![[self-portrait]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aph-FWKPAtw/Sb7dbBwgg0I/AAAAAAAAAAU/xefH94KcXQA/S220/LawShark5204a.jpg)
Scrivener's Error| null | |
|---|---|
|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
link to: 11:09 [GMT-6]
... long live the chain.
The demise of Borders is far from unexpected. The initial bankruptcy filing demonstrated all of the seeds of it — including, but not limited to, well-above-average-interest-rate terms offered for debtor-in-possession financing. There remain a few issues to consider, as lessons learned in general and for authors/publishers/those who give a rat's ass about books, that are sneaking under the radar.
The first, and perhaps most obvious, is that books are not boxes of macaroni and cheese... and that whatever "brand loyalty" exists in publishing is not to the publisher(s), but to authors. This is the real problem with management in both publishing and in distribution today. If one actually looks at the data and mathematical models behind everything that gets taught in American business schools; and that gets taught to and imposed upon financiers; and that underlies virtually every successful derivative securities lawsuit — it is the struggle over fungibility. Because dealing with fungibility is something that can be mathematically modelled, and therefore is (at least somewhat) reproducible, that's what gets published, and taught, and imposed as internal standards, and imposed as "behavior of a prudent investor or author." And, of course, that is the very opposite of the definition of "art" or "culture" or "literature" or "authorship"... or, in a more general sense, "intellectual property." The entire point of "intellectual property" as a meme is that individual pieces of IP are not fungible, and that copies of those individual pieces of IP are only partially fungible in that the pieces must maintain an identical fit. In short, the Borders failure is almost entirely the fault of "efficiency" as a measure of managerial competence, acceptability... and access to finance and markets.
A second issue is the unstated presumptions built into the bankruptcy system in favor of interests in real property over just about everyone else. The impact of the landlords on this mess is obvious when comparing the anticipated return from sale of inventory and the amount that would return to the vendors (my back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate it would be between 70 and 80 percent), even after allowing for payment of nonmanagerial employees, and the estimated total return of around 22 percent to all creditors. And, sadly, this isn't just the physical-property landlords; it also includes landlocked tax authorities, utilities, etc. Lurking behind all of this is the assumption that returns from ownership of real property interests must always increase over time, even in declining economic circumstances. Once again, exploring the data sets and the math actually used to manipulate those data sets becomes extremely interesting, particularly in light of "too big to fail" presumptions (more formally, diseconomies of scale).
Geography also plays a side role in this, strongly related to (but independent from) the role of real-property interests. The physical distance between Ann Arbor, Michigan (Borders' longtime headquarters) and Dallas, Texas, is greater than that between Paris and Moscow physically, and about the same culturally. There's a reason that Books-a-Million is being so careful about not expanding too far beyond its southeastern-US base for those stores it is buying/considering buying, with a couple of exceptions as possible brand-name footholds: BAMM's management is smart enough to know that it doesn't know market conditions (or landlord assumptions, or damned near anything else) more than a comfortable day's drive from its headquarters... that is, the distance from Paris to Berlin.1 When Borders was a successful chain, its locations were within a day's drive of its headquarters in Ann Arbor; indeed, few of its locations were more than a day's drive from each other. That compactness led to certain distributional efficiencies that management assumed would continue as the chain expanded beyond that, for lack of a better term, event horizon... so that management really did need to be worried about whether what "played in Peoria" would make for the appropriate stocking decisions in New York. Or Los Angeles. Or Seattle.2
Last, for now, and far from least, is the cultural disjuncture between decisionmakers inside of publishing and its distribution arms and its potential/actual customer base. This is epitomized by the whitewashing problem that I've discussed here several times before. Put as baldly as I can, it really doesn't matter how much interest one can generate among one's culturally-homogeneous peers inside the industry and inside the distribution channels; what matters is interest among the people actually putting their money on the line for it. An example from Borders' history might help understand this. In the early 1990s, I was stationed in Washington, DC, and frequently shopped at a Borders on Rockville Pike. This particular store was staffed with intelligent book people who not only knew their stock, but had at least some familiarity with what was not in stock but otherwise available. I visited the same store again a few years later, after the Kmart takeover, and noted the severe changes. The military affairs section had shrunk (in DC!) in favor of a considerably larger generic-romance section, and similarly for politics/current events giving space away to celebrity/memoirs; the staff seemed as if it would have been more comfortable asking if I wanted fries with my order; and so on. In short, it had become an outlet, not a store. And I, with my personal library and general book acquisitiveness, am precisely the customer that a bookstore should want to appeal to. Borders didn't; and their loss became... their loss.
Labels: arts, copyright, culture, intellectual property, jurisprudence, politics, publishing
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 2003–12 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.
Sausages?
Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.
I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.
Optimized for
at 1024x768.
