'Vanity' Press Shakes up Book Industry

The Wall Street Journal

Writer Karen McQuestion spent nearly a decade trying without success to persuade a New York publisher to print one of her books. In July, the 49-year-old mother of three decided to publish it herself, online.

Eleven months later, Ms. McQuestion has sold 36,000 e-books through Amazon.com Inc.'s Kindle e-bookstore and has a film option with a Hollywood producer. In August, Amazon will publish a paperback version of her first novel, "A Scattered Life," about a friendship triangle among three women in small-town Wisconsin.

Ms. McQuestion is at the leading edge of a technological disruption that's loosening traditional publishers' grip on the book market—and giving new power to technology companies like Amazon to shape which books and authors succeed.

Much as blogs have bitten into the news business and YouTube has challenged television, digital self-publishing is creating a powerful new niche in books that's threatening the traditional industry. Once derided as "vanity" titles by the publishing establishment, self-published books suddenly are able to thrive by circumventing the establishment.

"If you are an author and you want to reach a lot of readers, up until recently you were smart to sell your book to a traditional publisher, because they controlled the printing press and distribution. That is starting to change now," says Mark Coker, founder of Silicon Valley start-up Smashwords Inc., which offers an e-book publishing and distribution service.

Fueling the shift is the growing popularity of electronic books, which few people were willing to read even three years ago. Apple Inc.' s iPad and e-reading devices such as Amazon's Kindle have made buying and reading digital books easy. U.S. book sales fell 1.8% last year to $23.9 billion, but e-book sales tripled to $313 million, according to the Association of American Publishers. E-book sales could reach as high as 20% to 25% of the total book market by 2012, according to Mike Shatzkin, a publishing consultant, up from an estimated 5% to 10% today.

It's unclear how much of a danger digital self-publishing poses to the big publishers, who still own the industry's big hits, whether e-book or print. Many big publishers dismiss self-published titles, noting that most disappear, in part because they may be poorly edited and are almost never reviewed.

But some publishers say that online self-publishing and the entry of newcomers such as Amazon into the market could mark a sea change in publishing.

"It's a threat to publishers' control over authors," said Richard Nash, former publisher of Soft Skull Press who recently launched Cursor Inc., a new publishing company. "It shows best-selling authors that there are alternatives—they can hire their own publicist, their own online marketing specialist, a freelance editor, and a distribution service."

Amazon has taken an early lead, providing service tools for authors to self publish and creating an imprint last year to publish promising authors in print and online.

This month, Amazon is upping the ante, increasing the amount it pays authors to 70% of revenue, from 35%, for e-books priced from $2.99 to $9.99. A self-published author whose e-book lists for $9.99 on Amazon's Kindle e-bookstore will receive about $6.99 for each book sold. The author would net $1.75 on a similar new e-book sale by most major publishers.

The new formula makes digital self-publishing more lucrative for authors. "Some people will be tempted by the 70% royalty at Amazon," Mr. Nash says. "If they already have a loyal fan base, will they want 70% of $100,000 or 15% of $200,000 for a hardcover?"

Digital self-publishing, or "vanity" publishing, is creating a powerful new niche in books. WSJ's Geoffrey Fowler joins the Digits show to discuss how this is threatening the traditional book industry.

Traditional book-industry players and tech companies are jumping on the digital self-publishing bandwagon. Apple last week announced a digital self-publishing program for its iPad giving 70% of revenue to authors, similar to Amazon's formula. Last month, Barnes & Noble also announced a service called PubIt!, allowing authors to post and sell e-books online.

Last fall, Jane Friedman, former chief executive of News Corp.'s HarperCollins Publishers, started Open Road Integrated Media LLC, which focuses on e-books, including authors who are willing to be published digitally before going into print. Traditional publishers such as Nashville, Tenn.-based Thomas Nelson Inc., a religious publisher, have struck alliances with Author Solutions Inc. for print and online self-publishing.

And a flurry of tech-focused startups now offers self-publishing services, including Smashwords, FastPencil Inc. and Lulu Enterprises Inc. Website Scribd.com says it publishes 290,000 independent books annually on its site, which authors sell at a price they set themselves.

One of the largest repositories for digitally self-published works for sale is Amazon's Digital Text Platform. Steve Kessel, an Amazon senior vice president, says the company launched Digital Text along with its Kindle in 2007 to give writers and small publishers simple tools to add books to the Kindle store. Today, the Kindle store accounts for about 70% of the U.S. market for e-books.

Amazon has used its retail clout to make deals directly with brand-name authors. It has won exclusive e-publishing deals from authors such as Stephen King and Stephen Covey.

And in May 2009, Amazon launched its own publishing imprint, Amazon Encore. From a sea of self-published titles, Amazon plucks a few with promise, then edits and distributes them online and through print retailers. It began with the book "Legacy," written by then-14-year-old Cayla Kluver. Amazon Encore has announced 19 books so far.

