Let me clarify:

Quartz posted a static screenshot of an interactive and it linked to the interactive and praised the interactive. Quartz was actively encouraging people to go check out the full thing on the New York Times’ website. The offending Quartz article is titled “Our favorite charts of 2012.”

Quartz was transferring at least 90% of the attention and value to the New York Times. And yet, the Times wanted Quartz to take the whole thing down.

Quartz wisely did two things:

1. They revised the article to make it clear the full interactive visualization was produced by the Times. This was really their only mistake in the matter. Insert attribution clearly and often is a rule to live by in the online world.
2. Quartz didn’t take the screenshot down because they believed its inclusion qualifies as fair use.

The Times backtracked and said they were only looking for proper attribution.

That’s not quite right, though. Quartz published the full takedown notice they received and there’s nothing in there that says, “Hey, thanks for the link. You think you could make the attribution clear?” Rather, it’s one of those “take that down or else” letters.

Here’s what I find interesting about all this:

• Any reasonable online editor would look at the Quartz story and deem it acceptable. The Times, or whoever is sending these notices on behalf of the Times, is shooting the organization in the foot because now they’ve planted a seed of doubt in the minds of Quartz editors, and all online editors for that matter. People may think twice before highlighting the Times’ work.
• I love that Quartz pushed back with fair use. If this isn’t fair use I don’t know what is.

There are plenty of examples of questionable curation and attribution committed by mainstream media and independent writers alike. This isn’t one of them.

Related:

• Fair use: A narrow, subjective, complicated safe haven for free speech
• Copyright and “intellectual disobedience”
• NY Times ebook initiative could be so much more

A new books section in Flipboard highlights titles from iBookstore. It’s a nice idea, but it doesn’t go far enough.

Instead of doing the obvious thing — publishing full samples — the Flipboard / iBookstore section only shows the book cover, author and publisher’s description. That’s like lining the shelves of a physical bookstore with book jackets, not the books themselves. Why would you do that?

Flipboard’s elegant design makes it a rarity among apps — it’s useful as both a browsing platform and a reading platform. Yet, this iBookstore relationship only harnesses the browsing capability.

On top of that, readers have for years had the ability to dig into free book samples through Amazon and the like. That functionality is now a default, and you can’t launch a digital book catalog without it. Yet, that’s what we’re presented with in this case.

Technically, you can acquire a sample through the Flipboard/iBookstore combination. But look at all these steps:

1. Go to the iBookstore section in Flipboard.
2. Select a book.
3. Press the “Download on the iBookstore” button.
4. Run into a “Leave Flipboard?” warning. Click the “Open” button to proceed.
5. Load the book title in iBooks (it does that automatically).
6. Click the “Sample” button.

Here’s what’s going to happen: Flipboard users will hear about this iBookstore section, give it a quick look, then immediately forget about it. That’s a shame. If samples were included this could be a great tool — and a great model — for everyone involved.

TOC NY 2013— The publishing industry will gather at the Tools of Change for Publishing Conference in New York City, February 12-14, to explore the forces and solutions that are transforming publishing.Save 15% on registration with the code COMM15

The material in Best of TOC falls into four sections:

The adaptation of publishing — The disruption in publishing is just getting started. Journalists are experimenting with ebook options over traditional outlets, readers are wrapping their heads around the concept of paperless books, and authors are wondering if they even need publishers.

Digital publishing and the legal landscape — The emerging global market for books is stirring up all sorts of legal questions concerning copyright, public domain and digital publishing rights for authors and publishers. Existing laws are slowly adapting to new media platforms as well.

Publishing tech and tools — Digital publishing is requiring tech education for everyone, from publishers to authors to readers. In addition, the rise of mobile is driving the development of publishing’s next toolset.

The edge of publishing — Adaptation to a new publishing landscape starts with a change in thinking — not only in how we think about technology and books as objects, but in how we define our various roles and how we choose to collaborate.

You can download a free copy of “Best of TOC 2012″ here (available in EPUB, Mobi and PDF formats).

