Many of the rules and organizational routines that Kodak had developed for managing traditional photography were not well-suited to the faster moving world of digital imaging (Grant and Neupert, 2003). In particular, when CEO George Fisher requested the company to introduce a fully digital camera for the consumer market, he was told that the company’s standardized system of phases and gates would require three years of development. Through an alliance with Apple Computer, the camera – the Apple Quicktake – was developed and brought to market within seven months (Pinto, 2000). Digital imaging’s need for differentiated rules and routines to achieve fast response capability and compressed product development and manufacturing cycles resulted in Kodak’s widespread use of strategic alliances in its digital imaging business.’

Many of these alliances came as the result of successive revamps to Eastman Kodak’s digital strategy.  Perhaps the problems with a reliance on corporate alliances (and acquisitions) is that they tempt the core business to remain the same, to protect its areas of longstanding specialism and to try and maintain profits in diminishing markets, especially when the route map of future technologues is difficult to judge. Eastman Kodak formed productive alliances with some of the most prominent companies in the new technology revolution – Apple amongst them – but it is the persistence of its old and core corporate structures that could be its downfall. Knowledge is worthless without meaningful  product, and product at the right time and at the right price. As Apple has shown, product is key, and speed of response is its mutual key. Grant and Baden-Fuller might of been premature in highlighting the success of Kodak’s alliance strategy in 2004, back then it was working and indeed those authors did apply considerable caveats to their example. But one claim they do make, and I apologise to them for borrowing and adapting their work, is that good strategic corporate alliances should not be about knowledge acquisition but about accessing that knowledge and, as Grant and Baden-Fuller state:

‘…alliances contribute to the efficiency in the application of knowledge; first, by improving the efficiency with which knowledge is integrated into the production of complex goods and services, and second, by increasing the efficiency with which knowledge is utilized.’

In this process, Eastman Kodak’s problems seem to reside, a lack of efficiency in utilizing knowledge, translated into a lack to fully integrate new technologies into corporate structures.

Filed under: Uncategorized ]]> http://peterurpeth.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/a-broader-lesson-in-kodaks-problems/feed/ 0 peterurpeth kodak http://peterurpeth.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/community-land-buy-outs-have-transformed-communities-now-for-community-media-buy-outs/ http://peterurpeth.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/community-land-buy-outs-have-transformed-communities-now-for-community-media-buy-outs/#comments Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:49:10 +0000 editor. http://peterurpeth.wordpress.com/?p=435 ]]> by Peter Urpeth

That news media ownership is a hot political issue at present, is not in doubt. The reader has only to look to the recent row surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s take over of BSKYB to see that plurality and competition in news media is an issue that can strike at the very heart of the  coalition’s cabinet, and one that excites reasonably founded fears that media monopolies – or near monopolies – currently have or will have, too great an influence on our democracy.

But I am not in this blog going to examine the merits of the peculiar solution found to the issue of Murdoch’s ownership of SKY News that enabled Murdoch to proceed with his take over of the rest of BSKYB. Instead, I propose that whilst Vince Cable was busy declaring war on Murdoch, a real threat to democracy was and is taking place quietly, beyond the scrutiny of MPs, MSPs and statutory competition watchdogs on a very local level, and with very real implications for the future of local democracy. In turn, that means a threat to the vitality and strength of local communities, and no communities are more vulnerable to this than the fragile and remote communities of Scotland’s Highlands and Islands.

My experience of this issue is through being a reporter on, and subsequently Editor of the Stornoway Gazette, and then being the founding  editor of The Hebridean, a newspaper established by a local company, as a rival to the Stornoway Gazette. At various times I have also worked on other newspapers including a short spell as editor of the Girvan Gazette when that was in the same ownership as the Stornoway Gazette.

During my editorship of the Stornoway Gazette, I endeavoured to increase that newspaper’s scrutiny of the local authority and the activities  of our local MP, MSP and European representatives. I did so with a sense of duty toward the local community. At the same time I cancelled the weekly diary by the local MP on the  basis that such content is little more than free advertising.