CEO Jeff Bezos says Amazon wants to be a partner, not a threat, to publishers. "I think the real risk is that there are a multitude of publishers. Some of them are really forward leaning, and are really going after this new e-book area," he says. "If you are not one of those publishers, then I would be worried."

The industry says that most authors will stay with their print publishers. More than 90% of sales still come from physical books. In addition to the editing and marketing support for their manuscripts, many writers depend on the advances they get from their print publishers. For some, this means seven-figure payments long before their titles hit the bookshelves. Self-published authors only generate revenue when their books are sold to consumers.

Yet as tens of thousands of authors self-publish their work, publishers' control continues to weaken over how titles are distributed and which books are offered for sale. Some publishers fear that one of the big technology companies now distributing e-books will compete for the industry's best-known authors, by offering advances in a bid to gain market share. Some best-selling authors write several books a year, and may be tempted to test the market if they have a manuscript that isn't under contract.

The market is likely to shift into two tiers, "branded/high-quality" and "cheap/good enough," predicts author and lecturer Seth Godin. Mainstream publishing houses have long depended for much of their profit on selling backlist titles, books in print for more than a year. In coming years, there will be adequate substitutes for many of those works at a quarter of the price, he says.

"Not for the books of J.D. Salinger or George Orwell, but for a book on stretching, certainly," he says. "And books on stretching have long helped pay the bills at many publishing houses."

The proliferation of cheap digital books concerns even publishers who don't think readers will defect to self-published titles. "There is some truth to the idea that low prices will drag down our prices," says Dominique Raccah, owner of Sourcebooks Inc., an independent publisher in Naperville, Ill.

Pricing was at the heart of a public spat between Amazon and five of America's top six publishers this spring. Amazon had been retailing most top e-books for $9.99. Publishers argued that price devalued work they sold for more than twice as much in paper form.

Publishers worried that readers would get used to paying so little for e-books that it could devalue the industry's cash cow, hardcover books. The publishers won, and Amazon adopted an "agency" model, in which publishers set prices for books, and distributors such as Amazon take a cut of the proceeds.

Digital self-publishing is attracting even top-selling authors. F. Paul Wilson, who writes the popular "Repairman Jack" thriller series published by Tor, an imprint of Macmillan, says he posted on Amazon five science-fiction novels published earlier in his careerat $2.99 each.

"This stuff was just sitting around, out of print, doing nothing," says Mr. Wilson, who has written about 40 books. He thinks he'll eventually make as much as $5,000 to $10,000 a month when he lists all his older titles.

Mr. Wilson doesn't foresee abandoning print, but some authors do. Thriller writer Joe Konrath says that, as more consumers buy e-books, the economics will tip.

Under the pen name Jack Kilborn, he sold 50,000 copies of his last novel, "Afraid," published by Grand Central Publishing, an imprint of Hachette Book Group, in all formats. He earned about $30,000. But if he sold it as an e-book on his own, he could make that much in 18 months by selling 800 e-books a month, he estimates.

Mr. Konrath says he's already earning more from self-published Kindle books that New York publishers rejected than from his print books. In the past 14 months, he has sold nearly 50,000 Kindle e-books, and at the current royalty rate, he makes $58,000 per year from his self-published works. When Amazon royalties double this summer, he expects to bring in $170,000 annually.

"I'm outselling a bunch of famous, name-brand authors. I couldn't touch their sales in print," Mr. Konrath says.

Most self-published authors don't have popular followings and see modest sales. Caroline Weiss and Margaret Wallace self-published their novel "Stalking Bret Easton Ellis" last year. Ms. Weiss estimates sales of the book at fewer than 400 paper copies and 100 digital copies. "It's a lot of work to promote your book, definitely," says Ms. Weiss. "Social media helps, but you have to be very aggressive."

Still, the success of Ms. McQuestion's debut self-published novel, "A Scattered Life," illustrates perhaps the biggest long-term threat to traditional publishers: a replacement for their ability to curate and market books.

Ms. McQuestion, who lives in Hartland, Wis., says she wouldn't have entertained a self-funded print run of her books. But she uploaded her first e-books to Amazon's Digital Text because she read that it worked well for another author. "I thought, if nobody buys it, I can just take it down," she says. When people began buying her e-books, she says she wondered: "Who were these people, and how did they find my books?"

The answer: Amazon has proven adept at using its technology to merchandise the so-called "long tail" of niche goods. While traditional publishers rely on name-brand reviews, Amazon has millions of customers posting reviews. Amazon offers free, instant, sample chapters to hook readers. And it makes computer-generated recommendations based on other readers' purchases. So, the more people that bought Ms. McQuestion's books, the more often the site recommended her work.

