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.'

Popular science is a strange genre in publishing. Every now and then, a book takes off - for instance, The Selfish Gene way back in 1976 (which which I betted would not sell 5000 copies) or A Brief History of Time which must rate as one of the most bought least read books of all time.

Immediately following one of these success there is a flurry of popular science publishing, large advances are paid, marketing campaigns are launched and most of the books sink with little trace.

There are, in my view, two reasons for this. The first is to do with a flaw in the industry itself. There is an assumption that a talented publisher can publish almost any genre successfully. This may be true on the arts and humanities but it is not true in science (or quite a few other genres for that matter) where understanding of the subject and the market is essential. Simply paying big advances for famous names doesn't work.

The second reason is less easily fixable - a general distrust and lack of interest in science.

Fortunately, the Royal Society has made the public understanding of science one of its priorities and has taken over sponsorship of the Booker Prize of science, what was known as the Aventis/Rhone-Poulenc and is now more straightforwardly known as Royal Society Prizes for Science Books.

The judges have just announced their longlist and I am delighted that Macmillan has two titles in the running for the world's most prestigious award and they are both favourites of mine which I've mentioned here before.

We published Giant Leaps in November in asociation with the Science Museum and The Sun newspaper, together with the marketing support of a once powerful politician. If you're at a loose end over the holiday weekend why not try the Giant Leaps quiz?

The second is less in-your-face but none the worse for that. Lonesome George by Henry Nicholls is the story of a bachelor giant tortoise in the Galapagos who is the last of his line and has yet to find love. Here he is, and very handsome too. And check out some of the reviews at this link.

Both of these books saw the light of day through the efforts of people who care about the dissemination of scientific knowledge rather than the traditional lemming-like me-too publishing we all see too much of. Thank goodness quality publishing still exists.

These are the first words of Matthew Engel's article on the front page of today's Weekend Financial Times. He explains how he came to compile the Extracts from the Red Notebooks which we have just published. I've warbled on about it before and so I won't warble anymore. Just go find a copy.

On the subject of Jewish bolshie-ism (and I'm not sure that the phrase isn't a tautology), I've just finished a novel by a long-standing friend (I have to put that in or risk being accused of concealing connections), the wonderful Charlotte Mendelson who you can see and hear here. The new book is When we were bad which I wolfed down in an afternoon. Being the uncultured publisher that I am, my only suggestion was that she create a glossary of Yiddish for those readers not brought up in Jewish culture. The meaning of most Yiddish words is pretty clear from the context and from films and sitcoms but the subtleties of difference between a shmendrick and a shlemiel could do with some elaboration.

I was going to mention a few other forthcoming books an dthen I received my monthly Pan Macmillan newsletter which does a much better job than I could. You can sign up for it at www.panmacmillan.com but here is a sampler. We have a busy few weeks at Pan.(And don't ask me why html has decided to centre the newsletter !).

Happy Easter. It's a holiday here in Britain, Spring is bursting out all over, the sun is shining, all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. In this spirit of optimism and taking my cue from various correspondents recommending improvements for the book trade and in the spirit of the classic song (click for brilliant original video on youtube) from the Beach Boys I offer some proposals based on the original lyrics below. Maybe commentators would like to add their own suggestions to the list.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could wake up
In the morning when the day is new
And after having spent the day together
Hold each other close the whole night through

Happy times together we've been spending
I wish that every kiss was neverending
Wouldn't it be nice

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true
Baby then there wouldn't be a single thing we couldn't do
We could be married
And then we'd be happy

Wouldn't it be nice...

If returns of books never happened and bookshops still stocked large quantities to ensure that they never ran out and were able to display properly;

If all bookshops could carry all the books ever published and still find them when a customer asks for the most obscure, particularly when that customer is also the author of the title;

If all books were priced low and all outlets charged the same price in spite of the huge differences in costs of distribution and display - and no cheating would occur;

If authors insisted that publishers sold to all retailers on the same terms even though this would certainly result in their latest title not appearing in the bestseller lists because supermarkets would not stock;

If literary agents recognised that a publisher's commitment to an author is about more than the size of the advance against royalties and would feel embarrassed rather than proud when earned royalties fail to repay the advance;

If new technology entrants to the book industry respected all its traditional customs and practices without diluting their commitment to change or competing directly with an existing participant;

If e-books could be sold with no form of rights protection because customers would never ever try to copy the work illegally;

If book reviewers criticised a book on its merits rather than on prejudice (e.g. this review);

If all governments recognised the importance of public libraries and doubled expenditure on information and not on bureaucracies;

If publishers would spend less time in meetings and more time helping to create better books, sold more effectively, and generating more royalties and readership for their authors...

Wouldn't it be nice? And then we'd be happy.

In the run up to this period of Judaeo-Christian festivals I thought some of you might be interested in this Seder night summary.