The newspaper in a very short time became something of cause celebre with the national tabloid press, and indeed in leader comment, The Express referred to me as the ‘self-appointed guardian of political correctness in the Western Isles.’ I am genuinely proud to be the subject of their disapproval. But on a local level, the Stornoway Gazette was not owned by a local company, and much of my dissatisfaction at the Editor’s job came from the interference of the then owner.

Shortly after leaving the Gazette, I became editor of The Hebridean. This was a new paper started by a small group of local businessmen  with, it must be said, a shrewd eye for the opportunity and a keen sense of the need for the monopoly Stornoway Gazette to have a rival, especially due to the expense of its advertising and the bland ‘churnalism’ it had adopted as the main means of filling its pages. The Hebridean did well with a very small staff and with the limited resources of its owners. As soon as we started publishing, the Stornoway Gazette began to make large cuts in its advertising rates.  It saw us as a real threat and moved to undercut our market and to restore its monopoly. It did this finally by buying  The Hebridean and closing it down.

In that entire process, there was not room for a single consideration for the benefit to the local community of duality in local media or media ownership.  The law provided us with no protection from our rival, event though we were delivering real benefits for the local community and for the local economy.

In Sweden, the position of The Hebridean as the smaller of two local papers would have entitled us to state-aid through a scheme that  taxed the advertising revenues of the first or largest newspaper in the local area. The same would also have been true of another newspaper in the region, Orkney Today, that started at roughly the same time as The Hebridean  and which was bought and closed by its rival, as part of a new company that acquired the two titles at the same time. Both The Hebridean and Orkney Today achieved significant reputations for the quality  of their output, yet both are now closed. Does Sweden suffer from a democratic deficit from its enabling of this competition?

It is fair comment to say that the market must be allowed to function, but only if you consider that the value of local newspapers is such  that they can be left to the vagaries of the market, and that the consequences of failure are acceptable. To me, they are not.  Our local communities need local newspapers. They need this for news and information, and for local businesses to address their markets. Local newspapers are part of the vital glue that holds local communities together.

It is also my assertion that locally owned newspapers are far more likely to provide a decent quality of journalism than their non-local  counterparts, even when both are in monopoly positions in local communities.

In terms of local newspaper ownership in Scotland’s Highlands and Islands, I found 34 local newspaper titles – defined by me as  being published at least weekly; covering a specified or implied local area, and for commercial sale with advertising.

Of these 34 titles, 5 – or 15% – are currently in independent ownership – defined by me as being the sole title of a local publisher, or sole paid-for with an allied free advertiser. In addition the main regional daily in the Highlands & Islands, The P&J, is part of Aberdeen Journals Ltd, but this is owned by DC Thompson & Co. Ltd.

The main newspaper holdings in the region are:

Scottish Provincial Press – a local company but with 15 titles including Inverness Courier, Highland News, Ross-shire Journal, and with titles from John O’Groats to Lochaber, Nairn and Banffshire. The group also owns Highland Web offset in Dingwall, a major newspaper printing press in the region, printing SPP titles and other titles on a commercial basis belonging to other owners.

Johnston Press Ltd - major local newspaper ownership in Scotland, and third largest owner of local newspapers in the UK. JP has 5 local  titles include: Stornoway Gazette, Buteman, Buchan Observer and titles in Deeside and Donside. Also has blanket ownership /coverage in Aberdeenshire, Angus, Perthshire, Edinburgh and other parts of the central belt, Borders and Dumfries and Galway.

Wyvex Media Ltd – are owners of Campbelltown Courier, Oban Times, Argyllshire Advertiser and The Arran Banner.

The independent titles are:

The Shetland Times (Shetland Times Ltd)

The Ileach (Ileach Ltd)

West Highland Free Press (WHFP)

Am Paipear (monthly)

The Dunoon Observer

plus a host of micro local titles including Fios, Ullapool News etc.