For new writers, Ms. McQuestion says, Amazon levels the playing field, since it doesn't differentiate between self-published and big-publisher titles. Ms. McQuestion says low prices—the novel sold for less than $2 on Amazon's Kindle—play a role in her success.

Amazon executives say they signed Ms. McQuestion to the Encore imprint after noticing the positive user-generated reviews of her books. Thanks to its vast database, Amazon not only knows what people buy but also how they consume e-books—such as which passages readers most often highlight.

Ms. McQuestion and Amazon won't disclose the terms of their deal for "A Scattered Life." Seattle-based Amazon will issue a new version of her e-book and produce a paperback version targeting book clubs.

"All of this time I have been trying to get traditionally published, I was sending my manuscript to the wrong coast," says Ms. McQuestion.

Exxon $600 Million Algae Investment Makes Khosla See Pipe Dream‏

Bloomberg News

 

Inside an industrial warehouse in South San Francisco, California, Harrison Dillon, chief technology officer of startup Solazyme Inc., examines a beaker filled with a brown paste made of sugar cane waste. While the smell brings to mind molasses, this goo, called bagasse, won’t find its way into people-pleasing confections.

Instead, scientists will empty it into 5-gallon metal flasks of algae and water. The algae will gorge on the treat -- filling themselves with fatty oils as they double in size every six hours, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its July issue.

Down the hall, past a rainbow of algae strains arrayed in Petri dishes, Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Wolfson shows off a gallon-size bottle of slightly viscous liquid. After drying the algae, wringing out the oil and shipping it to a refinery, this is the prize: diesel fuel that Wolfson says is chemically indistinguishable from its petroleum-based equivalent and which has already powered a Jeep Liberty and a Mercedes Benz sedan.

“We’ve produced tens of thousands of gallons, and by the end of 2010, I hope I can say we’ve produced hundreds of thousands,” Wolfson, 39, says. “In the next two years, we should get the cost down to the $60 to $80-a-barrel range.”

At that price, Solazyme’s algae fuel would compete with $80-a-barrel oil.

In Japan, the U.K. and the U.S., green energy advocates and some well-heeled investors are obsessed with perfecting a way to turn the scum that coats ponds, lakes and fish tanks into a substitute for gasoline, jet fuel and diesel.

Huge Payoff?

Algae, mostly single-cell photosynthetic organisms that usually elicit a “yuck,” can yield 30 times more oil than crops such as soy. Algal oil doesn’t need much processing before it can power a car, truck or jet engine, says Matt Carr, a policy director at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a Washington-based advocate for biotech companies.

Algae have advantages over producers of other so-called biofuels. They don’t compete for land with a crop that feeds people and animals. Corn-based ethanol, the first viable biofuel, produces just two-thirds as much energy as gasoline and corrodes pipelines and car engines, says Anthony Marchese, a mechanical engineering professor at Colorado State University, who is taking part in a $48 million Department of Energy research project.

Supporters say algae overcome these disadvantages while eating twice their weight in carbon dioxide, reducing what some scientists say is a leading cause of global warming.

“The potential payoff is huge,” Carr says.

Gates Jumps In

Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and Venrock Associates, the Rockefeller family’s venture capital firm, along with the U.K.’s Wellcome Trust Ltd. and Chicago’s Arch Venture Partners, have poured $100 million into Sapphire Energy Inc., which is trying to produce gasoline from algae.

U.S. President Barack Obama talked up alternative fuels during his 2008 campaign, vowing to push for the country to use 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels such as algae and cellulosic ethanol made from wood chips or grasses by 2030. The DOE has provided more than $185 million in grants for algal biofuels.

The U.K. government-funded Carbon Trust, which aims to trim carbon emissions, is providing 8 million pounds ($11.7 million) to nine universities for algae research. In Japan, Toyota Motor Corp., the world’s largest carmaker, and oil refiner Idemitsu Kosan Co. may join a research program with the University of Tsukuba, northeast of Tokyo, to turn algae into fuel.

Exxon’s Bet

Exxon Mobil Corp. threw its weight behind algae in July 2009. The oil giant, often a target of environmentalists for dismissing concerns about global warming, is investing $600 million.

Exxon is working with La Jolla, California-based Synthetic Genomics Inc., a company founded by J. Craig Venter, who in 2000 mapped the collection of human genes. Venter’s team is working on changing the genetic code of some algae to make it easier to extract the oil.

“We spent two years evaluating all kinds of biofuels, assessing their scalability, technical challenges, environmental impact and commercial viability,” says Emil Jacobs, Exxon Mobil’s vice president of research and development. “Algae had the best potential,” he says, noting that it doesn’t compete for land with food crops.

Operative Word

Potential is the operative word. No one has produced enough algae fuel commercially to run a family’s SUV, let alone make a dent in the more than 200 billion gallons (760 billion liters) of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel that the U.S. uses every year.