TOC NY 2012 — O’Reilly’s TOC Conference, being held Feb. 13-15, 2012, in New York, is where the publishing and tech industries converge. Practitioners and executives from both camps will share what they’ve learned and join together to navigate publishing’s ongoing transformation.

Register to attend TOC 2012

The 2012 edition of the Tools of Change for Publishing conference will open its doors on February 13 in New York City.

Since we’re in the home stretch, I rounded up TOC chairs Kat Meyer and Joe Wikert to discuss the major publishing trends and developments that are shaping the conference. Below, you’ll find the five biggest takeaways from our chat. The associated audio podcast contains the full conversation.

1. Publishing is rife with startups

The publishing world is no longer solely the domain of big old organizations. There’s a whole bunch of startups engaged in a variety of publishing experiments. TOC 2012 will feature notable upstarts in the Startup Showcase and throughout the conference program.

2. You’ve got the data, now what do you do with it?

Digital and data go hand-in-hand, and that means publishers — whether they know it or not — are running data-driven businesses. They need to learn how to gather, mine and use all those datasets to their advantage. The practical application of data will be an important theme at the conference.

3. No more ugly ebooks

Those quick and dirty digital conversions won’t cut it anymore. Readers are committing to digital, and now they’re rightfully demanding top-notch ebook / app experiences. It’s time for publishers to meet that demand.

4. Publishing is bigger than books

Book people have something to learn from media people, and media people can learn from book people. Toss in film and music folks, and you’ve got a huge digital knowledge base that can be drawn from and adapted. This year at TOC, there’s a concerted effort to expand “publishing” beyond its narrow and traditional definition.

5. “Change/Forward/Fast” isn’t just a catchy tagline

Agile development began in the software world, but its core attributes of iteration and feedback also apply to publishing. Agile methodologies and applications will be discussed in a variety of TOC sessions.

Again, those are just the takeaways from the interview. The podcast has much more on TOC’s major themes and what you can expect to see. It also includes a “bold prediction” from Joe that, if realized, could completely change the way publishers handle mobile apps and ebooks.

TOC NY 2012 — O’Reilly’s TOC Conference, being held Feb. 13-15, 2012, in New York City, is where the publishing and tech industries converge. Practitioners and executives from both camps will share what they’ve learned and join together to navigate publishing’s ongoing transformation.

Register to attend TOC 2012

Related:

• Three reasons why we’re in a golden age of publishing entrepreneurship
• How agile methodologies can help publishers
• More TOC Podcasts

Below you’ll find a handful of tweets and additional links that zero in on key points from Tim’s presentation.

[View the story "Tweets related to Tim O'Reilly's keynote at #SIS2011" on Storify]

Related:

• Tim O’Reilly on what lies ahead in publishing
• What Android Can Learn from Steve Jobs (video)
• The State of the Internet Operating System
• What Is Web 2.0
• Looking for the future? Watch the “crackpots”

As president of Twist Image and author of “Six Pixels of Separation,” Mitch Joel spends a lot more time thinking about digital marketing than most people. Joel sat down recently with O’Reilly’s Joe Wikert to explore the publishing and marketing topics that are currently on his radar. These include:

• “The how versus the why” — Why are you on YouTube? Why are you tweeting? Are those outlets actually suitable for the things you’re trying to say, or are you using them because that’s what everyone else is doing? Joel says it’s important to question the time and energy you’re investing in various platforms. [Discussed at the 6:08 mark.]
• Advertising in books — Placing ads in books (digital or otherwise) is anathema to some publishers, but Joel doesn’t share that view. As magazines and Google have shown, advertising can be made palatable by targeting the advertising to the content. What publishers need to do is resist the urge to “poison the well” with broad-based generic ads. [Discussed at 9:44.]
• Why publishers should “burn the ships” — You can’t look at the media as if it’s the same media it was 5-10 years ago, Joel notes, and that means you can’t look at advertising and marketing the same way either. Cramming traditional marketing models into digital platforms simply won’t work. It’s time for something completely different. [Discussed at 13:46.]