In the last seven years, as mentioned above, this list would have included two other titles – The Hebridean and Orkney Today. Both were  bought by their main rivals, and both were closed restoring monopoly positions for The Orcadian and the Stornoway Gazette.

Of these titles, I would assert that even the titles in locally owned groups are more respected within their areas than those of the  non-local group owners. This has a great deal to do with the centralised content management and production processes that the large group companies have adopted, and a great deal to do with the shrinking investment large groups make in their staff.

Of course, the issue of ownership is in many ways a secondary issue to the fact that many local newspapers are under immediate threat from reduced revenues as a consequence of the recession, and from changing patterns in the consumption of news media that is hitting newspaper sales and advertising. The risk of some local communities being left without a local newspaper is now more real than ever.

In its recently realised interim financial report for 2010, Johnston Press, although back to making a modest profit after a number of  year’s of losses, lists its first means of cost saving in 2011 as: ‘Closure of titles and waste management’.

JP’s revenues for 2010 were down 7% to £398.1 million. Like for like print advertising sales were down 7.1% on the previous year, and revenues from newspaper sales were down 2.8% at £96.7 million. JP managed to reduce it operating costs by £30.1 million. Income from digital sources was up 4% to £18.3 million, with 3% growth in usage of its digital services, and overall digital accounts for about 5% of JP’s evenues. A tiny figure.

Reading JP’s mission statements, it is almost laughable to read how they describe themselves as a ‘local community publisher’, with content by produced by ‘local experts who believe Content Is King’. In Stornoway, this equates to Churnalism being King. And how does JP square this claim with its proud boast to have cut operating costs by 8% due to the centralisation of content management and production?

The issue of the relationship between sales of printed newspapers and the use of the internet as source of local news, is now also becoming clearer, and to some extent more settled – even in terms of advertising revenues, with declines in print advertising slowing and levelling  out.

The growth of web-based news provision has been much cited by Government committees as a reason for the decline in sale of local newspapers. That might to some extent be true. But Ofcom figures from 2009 show that 61% of Scots surveyed buy a local newspaper (compared with the UK average of 41%), and 64% listen to local radio stations (compared with 55% UK average).

In short, local newspapers in Scotland have considerably greater reach than in the rest of the UK, and there is evidence that the  struggle between print and web is now beginning to level and settle, and whilst local newspapers have taken a hit, it is not a knockout blow. But closures, are still a real possibility, and that cannot be allowed to happen. if the banks were considered too big to fail, then I suggest that on a local level local newspapers must be considered too important to fail, especially in those areas where there is a monopoly, a single local title. I believe local communities should be empowered to act against such a threat.

The coalition in Westminster has already dismissed the idea of state funding for local newspapers and media on the basis that such a move would itself be undemocratic. But this decision needs to be re-examined on the basis that it was considered only in terms of local media assets – such as newspapers and radio stations – being owned by private companies, or possibly coalitions of local media owning companies.

Nowhere has the issue of alternative forms of ownership been properly assessed, and I propose that State funding (or State assistance) for  local community owned media would ensure democracy on a local level, and not threaten it so long as their was the opportunity for shift in the form and nature of ownership of local media assets.

In conclusion, I would like to draw on recent experiences in the Highlands and islands of communities taking control of their destinies in the form of land reform and buy-outs, and I propose that this model is one that could and should inform how we address the issue of threat posed to local communities by monopoly position media assets, and by the closure of local newspapers.

What I propose – and this might require a significant slice of new powers either being devolved to the Scottish Parliament or coming as a  consequence of independence in Scotland – is that communities be given the right and the means to acquire fundamentally important local media assets (such as local newspapers) in all circumstances from their private owners (as a first right of refusal), and where that media asset operates in a monopoly, to do so by compulsory purchase if the current owner is not willing to sell.

Communities could be owners through Trusts (as has happened wth land buy-outs), or social enterprises, and should be given the support  necessary to run media assets as productive, independent local news organisations.