The Carbon Trust is funding research to make 70 billion liters by 2030, equivalent to 6 percent of current global diesel use. To do that, algae ponds would have to cover an area larger than Wales or New Jersey, says Ben Graziano, technology commercialization manager at Carbon Trust.

Algae proponents differ on growing methods. Open ponds, the choice of most researchers, rely on photosynthesis. Algae grow and fill with oil as they use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into sugar and chemical energy. Ponds, though, can get infested by pesky, low-oil native organisms or become the targets of microscopic aquatic creatures.

Solazyme is trying fermentation, producing its algae without light in metal vats. This requires adding sugar or other feedstock before the algae are dried and the oil extracted.

While people may curse the algae that pop up unbidden in their swimming pools, the organisms are expensive to produce commercially because electricity, water and chemicals all cost money. Today’s estimates range from $400 to $600 to produce one barrel of algae oil.

‘Billions of Dollars’

“It may take billions of dollars to set up the infrastructure,” says John Benemann, a biofuels consultant who worked on a 17-year DOE algae study. Companies would need thousands of acres of ponds, pipes to feed in carbon dioxide and fresh water and a link to refineries.

“I don’t know of an oil company that is quaking in their boots worried about algae,” Benemann says.

Chevron Corp. fits that category. Although the second- largest U.S. oil company has a deal with Solazyme to produce algae fuels and funds university research programs, it doesn’t see algae taking over the world.

“Global energy demand is going to increase 40 percent by 2030,” says Jeffrey Jacobs, vice president of Chevron Technology Ventures. “It is not feasible for biofuels to replace conventional fuels.”

Investments Climb

Silicon Valley pioneer Vinod Khosla is among the biggest investors in green technologies. His Khosla Ventures has bets on cellulosic ethanol company Range Fuels Inc. and LS9 Inc., which designs microbes to produce nonpolluting biofuels.

Khosla says algae fuel is a pipe dream.

“We looked at two dozen algae business plans and have not found one that was a viable plan,” says Khosla, speaking from his Menlo Park, California, office.

Ever since the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries shocked the world with embargoes and price increases in the 1970s, companies and investors have searched for fossil- fuel alternatives.

In 1978, with drivers fuming over gasoline lines, the Aquatic Species Program, part of the DOE under President Jimmy Carter, studied making diesel-like fuel from the lipids that algae accumulate in their cells. After 17 years, the group concluded that algae couldn’t compete with oil that then averaged about $20 a barrel. President Bill Clinton closed the program in 1996.

Congressional Mandates

Now, green-energy advocates say climate change makes the quest for petroleum alternatives imperative. In the first quarter of 2010, venture investments in clean energy jumped 83 percent from a year earlier to $1.9 billion, San Francisco- based Cleantech Group LLC says.

“With a focus on global warming, we are seeing investors showing interest in a broad range of clean technologies,” Cleantech President Sheeraz Haji says.

The U.S. Congress wants to speed the switch from fossil fuels. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 calls for refiners to use 36 billion gallons of biofuels in gasoline blends by 2022. That’s triple the current amount, which is mostly in the form of corn-based ethanol. Fifteen billion gallons would be starch-based ethanol, with the rest from sources such as algae and switch grass.

The U.S. military, which accounts for about 80 percent of the federal government’s energy demand, is exploring biofuels after spending more than $20 billion on jet, diesel and other fuels for its fleets in 2008.

Cutting Oil Imports

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Pentagon’s venture arm and the outfit that’s credited with developing the Internet, is funding a $35 million research program to find a way to make jet fuel from algae that costs less than $3 a gallon by 2013.

“The attraction of algae is that it fills the need to develop renewable energies and cut foreign oil imports,” says George Santana, director of research at Greener Dawn Corp., a San Diego-based firm that promotes renewable energy. “To replace foreign oil, you need to fill up your tank with biofuels.”

Exxon Mobil says it may take as long as 10 years before any algae biofuel reaches motorists. That hasn’t stopped the company from covering itself in green colors.

Soon after signing the deal with Synthetic Genomics, Exxon ran ads featuring a scientist named Joe Weissman: “We are making a big commitment to finding out just how algae can help meet the fuel demands of the world,” Weissman tells the TV viewer.

‘Pays Off Politically’

While Exxon’s $600 million investment is the largest of its kind in algae, it’s infinitesimal for a company that brought in $301.5 billion in revenue last year and plans to spend $28 billion on oil wells, floating platforms and refineries this year.

“For Exxon, the algae bet pays off politically; it helps their public relations and their image,” says Robert Bryce, author of “Gusher of Lies” (PublicAffairs, 2008), a book about the ethanol industry.