The full discussion is available in the following video. Joel will expand on some of these ideas during his keynote address at next month’s TOC Frankfurt.

TOC Frankfurt 2011 — Being held on Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2011, TOC Frankfurt will feature a full day of cutting-edge keynotes and panel discussions by key figures in the worlds of publishing and technology.

Save 100€ off the regular admission price with code TOC2011OR

Related:

• Hacking online advertising
• How one publisher uses “aggressive marketing”
• Part book, part film, part website
• Pages before ads and other Facebook marketing tips

Self-published author Amanda Hocking turned heads when estimates suggested she’s making big money. Hocking’s age — she’s 26 — and her distribution method of choice — low-priced ebooks sold directly through Amazon, et al. — undoubtedly contributed to the attention.

The inclination is to paint this picture in broad strokes: An upstart author finds success outside the traditional method, which reveals the imminent demise of the stodgy incumbents (insert David vs. Goliath and/or “Innovator’s Dilemma” references as needed).

It’s a good story, but Hocking isn’t buying it. In a blog post titled “Some Things That Need to Be Said,” Hocking makes two important points:

1. Success in any domain is unpredictable. “… While I do think I will not be the only one to do this — others will be as successful as I’ve been, some even more so — I don’t think it will happen that often,” she writes.
2. Self-publishing and traditional publishing are branches on the same tree. “Self-publishing and traditional publishing really aren’t that different,” Hocking says. “One is easier to get into but harder to maintain. But neither come with guarantees. Some books will sell, some won’t.”

Her full post is worth a read.

News of Hocking’s success led to an interesting back-channel conversation on an O’Reilly editor’s list. The perspectives articulated in the resulting email thread reflect many of the important issues at play in today’s publishing world. With permission, I’m moving a few excerpts into public view below. I think (and hope) there’s an opportunity to instigate some broader discussion.

Screenshot of Amazon’s Amanda Hocking page

What do publishers offer?

In the email exchange, Brett McLaughlin considered the return on investment of traditional publishing’s bread and butter: in-depth editing. Is editing as important as publishers think it is?

Many of the things we think are of incredibly high value turn out to be of far less value to the consumer. Certainly, we can say that editing of a Kindle fiction book probably needs to be less rigorous than a print technology book, or even more so in the case of a language-heavy theological commentary … I’d do well to think hard about what’s worth holding a product up in the name of “editing” and what just doesn’t matter to the paying public.

Tim O’Reilly noted that good editing adapts to the author and the project:

Sometimes, we need to almost become co-authors; at other times, we need to just step back and let the author speak, even if it’s a bit different than we would do it ourselves. But ideally, editing is a conversation in which the editor helps the author clarify his or her own ideas, the order and learning path, and the depth of treatment.

Russell Jones made an intriguing point about publishing processes. What once was mandatory is now optional:

Rather than a required step in publishing, editorial is in the process of switching from an imposed step by publishers to an optional step by authors. It’s this change in focus that makes publishers nervous. But I don’t think it should, necessarily. As Tim points out, there are times when the author’s original voice is sufficient, and times when the editor/author conversation becomes paramount.

As I see it, the future of publishing and editing is to identify those touchpoints and offer the appropriate services as required at that time. And we have numerous services to offer, including: artwork, audience research, marketing and advertising, public relations, design, technological expertise, sales and distribution, brand association, community services, update and notification services, bundling, and of course, editorial.

The very fact that authors can publish works without a traditional publisher automatically changes the publisher’s role from one that imposes process on authors to one that offers services to authors. Nimble publishers will recognize this sea change and adapt.

Mike Loukides looked at the “cheerleading” editors give to authors:

The economics of publishing are changing in ways that make it difficult for publishers to do the kind of rewriting and revision that we used to do, but that’s only part of the picture. A huge part that we haven’t thought about enough is what I call the “cheerleading” role: supporting and encouraging the author so that he or she makes it down the stretch. So, though we’re going to have to rely more on writers who can deliver good prose without lots of help, that’s a small part of the value we deliver. There’s a lot of value in shaping the approach and pushing the author toward the finish line.