I recall the days before land buy-outs when the abilities of local communities to take on the large role of estate management and  development was often called into doubt, and the same negativity will, I’m ure, be hurled at this proposal. But I do believe that local does not mean  inept or weak, and I believe that with support and with the process of gaining experience, local media assets could become unique beckons of independence in an increasingly centralised media world. The local media owning trust would not e permitted to acquire other local or non-local media assets.

I assert that it would be good business for government to invest in community buy-outs of important local media assets, and the dividend comes in terms of the contribution such assets could make in terms of community strength and the strength of local economies.

To avoid issues of interference by governmental organisations, I also propose that the administration of the community media asset / buy out, and the decision-making process for the allocation of funds ec, should be at arm’s length through independent Trusts or similar.

In community ownership, State funding for local newspapers, does not risk local democracy, rather it would provide a new opportunity for  local democracy and local participation.

If you’d like to discuss these issues come along to the Ramada Jarvis Hotel Inverness at 12.45pm on Friday 10th June 2011, when I’m  chairing a panel discussion entitled Media As A Community Asset, held as part o Go North 2011.

http://www.gonorth.biz

I did not set out as the new year broke us ungently into 2010 with a resolution to read more books by comedians this year, but that is what has happened. In 2009, I read no books by comedians. In fact, my dislike of the celeb book craze is generally so profound as to be akin to a personal, anti-crap crusade. But now I find myself weakening, and maybe that’s because in my early adult years (1970s) most of the books by comedians were, it seemed to me, nothing more than sad confessionals, ghost written on behalf of  shabby racists who spent their working lives trading weak punch lines in rooms full of small-minded bigots. Now there are at least alternatives.

The four titles by comedians I’ve read this year are by four very different types of comic:  Jeremy Clarkson, Frankie Boyle, Paul O’Grady and Stewart Lee and I’d say that of the four, only the first three fit into the celeb book category.

The Clarkson and Boyle tomes I picked up from my teenage son’s bedroom floor. It is a trait of my reading habits that I really dislike that I am so easily distracted into reading almost anything that comes my way at the expense of reading time reserved for books I think I should read.

I’d bought him these volumes for Christmas in the ridiculous hope that I might lure my son into an interest in reading by making available such material. I know that is like giving a bottle of Bucky to a man dying of thirst but believe me, I’ve tried all other tricks of the trade including buying him copies of mags such as The Wire and Stuff (which is quite a good gadget mag but which has the most pointlessly gratuitous lad’s-mag type pics on the front cover).

My son might might of course have been interested in the books I’d spent ages wrapping up and secreting underneath the christmas tree had it not been for his father purloining them at just the moment boredom was taking hold of his (my son’s) Xmas hols.

What of the books themselves:

Clarkson, I suggest, wilfully writes in a tone that is unrelentingly mundane. He does this because he hinks that people who read, who actually like reading, are all French or as boring as Belgium and he does not want to alienate his following by making them feel that they are actually in danger of becoming nationals of these countries by enjoying reading a book.

Frankie Boyle’s ‘My Shit Life So Far‘ is, on balance, actually worth reading. I digested it in two short sittings, and found myself at times indulging in a light titter or two. The extended anecdotes that make up the greater part of the content of this book are in the most part strung together quite well, some are very funny, but they do highlight the fact that Frankie’s principle experience of life is not just that of everything being largely shit, but of an almost zen-like ennui that he has done nothing much to cure other than becoming a dab hand at onanism. I enjoyed it quite a lot (the book that is) whilst thinking that Frankie could actually do far better.

Paul O’Grady meanwhile is actually a very good writer, and the latest part of his on-going biog is a genuinely good read (I haven’t read the earlier vols). Of course, O’Grady brings to the table life experiences that are far broader and more intersting than those of Clarkson or Boyle,  which are explored with incredible honesty, frankness and humour because, I guess, such awareness has been key to his personal strength and survival and it retells well on the page.