Philip New, who heads the alternative fuels unit at BP Plc, says investments in algae’s potential may never be recouped. BP is investing in ways to make ethanol from sugars, which he says offer greater promise.

“We looked at algae and the numbers do not make economic sense,” New says. “Ours is not a greenwash.”

Exxon spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman says the company’s investment and partnership with Synthetic Genomics show Exxon is serious about algae.

BP’s Oil Spill

BP, which is at the center of a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, has run ads touting its alternative energy investments. In 2000, the London-based company changed its logo to a green, yellow and white sunburst.

BP has poured $500 million into a joint venture called Tropical Bioenergia SA to produce Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane. It has also invested $112.5 million in Verenium Corp. of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to research producing ethanol from agricultural waste and saw grass.

Netherlands oil giant Royal Dutch Shell Plc has investments in ethanol made from sugar cane. In February, it entered a $12 billion joint venture with Brazil’s Cosan SA Industria & Comercio and plans to produce 5 billion liters a year. (For a story on working conditions in Brazil’s cane fields, see “Ethanol’s Deadly Brew,” November 2007.)

“Second-generation biofuels may take another decade,” says Luis Scoffone, Shell’s vice president of alternative energies. “Cost of production will be a factor in determining which technologies win.”

‘Expensive to Produce’

Even so, Shell hasn’t written off algae. It’s building a research plant with HR BioPetroleum Inc. on Hawaii’s Kona coast near commercial algae farms. Here, oblong ponds grow algae for nutritional supplements such as omega-3 fatty acids and protein powders.

Although advocates say that most algae need only sunlight, carbon dioxide and water -- including saltwater -- to grow, the reality is more complicated. Algae are less productive below 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit). In the heat, the organisms require constant refreshing. Most ponds have electric paddles to circulate the algae-filled water.

“Open ponds need a lot of water, a lot of electricity,” says Robert Rapier, chief technology officer at Kamuela, Hawaii- based Mercia International, a bioengineering holding company. “Algae are expensive to produce.”

Enormous Projects

Jason Pyle, CEO of Gates-backed Sapphire Energy in San Diego, says the challenges of algae are like those in farming: increasing yields and protecting crops from pests. Sapphire plans to build a 300-acre (120-hectare) plant in New Mexico, which will be completed in 2013. The company says it’s a first step toward producing 1 billion gallons of diesel and jet fuel by 2025.

“These are large projects and take enormous amounts of time and capital,” Pyle, 38, says.

Not far away, Exxon Mobil is building a research facility at Synthetic Genomics headquarters. By the end of next year, the oil company plans a 10-acre site filled with ponds and clear containers called bioreactors, intended to speed up growth. The key is getting different algae strains to work beyond the lab, Exxon’s Jacobs says. To commercially produce algae-based fuel will require billions of dollars.

“If we can pull it off, it will have a significant impact,” Jacobs says.

Freshman Dreams

About 500 miles to the north, Solazyme cofounders Wolfson and Dillon, 39, are sidestepping the challenges of algae ponds. The pair met in 1989 at Emory University in Atlanta and discovered mutual interests in the outdoors and the environment. During that freshman year, Dillon, who was studying biology, and Wolfson, a political science undergrad, agreed to form a biotech company one day.

That off-the-cuff promise began to take shape in 2003. The two raised money from friends, family, New York-based Harris & Harris Group Inc. and Berkeley, California-based Roda Group and started growing algae in open ponds. They wound up with little to show.

“We tried direct photosynthesis but couldn’t figure out how we were ever going to take it to a commercial scale,” Wolfson says. “There were too many problems.”

The two went back to investors. This time, they focused on algae that grow in the dark, as in swamps. Standing in front of a whiteboard, Wolfson explains the process in layman’s terms:

“We put algae in a tank and feed them sugar, such as sugar cane waste, and they make oil and we take the oil out. There’s a lot of science involved, but it’s a bit like making beer.”

‘Green Sludge’

Every few months, Wolfson’s team mails 10-milliliter vials containing millions of frozen algae cells to one of three plants for fermenting. At the Cherokee Pharmaceuticals LLC site in Riverside, Pennsylvania, which used to make antibiotics and food additives, scientists mix a teaspoonful of algae stock with water, cellulosic waste like the bagasse in Dillon’s beaker and such trace elements as potassium.

The tanks keep the brew at about 30 to 40 degrees Celsius. After a few days, there are enough cells to fill a 75,000-liter fermentation tank. By making modifications that Wolfson declines to discuss, the algae convert the sugar into fatty lipids.

“We end up with a green sludge that has a high percentage of oil content -- over 75 percent,” Wolfson says. He won’t divulge how Solazyme extracts the oil except to say that the sludge goes into standard plant-oil extraction equipment similar to that used for soy or canola oil.