Many characterize Hocking as a self publisher, but that’s not quite right. The companies that own the distribution/sales platforms Hocking and other authors use are in many ways the real publishers. In the email thread, Tim O’Reilly used Amazon to illustrate this point:

I think it’s important to frame all this correctly. We’re not really talking about a situation where authors are self-publishing so much as one where we’re watching Amazon become a publisher. Amazon is starting with the now standard Internet approach of “publish first, curate afterwards” (vs. the old scarcity model of “curate, then publish”), but it’s also clear that as the ecosystem develops, Amazon will offer more of the kinds of services that Russell is talking about.

If Amazon and Apple and others are publishers now, what competitive advantage can traditional publishers claim? Brett McLaughlin said the things that happen around the writing process — the conversations, the shaping, and the author-editor relationships — are key differentiators:

There is huge value in saying: You’re getting access and long conversations with an editor who is engaged in your field, who is reading and thinking and talking to others about the same topics, who reads everything you’ve already written, and will engage you.

In short, you’re pair-writing, and the result isn’t just a spell-checked, green-underline-less document in Word that can be turned into a web page or a Kindle product. What you’re creating is a book that is cognitively and substantively better, because you are thinking better. You are well-reasoned and provocative and well-organized, and you have had your pre-suppositions challenged by a great companion. Sure, your book is better as a result, but so is your speech, and your sessions at conferences, and your work product. Ultimately, you are a better thinker.

Your thoughts?

Even when you want to be open minded, it’s hard to fully understand the field of play when you’re ensnared in a system. I fall into that trap all the time, and I’m probably caught in it now.

As such, I’m curious to hear what other folks think. Do the perspectives outlined above seem on target? Or, is the thread of optimism that runs through these points tied to a misplaced sense of publisher self-worth? And here’s a question for authors: Are publishers still useful?

Please weigh in through the comments.

Portions of these excerpts were edited and condensed.

Related:

• Open-ended publishing
• Want to succeed in online content? Get small, be open, go free
• Ebook annotations, links and notes: Must-haves or distractions?

Sam Jones, CEO of Formation Media, is ignoring the death notices. While other publishers turn their weary eyes toward tablets, or construct walls around content no one wants to buy, Jones believes a complete embrace of the web’s strengths is the key to reinvigorating media brands (or, as he puts it, “I buy dead magazines“).

In the following interview, Jones discusses his recipe for online content success: It has to be free, it has to be widely available, and publishers must operate at a web-appropriate scale.

Why did you found Formation Media?

Sam Jones: I was working at Demand Media in corporate development and I noticed there was some major disruption happening in the media space, specifically in the magazine space. A significant number of very powerful brands were dying off. These were brands with strong audiences, passionate users, and great content, but the incumbent models just couldn’t support them. I saw a clear opportunity to really change the game and make some of these great brands thrive. Formation Media was born in 2008 to take advantage of that opportunity.

From there, we looked over the 3,000 magazines that have died over the past 18 months to decide which we should go after. While we were building things out, we purchased Car Audio and Electronics Magazine. It’s a smaller publication that has a passionate following, but in 2008 it was transitioned to online-only because it couldn’t survive as a print magazine in a tumultuous market. We took the archival content and that powerful brand and added that to our model, which allows us to inexpensively create massive amounts of high-quality text, video and pictorial content.

What are the components of your model?

Sam Jones: We combine brand, editorial content, and social media to create engagement. Then we syndicate that content out and allow others to take it wherever they want it, for free. There’s absolutely no way to subscribe. There’s absolutely no way to pay for an “issue” or a PDF. We want people to consume the content when and how they want to consume it.

Up to 80 percent of our traffic is from syndication partners and search, where brand, content quality, and the opinion of others you trust matter. Users come back to our site engaged and looking for richer content and community interactions.