Finally, and this being Celeb Book Thursday, on which every large publisher stacks high a selection of celeb auto-biogs with the soul view to finding some way of surviving in the business through 2011, Stewart Lee’s ‘How I Escaped My Certain Fate – The Life and Deaths of a Stand-up Comedian.’

This is not a celeb book, though Lee has in recent years ceayed a substantial following and some ofnthe most original comedy on TV. Lee is a celeb but not all books by celebs are celeb books. Lee’s book is an erudite exploration of the writer’s craft as a comedian, and a genuine insight into the at times precarious life of the alternative comedian. In this volume Lee juxtaposes chapters of selected biographical material, not BMDs but incidents relating mostly to the development of his work, with annotated transcriptions of  three of his shows from the last 5/6 years. The annotations point at times to the origins of the material but are at their most interesting when he analyses the structure of the material / narratives and the recent history of alternative comedy; the uses and abuses of extreme material, especially with regard to religious beliefs, and the stage craft of the contemporary comedian. The shows themselves are to me extremely funny and engaging, and they write well to the page from the stage, and of course, there is also plenty on the fall-out from Jerry Springer: The Opera and the blasphemy prosecution.

Towards the end of the book, Lee comments that his aim is to create material that does not work so well on the page and which is in a sense pure stage comedy. Now, having seen a good deal o Lee’s work live and on TV it is difficult to remove his voice from the experience of reading this book, but having now had experience of the same material on stage and the page, I’d say that it might be a mistake for Lee to change the current balance without first mining what is a very rich seam indeed. To anyone considering  developing a career as a stand-up I’d recommend this book as a must-read before you stand wrong side of the mic stand.

The link is:

http://www.hi-arts.co.uk/default.aspx.locid-hianewq7h.Lang-EN.htm

http://irishpublishingnews.com/2010/01/04/publishing-success-in-ireland-part-one/

As many will now know the Digital Economy Bill has, in my opinion, a wrong-minded approach to issues of copyright and  piracy and, as a previous blog posting of mine asserts, the UK government is at present engaged in a peculiarly misguided attack on so-called ‘piracy’ on the one hand whilst on the other remains silent about Google Books when other key European leaders (Germany and France) have, on behalf of their writers and authors,  opted out of the Google Books settlement. It is on these main assertions in my original blog (below) that I asked Robin Fry to comment, and as Robin Fry’s remarks below demonstrate, the Digital Economy Bill does nothing to clear up the confusion:

Robin Fry: “There is a real danger that publishers with large back-catalogues may enter into global licensing deals with Google without being certain that the original author-publisher agreements permit this. Authors could then use the new procedures contemplated by the Digital Economy bill to challenge both Google and the users who thought they were accessing these texts legitimately. 

“The Digital Economy bill does nothing to free up content which had been licensed for the old economy apart from for ‘orphan works’ which are still not defined.   It’s surprising that there should be such an obsession with file-sharing when far greater damage may be caused to authors whose copyrights are stripped away and sold on to Google without their permission. Isn’t that just a different kind of copyright infringement? ” [Ends].

Once again, my thanks to Robin Fry for these fascinating comments. Full details of Robin Fry’s work can be found at: http://www.beachcroft.co.uk/person.aspx?id_Content=769

For me, one striking element of the entire process has been the role of the various trade organisations on both sides of the Atlantic who have acquired from somewhere a mandate to enter into negotiations adn agreements with Google, and then agree and sign up to a settlement supposedly on behalf of publishers and authors in the UK, but in reality on behalf of those across a large slice of the English language publishing world.  

Publishers obviously purchase and hold rights in various ways over the works they publish, and as such have sway over their property. They are free to join organisations and mandate those organisations to represent their interests. Authors likewise can join membership and trade bodies and participate in their decision-making processes.  But that does not mean that such organisations somehow own more holistic, generalised rights to define and control the very notion of copyright itself, and the laws that protect it. 