‘Silver Buckshot’

Solazyme, which has raised $76 million from VCs such as New York-based Braemar Energy Ventures and Menlo Park-based Lightspeed Venture Partners, has a contract with the U.S. Navy to provide 1,500 gallons of jet fuel. It also received $8.5 million to deliver 20,000 gallons of fuel for Navy ships.

Wolfson says he needs $150 million to build a commercial plant to produce 100 million gallons a year. He predicts that algal oil will cost $60 to $80 a barrel within 12 to 24 months.

“We don’t have a business in fuel until we are at parity with fossil fuels,” he says. “There is no silver bullet for our problem of replacing fossil fuels; maybe a silver buckshot.”

Fans of algae are betting that the tiny organism can produce giant strides for going green.

700-Hour Silent Opera Reaches Finale at MoMA

NY Times

 

At 5 p.m. Monday one of the longest pieces of performance art on record, and certainly the one with the largest audience, comes to an end. Since her retrospective opened at the Museum of Modern Art on March 14, the artist Marina Abramovic has been sitting, six days a week, seven hours a day in a plain chair, under bright klieg lights, in MoMA’s towering atrium. When she leaves that chair Monday for the last time, she will have clocked 700 hours of sitting.

During that time her routine seldom varied. Every day she took her place just before the museum doors opened and left it after they closed. Her wardrobe was consistent: a sort of concert gown with a long train, in one of three colors (red, blue and white).

Always her hair, in a braided plait, was pulled forward over her left shoulder. Always her skin was an odd pasty white, as if the blood had drained away. Her pose rarely changed: her body slightly bent forward, she stared silently and intently straight ahead.

There was one variable, a big one: her audience.

Visitors to the museum were invited, first come first served, to sit in a chair facing her and silently return her gaze. The chair has rarely, if ever, been empty. Close to 1,400 people have occupied it, some for only a minute or two, a few for an entire day.

Sitting with Ms. Abramovic has been the hot event of the spring art season. Celebrities — Bjork, Marisa Tomei, Isabella Rossellini, Lou Reed, Rufus Wainwright — did a stint. Young performance artists seized a moment in the limelight. One appeared in his own version of an Abramovic gown to propose marriage. Certain repeat sitters became mini-celebrities, though long-time waiters on line stared daggers at those who sat too long.

Thanks to the Internet many people saw all of this without being there. A daily live feed on MoMA’s Web site, moma.org, has had close to 800,000 hits. A Flickr site with head shots of every sitter has been accessed close to 600,000 times. Yet foot traffic has been heavy. By the museum’s estimate, half a million people have visited all or part of the Abramovic retrospective, “The Artist Is Present,” of which the atrium piece is a small part.

The rest of the show, installed on the museum’s sixth floor, is a problem. It is made up primarily of videos and photographs of the artist’s performances over nearly 40 years, beginning when she was a student in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, where she was born in 1946.

Her solo work from the early 1970s was hair-raisingly nervy. She stabbed herself, took knockout drugs, played with fire. For one piece she stood silent in a gallery for six hours, having announced that visitors could do anything they wanted to her physically. At one point a man held a gun to her neck. Her eyes filled with tears, but she didn’t flinch.

In 1976 she started collaborating with the German artist Uwe Laysiepen, known as Ulay. Some of their performances were punishing athletic events, as they slammed their bodies together or into walls. Others were almost aggressively passive. For a piece called “Imponderabilia” they stood facing each other, nude, in a narrow doorway in a museum. Anyone wanting to go from one gallery to another had no choice but to squeeze awkwardly and intimately between them.

Ms. Abramovic restaged “Imponderabilia,” along with some other works, for the MoMA show using actors. And although the nudity caused a buzz, the restaging fell flat. Two elements that originally defined performance art as a medium, unpredictability and ephemerality, were missing. Without them you get misrepresented history and bad theater.

Evidently Ms. Abramovic doesn’t agree. In 2005, at the Guggenheim Museum, she restaged vintage performance pieces by other artists (Vito Acconci, Joseph Beuys) with herself in the leading roles. She recently established the Marina Abramovic Institute for Preservation of Performance Art, to be housed in upstate New York.

In the near future she will be collaborating with the director Robert Wilson on a stage work based on her life. By the sound of it, this project will mark her furthest departure yet from old-school performance art and into the realm of closely scripted theater. What it will have, however, is her charismatic personal presence, and that means a lot. That presence is probably the most important ingredient missing from the restagings. It is what makes the atrium performance compelling. For better and worse, it has carried Ms. Abramovic’s career.

One of her lifelong heroes is the opera singer Maria Callas, to whom she can bear a striking physical resemblance. Callas was a disciplined, risk-oriented musician, made vulnerable by a voice that began to disintegrate early. Increasingly, as she aged, every performance became an ordeal, an invitation to failure. Her willingness to face failure became the prevailing drama of her life. It was a drama of survival, and her fans had a part in it: she needed them to need her, so they did.

