There is the beginning of a debate about the future of reference books on Tim Coates's Good Library Blog. It was started by a recent posting about our dictionary for learners of English, Macmillan English Dictionary, which we're about to launch in a second edition along with website and CDRom. Clearly reference books are changing in relation to the web but that doesn't mean either that they are doomed or that the print version is redundant.

But that debate seems rather small beer compared with the recent flurry of articles about the media revolution. Forbes Magazine,for instance, tries to analyse the winners and losers:

'Advertising on TV will vanish as we know it as home media servers take over command of home entertainment and step past it. Movies will quickly lose the DVD sales income that help inflate their budgets beyond what the cinema can recoup. Cinemas themselves will be under threat as home screen sizes grow to theater-sized proportions. Even the venerable book will be threatened when some time in the near future a "digital ink" media becomes as cheap and cheerful as paper. Why buy a Harry Potter book when you can download it for free from a book p2p network to your cheap digital paper?

Right or wrong, the audience cannot be relied upon to pay for media as they do if they absolutely have to. If content can be purloined, a large proportion of the audience cannot see why it shouldn’t be. This is not surprising; people buy what they must and are still left wanting more. There seems to be little doubt that there is no practical solution. As such the media model as we know it is on its way out.'

And Outsell, who have merged with EPS (Electronic Publishing Services) have an article entitled 'Google - the threat to median and information'. To quote from it:

"When Eric Schmidt stated Google's goal to reach $100 billion, Google had hit $8 billion in revenues. Consider that Microsoft at that time was at about $50 billion in revenues. Google's management said, in effect, 'We'll be twice the size of Microsoft in the future.'"

The very detailed research article costs $295 to non-subscribers and should be required reading for everyone in the publishing business. Their list of essential actions might be debatable but I wonder how many organisations are even debating them. Here are the conclusions. Some of the phraseology and vocabulary may sound alien to traditional publishers and the actions might appear millions of miles from what we do to stay in business today but...

'Google’s software is more capable than many recognize. Its pockets are deep and the scalability of its technology unprecedented. Google can innovate endlessly and with little incremental cost. Do publishers pack up and go home? No, there is ample room providing they pick their spots on the battlefield. It’s important to focus on six key areas:

1. Take Action to be Ahead of Aggregation and Back-Office Services

2. Fill Gaps and Provide Context

3. Use New Editorial Models

4. Think Beyond Vertical Search

5. Expand Acquisition and Partnering

6. Upsell, Go Upmarket, and Focus on Annuities

Take Action to be Ahead of Aggregation and Back-Office Services

Companies delivering basic forms of aggregation continue to be at risk from the Googleplex juggernaut. As we’ve written over the years, the ability to add unique value to content or provide unique data in the content is essential for staying power.

Fill Gaps and Provide Context

Product developers must focus on how users consume media and information providers’ content in their workflow. Important gaps in content streams must be filled with new product content. This can be created through new editorial models, acquisition and partnering, or all of the above.

Use New Editorial Models

Focus on new editorial processes and people. New content creation methods that allow for some semblance of agility, or automation that allows cost-effective content creation at the bottom so more editorial focus and value-add can be applied to the top, are essential. This goes beyond outsourcing or re-engineering processes. It is about wholesale change of core knowledge processes.

Think Beyond Vertical Search

Vertical search offers no panacea in the face of Google’s launch of personal search and what it is capable of accomplishing with its technology. In our opinion, publishers and providers must own unique and proprietary data at their core for long-term differentiation. Further, they must be able to marry that core to value-added analysis and the integration of their own analysis with external content. Publishers who “own a space” will want to think beyond their four walls to create a comprehensive user experience. But first they must have unique assets at their core that go beyond editorial.

Expand Acquisition and Partnering

No publisher and provider, not the biggest or the nimblest, can mirror the technical wherewithal of Google. It is being applied on several fronts – content creation, distribution, and monetization. One can’t fight all these battles on all these fronts. Acquisitions, divestitures, and partnerships will be even more essential for future success. Focus on core. Allow others to do what they do best. In our opinion, publishers

and information providers will be even more prolific partners than we’ve seen in the history of this industry or any of its segments.

Upsell, Go Upmarket, and Focus on Annuities

As we’ve advised throughout the last decade, the market is commoditizing because of major disruption from firms like Google. We’ve labeled Google the Wal*Mart of our industry, and we are only one of six industries in its sights as it seeks the $100 billion mark. It is essential to continue focusing on value-added services, core content, and service differentiation. Protect annuity revenue streams first, whether they come from advertisers or paying subscribers. Ensuring a recurring revenue stream from existing customers is the first focus of the day. From there, upsell, cross-sell, partner, and remain

focused. Many of the verticals served by publishers and information providers are so narrow and niched, or so reliant on specific types of information, that they won’t register on Google’s radar screen or customers will insist on continuing with a more authoritative

source. In Outsell’s opinion, just as local shopkeepers or big-box stores have had to counter Wal*Mart’s thrust into their communities, publishers and information providers of all types will have to counter Google. Its presence is too large for the community to stay static.'