It’s also clear that people like free. That’s a bad word in the incumbent model because free works against the traditional value proposition. But on the digital side, if you have faith in the brand, the quality of the content, and the user experience, all sorts of wonderful magic happens for the business. Depending on the year, between 70 and 90 percent of our available inventory is from double-digit branded advertisers, and 95 percent of our costs are taken out. Monetization follows when you focus on doing the right things for your users.

How many full-time staffers do you have on your editorial teams?

Sam Jones: We want dedicated stewardship over a voice, we want to create engaged communities, and we want to deliver high-quality content. We’re not trying to create a farm or an engine or any of that stuff. That’s why I’m hiring the best possible editors to run the vertical markets that we go into, and each vertical will have their own dedicated editorial team.

But staffing will be appropriate for the profitability that we need and expect. For Car Audio and Electronics Magazine, which had 85 people that ran that publication, we now have two. That’s what works for that brand. If we were to buy into the shelter space, which has larger brands and different content needs, we would require more than two people to maintain a strong editorial voice. That said, it’s still not like we’ll have 20 full-time employees for a shelter publication.

Has the media industry put too much emphasis on the potential of tablets, and the iPad in particular?

Sam Jones: The fastest growing product in Apple’s history is the iPad, and they’ve got 10 million installed units, which is huge. But what I’d rather do is instead of looking at that 10 million installed base, let’s look at the 1.6 billion Internet-enabled devices.

Frankly, the most important app on the iPad is Safari. It’s on every iPad and iPhone and it has a consistent and proven user experience. When we make it easy for people to get what they want for free, engagement and brand can be monetized through advertising and e-commerce throughout the published and syndicated environment that we manage. The users win, our syndication partners split revenues, and we reach several times more people.

Does that mean your mobile strategy is primarily web based?

Sam Jones: We’ll create apps, but our primary strategy is always going to be the native experience through the browser. If somebody wants our content, you can get it in any way that you can possibly ask for it. If you have two tin cans and a string with an Internet connection, our goal is to get it to you.

Has online advertising failed?

Sam Jones: There’s three aspects to this. One, if you look at online advertising as a monolith, it’s been really bad for a whole bunch of folks. But brands and deep engagement have done very well. As I noted earlier, 70 to 90 percent of our available inventory — depending on the time of year and other factors — is double-digit CPMs.

Two, advertising to support a business entity has to be scaled. At one of the magazines we looked at, they had six people on their dining staff. That magazine failed. You have to be mindful of the context and the economics of your situation.

Finally, we need to stop thinking in terms of standard ad units. The user experience should come first and that engagement should drive monetization. If you have a platform that allows for richer integrations, or actually provides value by weaving that monetization solution into the user experience, then you start to see significant margins.

What’s your take on paywalls?

Sam Jones: Paywalls are like asking my two sons to work really hard so they can be Michael Jordan. Only a few people could come close to being MJ under perfect circumstances. Similarly, only a few companies and brands could make paywalls work.

If you extend this thinking to newspapers, there’s only a few companies that have the brand, the audience, and the monetization hierarchy that would allow for a paywall to work. There’s the Wall Street Journal. There’s potentially Bloomberg, which is an interesting combination with BusinessWeek. And maybe if you stretch it, there’s the New York Times. Beyond those unique brands, paywalls simply get in the way of the user experience.

Paywalls are an example of companies holding on to the pillars of incumbency instead of seizing the disruptive opportunity. I believe in the face of unprecedented disruption, there’s no place for incrementalism. There’s just not. We have to be bold in our actions in order to not just survive, but to thrive.

Note: Sam Jones discusses his “radical point of view” for magazines in the following presentation:

This interview was edited and condensed.

Related:

• How to fix online advertising
• Hacking online advertising
• Trapping content on the iPad won’t work, even if it’s pretty
• Open-ended publishing

How will ebooks change publishing?

Tim O’Reilly: Andrew Savikas, our VP of digital initiatives at O’Reilly, likes to make a distinction between “formats” and “forms.” A hardback, a paperback, an audiobook, and many an ebook simply represent different forms of the same work. New formats, on the other hand, represent deeper changes in how authors develop content and readers consume it. The graphic novel is a recent format innovation in the West (albeit one with deep antecedents), as are the cell phone novels that have become popular in Japan.