That’s that classic diva dynamic. And what we’re seeing in the MoMA atrium is basically a 700-hour silent opera. Ms. Abramovic, with her extravagant costume, her bent shoulders and her mournful gaze, is the prima donna. Visitors are cast as rapt audience, commenting chorus, supporting soloists. Unpredictability is in the air: Will she make it through the day? Will she faint from pain? Will she cancel at the last minute?

When I dropped by last week, one sitter, a repeater, sat across from Ms. Abramovic with his hands clasped to his chest, like a tenor about to burst into song or a worshiper transported in prayer. Perfect. That Ms. Abramovic will be collaborating with Mr. Wilson, a once-radical creator of epic experimental works and now best known for his ritualistic productions of Puccini and Wagner, is also perfect.

Of restagings I remain an unbeliever. Of Ms. Abramovic’s recent overblown solo pieces, seen in video in the sixth-floor installation, I’m not a fan. But the atrium performance works because she is simply, persistently, uncomfortably there. As of 5 p.m., she won’t be, though. The klieg lights will dim. The audience will move on. Something big will be gone, and being gone will be part of the bigness.

Marketers Advised: Use Social Media but Get Back to Basics

Miami Herald

Heads of independent marketing agencies from around the globe gathered in South Beach to tackle industry issues, like making sense of marketing with social media.

 

 

 

Consumers don't want to have a friendship with their toothpaste.

That was the message this week for marketers from Jonathan Salem Baskin of Advertising Age, who said the social media push by companies is getting away from the basics of advertising: making money for the client.

``As an industry, we've allowed this nonsense to get out of hand,'' Baskin, a marketing consultant and columnist for Advertising Age, told about 70 attendees at the global Worldwide Partners advertising conference in Miami Beach. ``Ultimately, we're about selling stuff, and I think that's what we have to get back to.''

The annual conference -- held in a different location each year -- brings together owners of 91 independent advertising agencies from Taiwan to Texas to explore trends and best practices. It concludes Thursday.

Baskin's comments about social media fly in the face of the current marketing obsession: how building fans on Facebook is good for brands. Baskin didn't dismiss social media and interactive websites but stressed that too often companies are investing significant resources on social media without seeing sales.

One of his examples: a Ford Fiesta campaign that gave free cars to consumers in their 20s in exchange for posting their videos about driving the Fiesta on YouTube.

``How the hell does this sell cars? Well it doesn't,'' Baskin said. ``It's to get Ford to win some awards to keep the social media team employed.''

Keeping up with technology while still making money was a topic that hit home for several attendees.

One was Manny Machado, chief executive of Miami marketing agency MGSCOMM. His firm urges clients to participate in social media, but not to dismiss broadcast and print advertising, he said. Spending on those traditional mediums has returned to the levels of two years ago.

``All of a sudden, social media was the very essence of our existence,'' Machado said. ``But we said, `Hey, let's not forget what has been feeding us so far and make sure we're still addressing everyone that wants to listen to the radio or read the paper.' ''

Baskin's remarks on social media reflected a larger point echoed by other attendees: the need to be more truthful with consumers.

Case in point was BP's green sun logo and slogan, ``Beyond petroleum,'' designed to marry the oil company with an eco-friendly image -- one that now seems out of place given the company's oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico.

``This brilliant branding hurts all of us,'' Baskin said. ``Because how do we show that we're better than that?''

Ian McAteer, group chairman of The Union Advertising Agency in Scotland, worked with BP in the 1980s to promote its solar power use in Africa. Now, he told the crowd, he feels guilty for making a big deal about BP's few green activities.

``We made ads about that and what a great company BP was, and what we're seeing today is possibly the end of BP.''

U.S. Newspaper Ad Revenue falls 10 Percent in 1Q

Bloomberg / Business Week

 

Advertising revenue at U.S. newspapers fell 10 percent to $6 billion in the first quarter from the same period last year. That is the lowest rate of decline in more than two years.

The statistics released Thursday by the Newspaper Association of America are the latest sign that the industry's financial woes may be easing in the fourth year of an advertising downturn that has triggered bankruptcy filings and dramatic cutbacks in staff.

Newspapers traditionally have relied on advertising for about 80 percent of their revenue. But recently they have been raising their subscription and newsstand prices to counter a marketing shift that has driven more spending to the Internet.

Ad revenue has now fallen at U.S. newspapers in 13 consecutive quarters compared with the previous year.

Advertisers Approve of new Fall TV Line-Up

LA Times

 

Advertisers in the coming days will make billion-dollar bets on the TV networks' new fall schedules — and this time around, they actually like the script.