Here is just a taste of the article:

Last year the British book trade spent a huge amount of time and money on the referral of the Waterstone's takeover of Ottakars to the Competition Commission. I mentioned it frequently - e.g here - not least because I was at the time President of the Publishers Association and thus charged with leading our team during the investigation. Ultimately publishers lost the argument and the takeover went ahead, albeit at a significantly lower cost to Waterstone's owners HMV than had originally been proposed. Apart from the money the other issue was diversion. Instead of publishing, promoting and selling books the industry underwent a prolonged period of navel-gazing.

Yesterday saw another referral to the Competition Commission - Woolworth's proposed takeover of the wholesaler Bertram Books. Apparently the investigation will take several months to complete and presumably once more substantial amounts in lawyers' and economists' fees. At least we can hope the trade will not be diverted from its primary objectives.

So back to books. One of our most successful publishing programmes of the last decade resulted from a collaboration between Macmillan Education and the brilliant lexicographic team at Bloomsbury. We have sold more than two million copies of the dictionaries emanating from this collaboration and are on the point of launching a new edition of the flagship Macmillan English Dictionary. Along with the usual launch parties in various parts of the world (the London one is at Globe Theatre with Andrew Marr metaphorically cutting the ribbon) we are releasing 7500 red ballons each labelled with one of the 7500 most frequently used words in the English language. The person who finds a balloon the furthest distance from its launch pad will win a round-the-world air ticket. So watch out for red balloons. And why red?

Obvious, isn't it?

There are many difficulties and complexities in the dictionary market. The one thing I can say for absolute certain is that it need never be referred to the Competition Commission. It's about as competitive as it's possible to imagine.

Incidentally, I was interviewed for BBC Radio Five Live about why CEOs write blogs. My answers were, I fear, deeply inarticulate but fortunately the interview was broadcast before 6a.m. and so the audience will have been pitifully and mericifully small.

P.S. Here's the link.

Our new RSC Shakespeare website goes live today in anticipation of the imminent publication of the new RSC Complete Works. It is absolutely brilliant. We are already reprinting the book which, when it comes to a large-format 2552 page monster, is a harder task than usual. I wanted a Shakespeare quote about Spring or April as the heading but got diverted by this Browning piece of nostalgia for an English Spring - corny but true. The sun was out this morning and Spring was in the air but not too many chaffinches along the Euston Road.

 Oh, to be in England
 Now that April's there,
 And whoever wakes in England
 Sees, some morning, unaware,
 That the lowest boughs and the brushwood sheaf
 Round the elm-tree bole are in tiny leaf,
 While the chaffinch sings on the orchard bough
 In England - now!

While on matters English and Springy, Matthew Engel's Extracts from the Red Notebooks is now out and we can all enjoy what Bill Bryson describes as 'marvellous'; about which Jeremy Paxman wrote 'If you don't pick this up and either smile or laugh outright, you'd better check your pulse'; and of which John Cleese characteristically said 'I'm thoroughly fed up with this sort of anthology, but, if you REALLY need one, this is the best I've ever seen'. I agree.

And given today's Shakespearean theme, I turned to the 'Stagestruck' chapter in the book to light upon this hugely politically incorrect advert for repertory actors in 1950:

'No fancy salaries and no queer folk.' 

I gave out the latest statistics for visitors to this blog yesterday. And now the really important data - monthly ad revenues from Google were $34.94 and the accumulated earnings since the last payment are $122.79. Quite a long way until it becomes Macmillan's principal revenue generator. I was, however, rather put out to discover that our finance department are recording the revenue in the management accounts of our Fiction division. I've asked them to move it immediately into non-fiction. Hardly any of this blog is fiction.

Here's part of a comment by Ann Michael yesterday:

'While protecting what is ours is certainly a fair course, sometimes you have to wonder whether that protection is akin to fighting the ocean tides. I don't have all the answers but it seems to me that working with the tide is more constructive than working against it!'

I couldn't agree more and that is why we set about building BookStore openly and in full consultation with Google and other search engines and with other publishers and booksellers. We've made great progress but it has not been easy. For all sorts of reasons (some good some not so good), Google finds it difficult to work with others unless the others agree to work exactly as Google dictates. We continue to believe that Google wants to 'do no evil' and that it wishes to remain light on its feet, responsive and innovative but sometimes it does not appear that way.

Incidentally, I think Ann's open letter to the Harvard Business Review is worth studying for anyone in the business of trying tio make a living out of online publications.

This is my prediction for the book with the most press coverage this week. I'm still slightly worried since I discovered I'd eaten in one of the restaurants visited by the poisoners. Strangely, the poisoning doesn't rate a mention on the restaurant's website.

Finally here is part of an article which appeared yesterday in the New York Times but seems to have disappeared from their website. It seems to be an update of this. Those who remember the human genome controversy will enjoy it, I think.