People think of ebooks as simply another format, but ebooks actually
represent an opportunity for a change in form. For example, you used to buy a printed atlas or a printed map, but now you have a dynamic, perpetually-updated, real-time map that shows you where you are. The old paper maps aren’t very useful anymore. Applications from Yelp to Foursquare can be seen as elaborations of the potential of the map in its electronic form.

Or look at Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, it’s actually pretty close in form to what it replaced, but there are important layers of reinvention. A printed encyclopedia doesn’t have articles on breaking news; it can’t be a real-time encyclopedia in the way that Wikipedia now is. Notions about what an encyclopedia can do have changed.

Changes in form have significantly affected O’Reilly’s publishing business by providing new kinds of competition. Our bestsellers are now tutorial books. The old reference-based books have been cannibalized by the web and search. This is why we try to define Safari Books Online as a library of content that people can search across. Reference material now carries an expectation that it will be searchable. And our tutorial books are increasingly challenged by other forms of tutorial, such as screencasts and online video.

O’Reilly may appear to be in the same category as HarperCollins — we both put ink on paper and sell products through retailers — but in other ways we’re not even in the same business. HarperCollins publishes literary fiction, serious non-fiction, biographies, and other popular literature. We publish technical how-to and reference material. Their competitors include other forms of entertainment and erudition; ours include other forms of teaching and reference.

Does the definition of “publisher” need to expand?

Tim O’Reilly: Publishers think way too narrowly about what kind of business they are in, and as a result, are blind to how the competitive landscape is changing under their feet. If someone has roots in ink-on-paper, they are a publisher, but if they are web- or mobile-native, they are not. But this is wrong-headed! Put another way: Why would you think Zagat is a publisher but Yelp isn’t? They both perform similar jobs. Competition should be defined by the jobs publishers do for users.

That being said, curation and aggregation are among the core jobs of publishing, and it’s clear to me these jobs still need to be done. There is a real need for someone to winnow out the wheat from the chaff as more content becomes available online. (Of course, Google is also in the curation business, but they do it algorithmically.) Eventually, there will be new ways publishers get paid for doing these jobs, but there are also going to be new ways to do them.

TOC: 2011, being held Feb. 14-16, 2011 in New York City, will explore “publishing without boundaries” through a variety of workshops, keynotes and panel sessions.

Save 15% off registration with the code TOC11RAD

Does a focus on infrastructure block adaptation?

Tim O’Reilly: I gave a Publishing Point talk and someone in the audience asked how new publishing models could pay for “all this,” and they pointed around to the lovely room and by reference, the building we were in, the headquarters of a storied publishing company. It was as if maintaining what they already own is the heart of the problem. That’s like Digital Equipment Corporation asking, back when the PC era was just beginning, “Will the personal computer pay for all of this?”

HP and IBM figured out how to make the transition to the personal computer era. Digital didn’t. Now, Microsoft is struggling with the transition from the PC era to the web era. Could you imagine somebody at a Microsoft conference asking, “But will the web pay for all of this?” You would think that was ridiculous. In technology, we understand the reality of competition and what Schumpeter called the “creative destruction” of capitalism. Why is it when somebody asks that same question in the context of publishing it’s treated as a serious query?

How can publishers adapt to digital? What mindsets should they adopt?

Tim O’Reilly: Publishers, including O’Reilly, need to ask themselves: How can we make our content better online? How can we make it better through mobile?

In non-fiction, there are simple improvements to be made in the form of links — after all, what is a link but a better version of the footnote? There are also ways to add more content, in much the way that DVD publishers add deleted scenes, director commentary, and other extras to the original movie. Other times, “better” will be defined by making something smaller — at least from the user’s point of view. For example, Google has more data than any print atlas, but the user sees less. Consumption is defined by the user’s particular request: show me where I am now; show what’s around me; show me how to get from where I am to somewhere else. There’s a huge opportunity for books to be reconceived as database-backed applications that show you just what you need to know. Former computer-book publisher Mitch Waite now publishes a fabulous birder’s guide for the iPhone, iBird Pro, demonstrating the power of this model.