In recent years, with production costs soaring and profits falling, the broadcast networks scaled back prime-time comedies and dramas. To the dismay of advertisers hoping to place their products in a classier environment, the networks instead added cheaper reality shows and tried cost-saving gambits like shifting Jay Leno to prime time.

But when the broadcast networks unveiled their new fall lineups to advertisers in New York recently, expensive scripted dramas and comedies were back in vogue.

"There is more emphasis on scripted shows," said David Scardino, entertainment specialist at RPA, a Santa Monica advertising agency. "Networks are feeling a little more confident that there's money in the marketplace, and their schedules reflect that."

Call it post-recession programming.

Only three of the 38 new programs introduced by ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and the small CW network are unscripted, the industry term for contest and so-called reality shows. That signals a sharp retrenchment from last year, when the networks introduced eight unscripted shows, expanding the genre to fully one-third of prime-time programming, excluding football.

When the new TV season begins in September, 24% of the networks' prime-time schedule will be unscripted shows.

During the last two years, advertisers reined in spending, spooked by the bleak economy. On top of that, the 2007 screenwriters strike disrupted two seasons of development for scripted shows. Although a couple of gems were discovered, particularly this year's breakout hit "Undercover Boss" on CBS, there were far more clunkers, including "Momma's Boys" and the short-lived speed-dating show "Conveyor Belt of Love."

Advertisers were not smitten.

Network sales executives are now touting their new comedies and dramas as they begin selling commercial time for the upcoming TV season. Wall Street analysts predict a barn burner with networks booking 15% to 20% higher sales than the $7.94 billion they posted during last year's depressed market.

"What a difference a year makes," CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves told hundreds of advertisers who packed Carnegie Hall two weeks ago to preview CBS' fall schedule, which features the return of Tom Selleck in the family cop drama "Blue Bloods" and a remake of "Hawaii Five-O."

Indeed, TV advertising has roared back to life.

Ad research firm Kantar Media estimates network TV ad sales were up nearly 12% in the first quarter compared with the year-earlier period. Other media also climbed. Cable TV advertising was up 8%, and Spanish-language networks were able to hike their rates about 7%. Overall media spending, which includes TV, radio, newspapers and the Internet, increased for the first time in two years, Kantar said, rising 5% to $31 billion.

The TV "upfront" market — so named because the networks sell most of their commercial time in advance of the new season — is expected to be dramatically higher than 2009. Sales, which were off more than $1 billion last year, nonetheless may still be below 2008 levels.

"The upfront could be up 20%, but that's because it was down so much," said Donna Speciale, president of investment for the ad-buying firm MediaVest USA. "We are probably not even close to what it was two years ago in terms of dollar volume."

Last season, skittish advertisers, unsure which way the economy was heading, bought commercials closer to airdate — and ended up paying substantially higher rates than if they had bought time before the season began. This year, advertisers plan to lock in rates during the upfront market, Speciale said.

Still, Speciale and others do not expect reality shows to disappear. After all, "American Idol," "Survivor," "Dancing With the Stars" and "The Biggest Loser" continue to be among television's most popular shows.

"But the networks are being more choiceful and we are not seeing all the ones with 'content issues.' Advertisers want more family entertainment," Speciale said.

The networks have been bleeding viewers as audiences defect to cable channels, which have ramped up their original productions, and to other distractions such as Internet social networking sites and video games. And each network faces challenges in the coming season, which could temper advertisers' enthusiasm.

Fox, for example, is losing two big draws. The network's longtime spy thriller "24," starring Kiefer Sutherland, ended its run last week. And Simon Cowell, the razor-tongued British judge, will not be a regular next year on "American Idol," which has seen its ratings decline recently.

"That's a factor. Simon is the heart and soul of that show, but "Idol" is still by far the No. 1 television property in terms of equity," said Greg Kahn, an executive vice president of ad firm Optimedia US. "There was a little less cachet or buzz around the 'Idol' contestants this year. Maybe we have run our course on talent in America that can compete on that level."

Although CBS has the most stable schedule, it is making a bold bet by moving the comedy "The Big Bang Theory" to Thursday from Monday in a bid to boost CBS' share of the advertising pie. Advertisers, particularly Hollywood studios, pay the higher rates to advertise on Thursdays in advance of weekend movie openings.

ABC has lost its fan-favorite drama "Lost," as well as chunks of audience for its top shows, "Grey's Anatomy" and "Desperate Housewives." But it has a new medical examiner drama, "Body of Proof," starring Dana Delany.

And NBC must try to repair the damage from its ill-fated move of Leno to prime time. The network spent about $50 million more this year than last year to develop new comedies and dramas, including an hourlong comedy anthology called "Love Bites."

"The irony is that moving Leno was a cost-cutting move that ended up costing the network millions and millions of dollars," Scardino said. "If NBC can get two strong shows out of this season, then the legacy of Leno will be that it rededicated the network to scripted shows."