Authors of out of print works can opt out of the Google Books process, but that is not the same as having a tacit, legally enshrined and enforceable copyright over their work. The same is true of the so-called ’orphaned’ works,  and the sense I get of this is that the tacit situation could soon be - without any new law being passed by elected representatives in the UK - that control is something you have to actively opt for rather than having a tacit and passive right to enjoy.  This is like doctors and nurses organisations rather than elected law makers deciding that your organs will be donated after you die  unless you’ve opted out when alive.  It is a subtle shift that undermines a once basic right. OK, so you will be paid if Google have copied your out of print work without telling you, but that means, as many others have pointed out, that Google could have the right to grab your property, sell it without telling you and then give you some of the proceeds if you find out.        

Where does this type of mandate originate, and why, given the importance of the creative industries to the UK economy, hasn’t the UK government taken an interest in this issue in the same way as the US adn other across Europe, who are now exempt from the proposed agreement? Is this the kind of passivity in terms of  digital content that our cherished creators can expect from the UK government going forward?  This is a government that on the one hand is proposing legislation to remove internet access from those who download stuff  illegally, whilst at the same time remaining completely inactive when a subtle undermining of your rights as a creator over your work  is taking place before their very eyes. 

We have a government in the UK that is at present trying to get the government’s of other countries to sign-up to a unified code that would limit the excesses of the globalised banking world. Maybe we need such a process to properly define and settle rights in terms of global digital markets, and to impose limits on the excesses of those who abuse those agreements. Not the individuals who pirate stuff, but the multi-nationals who pirate stuff.

I don’t buy Google’s sudden altruism, this is a commercial activity not a charity, and an example of  power being wielded to undermine laws and legal principles that are inconvenient to its model of how the ‘net can be monetized for its own benefit.

One year ago, when Waterstone’s ebooks site was live but still very much in development, I approached them with a proposal to promote new ebooks from the wealth of small, independent publishers – such as Two Ravens Press-  in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and those like Birlinn Polygon in Edinburgh who do such a good job in bringing to market the wealth of quality writing from the region. 

The idea was a simple one, and surely not beyond the means of a large retailer - we would put together a portfolio of titles newly in ebook format in an exclusive promotion with Waterstones, with supporting marketing campaigns in both old and new media. The promotion, albeit small in scale, would have provided Waterstones with truly ‘something different’ in their ebook store.

The idea, to give Waterstones due credit, was met with enthusiasm on the ground in the UK, and I was encouraged to take the first steps toward making it happen. This involved working with Waterstones’ US-based  fulfillment, warehousing and distribution contractor. Our contract for these services would be with that contractor as opposed to Waterstones, and certainly not with Waterstones in the UK or Scotland, and this is where the project came to an abrupt halt. The US contractor insisted that they would only entertain taking on the kind of titles that we were proposing if they were centrally represented by us (an impossibility given our status as a publicly funded agency), as they felt that working individually,  small and independent publishers of the type in our promotion was not the best use of their resources.

This clearly shows, that not only does the tail wag the dog when it comes to Waterstones ebooks store, but how far from its original ideal as bookseller Waterstones has moved as a company, and demonstrates that from its inception the ebooks portal was locked into the same mainstreaming ideals as the High Street chain. 

This could, of course, have been very different had Waterstones  taken the same kind of pioneering attitude to ebooks as it did to High Street retailing when it first opened its doors. The Waterstones ebook store could have utilised the much vaunted local knowledge and contacts of his purchasing and selling staff to bring to the store a wealth of new and very different titles alongside the mainstream to become, at least in part, a market hall of independent publishing, as well as a place to download your mainstream and celeb titles.

The local connections and knowledge that was once a genuine business asset for the chain and which had been accumulated through High Street bookselling and purchasing, if applied to the new portal, would have enabled well-targeted inclusion of independent and small publishers on the site without it becoming a free-for-all portal, and could have formed the basis for a strong claim to having something different to offer, and for new sales promotions. This, I believe would have benefitted Waterstones and the small publishers concerned, but above all would have been of benefit to the reader looking to find something other than the mainstream titles for their new e-reader.