Books give people information, entertainment, and education. If publishers focus on how those three elements can be performed better online and through mobile, innovation and business models will follow. If we don’t innovate to do those jobs better for our customers, it’s only a matter of time before someone else steps in.

Next in this series: What lies ahead in net neutrality

Related:

• Video: Andrew Savikas’ keynote from TOC Frankfurt 2010
• The line between book and Internet will disappear
• Publishers, don’t pave that cow path
• Publishing needs a social strategy
• Open-ended publishing
• Ebooks and the threat from “internal constituencies”

I was reminded of this when I ran across my colleague Russell Jones’ recent comment on a company email list. Here’s what he wrote:

“Publishing,” in the past, was always tied to an event — printing the book. That’s no longer true. The “book” now consists of whatever content you provide for readers to download — and if you can update them automatically, that’s not even exactly true.

For example, you could create a book that updates constantly, a book that consists entirely of reader input, a book that is actually a series of links, a book that readers interact with, a book that grows over time, and, of course, book readers that collect their own metadata. Books that are applications, books that are interactive tours. Books where the ending (or the whole story) changes as people read them … There are no reprints. There may be editions, but in most cases, that’s not terribly useful to readers.

Everything has changed. The sky’s the limit.

[Note: This was published with Russell's permission.]

Russell’s comment got me thinking about how a mental “change filter” applies to the content industries. It also made me want to share some of the questions I’ve been noodling on over the last few years. Specifically:

What if all content is on a continuum? What if there’s no end? What if there’s no finality anymore?

That’s a huge change from what most of us are used to. From early on, we’re trained to create editions: an essay, a book, a magazine, a newspaper, a movie, a game, etc. Those are projects with defined beginnings and endings.

But digital content doesn’t really exist in an edition-based world. It moves, it flows. It gets chunked up, mashed up, and recombined. It can be copied and pasted at will (whether you like it or not). It can be added to. It can be deleted from. It hibernates and reappears unexpectedly months or years later.

Just look at the revision history on a Wikipedia entry. Digital content is fluid.

What’s odd and interesting is that many content creators — even folks who truly understand digital — are stuck in editions. I fall into this trap all the time. Too often I see the world in terms of “posts” or “articles.” But by thinking that way, I’m leaving opportunity on the table. I’m limiting my creative output to a defined amount of content that’s poured into a defined container.

So that’s the set up. As you’ll see, my thoughts about open-ended publishing are nascent. I’m not entirely sure this process has long-term utility. Nor do I know if it’s viable as a business model. Nonetheless, here’s a few ideas on how open-ended publishing might play out.

Everything can be public

Under an open-ended model, notes, excerpts, links, and drafts can all be published online. Few people would care to access this content — heck, its disorganization could make it private while in public view — but it’s been my experience that pushing material into the public space changes it in an important way.

Public content holds the content creator accountable. This is why I dump all sorts of quotes and excerpts and half-baked ideas into my Tumblr. That’s my big bucket of slop: all the stuff that informs the posts I write and the interview questions I ask. I put it out there not because I think it has value to all (it doesn’t), but because public content makes me want to follow through.

I used to collect similar dribs and drabs in private Google documents. Despite good intentions, I never closed the loop on any of that stuff. It just sat there, locked in a doc no one will ever look at again. But publishing that same material publicly is like creating an alpha version for a future piece of content.

You’ll notice I wrote everything “can” be public. It doesn’t have to be. If there’s a competitive advantage connected to a particular insight or breakthrough, you might want to hold that back. That’s fine, but I’m of the mind that almost everything can and should be blithely tossed into the public space. After all, a stunning idea means little without great execution. (Note: Nuclear launch codes, secret herbs and spices, and private corporate data don’t apply here. Just so we’re clear.)

Go forward or back whenever you like

We’re so accustomed to sensing “the end.” We see that last paragraph or feel that last beat and we know, subconsciously, that the ride is almost over. Because of this, open-ended publishing feels weird — perhaps even wrong. But I think we need to fight through that.

A content creator can always reach a full-stop with their work. He or she could tie up loose ends and make their creation cohesive. But even in these cases, the “never say never” adage will always apply. If a related idea pops up, what’s to stop that same person from firing up the engine again? Or, if someone else wants to run with the same ball, why not? This is already common in the film industry, where franchise “reboots” are a norm (and given what we’ve seen from Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” films and JJ Abrams’ “Star Trek,” a reboot can be a very good thing).

The big takeaway here is that if content is open ended, creators can go forward or back whenever they like. Personally, I find that liberating.

Just start

The world is filled with people brimming with ideas. The world is not filled with people who will act on those ideas. Content creators are naturally scarce because writing, filming, and editing requires effort — often lots of effort. Some of us are blessed (or cursed) with a need to create. It’s a compulsion.

This section doesn’t apply to those people.

I don’t subscribe to the notion that all great material comes from borderline psychosis. “Writers have to write,” that’s true, but others have it in them to create interesting things as well. The key is to reduce the barriers to entry. When that happens, we’ll see two things:

1. Ungodly amounts of hideous material.
2. A small but vital percentage of beautiful stuff.

YouTube is the embodiment of this. Much of that content is very, very bad. But nestled amidst the shaky home videos and cringe-inducing “comedy,” you’ll find genuine voices and genuine talent.

But YouTube is using technology to lower the barriers of content creation and distribution. What I’m proposing is a barrier-busting mindset.

The key is this: Instead of pushing the notion that all material of merit must only appear after countless revisions, we could instead just start. Just publish it. Just write it. Just put it out there. Let it become a thing instead of an idea. Since this content is open ended, you can always revise the material, or rework it, or completely alter its intent. The most important thing you can do is begin. (This is why NaNoWriMo is a fantastic project.)

“Publishing without boundaries” is the theme of TOC 2011, being held Feb. 14-16 in New York City. Save 15% on registration with the code TOC11RAD.

Expectations and platforms

I know it sounds like I’m suggesting that all content should become stream of consciousness blather. But that’s not true.

I’m an editor. I value clarity, and I know clarity is only achieved through structure and revision. (This post, for example, was reworked and then reworked again.) I also see quality as a competitive advantage. Because there’s so much bad stuff out there, committing to the good stuff sets you apart.

As such, open-ended publishing needs to mesh expectations with platforms. That’s why I dump my random gatherings on Tumblr, where the expectation — if there is one — is quite low. I would never post that material on Radar. But I would (and do) take the ideas and links that bubbled up in my Tumblr and use those as building blocks in Radar posts.

There’s a missing piece here, though. If Tumblr is where the ideas start and Radar is where they manifest in a better-formed way, then what do I do when a related idea or development pops up? Do I add to a pre-existing Radar post? Do I create an entirely new post? Or, do I use a separate platform for these “director’s cut” versions? I’m not sure about the execution, but abandoning a line of thought because there’s no home for it doesn’t sit well with me. A story with energy deserves to continue. And with all sorts of low-cost and easy-to-use digital platforms now at our disposal, there’s no reason it shouldn’t continue.

Your thoughts?

In a way, this is a meta post. I’m gathering the threads I’ve collected over years of working in, and thinking about, digital content. Those individual threads were already “published” in various places: Tumblr, blog posts focusing on adjacent topics, emails, tweets, etc. Now the threads have been partially bundled here on Radar (for good or bad). This story is on a continuum, and I imagine it’ll chug along in one form or another.

But is there anything to this idea? Does open-ended publishing make any practical sense? I welcome any comments, counter arguments, enhancements, or rebuttals.

Related:

• Living Stories can reinvent the article
• Trapping content on the iPad won’t work, even if it’s pretty
• Continuous publishing through Live Editions
• A Dream About Augmented Reality Fiction
• Reality has a gaming layer