First, we have some reactions to the ongoing Pottermore struggle from the Guardian. The author here very rightly points out that, the longer that Pottermore is in beta, holding closed the floodgates and keeping the virtual world from millions and millions of fans, the higher the expectations will get. I’ve worked very closely on developing a children’s virtual world. I know how difficult it is and how many things can break, from content to game engine, as the site comes up against actual users. Pottermore, with all of its intricacies, seems like a logistical and programming nightmare.
If anything, I question the decision to go so public with it so early, without recruiting beta testers who could’ve signed an NDA agreement in exchange for early access. It’s a really high-profile project…it could’ve gotten a bit more polish before being announced. Now we all know about it, and we’re all waiting, and it’s a bit of a PR problem. Expectation is everything, especially with such a beloved franchise, and I wonder if Pottermore hasn’t set the bar impossibly high with the continued delay. Maybe the team is pulling back because initial feedback has been a lot less than positive. Oh well. Every beloved transmedia property has to jump the shark sometime.
People want the ebooks, folks. That’s what most users are looking for and, if they don’t get a great virtual world out of it, at least they’ll spend money again to rebuy in digital, so just get those books out there. All the grumbling about what Pottermore is and isn’t will go away and you’ll extend the franchise. But after that? The need for Pottermore will fade because Potter will slip from the culture, just like so many phenomenons before it. Don’t worry, though, this one has had a much longer run than most, so you can’t expect to keep milking it forever.
Now, here’s an NPR piece about the “Future of Children’s Books.” First of all, I’m sorry to quibble with Poynter, but the give-a-kid-a-book-and-an-iPad test is ridiculous. It’s like asking a dog to choose which owner she loves while one is holding a can of treats and a basket of toys. Kids already know iPads as gateways for games and movies, which makes them much more attractive. For this reason, kids are not “intimidated” by an iPad, that’s totally true. But it’s not like picture books are all that scary, either, so that’s a logic hole for me.
While ebooks are more whiz-bang than pbooks, Roxie Munro, interviewed for this piece, does note that she thinks kids retain less from apps when they “read” them, as the Joan Ganz Cooney Center study already indicated. It all depends on the book. Poynter’s example about a non-fiction book leading to an encyclopedia is an example of how ebooks for kids really utilize the form to educate. Munro’s example is that, for some books, the interactivity decreases comprehension rather than increases it.
Basically, it does all depend on finding the right format for the right book. For some, it will exist better as a printed book. For others, it will benefit from the interactivity. PRINT AND DIGITAL ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. At least not from where I’m sitting right now. As Poynter says, “There’s good screen time and there’s bad screen time.” There’s a good use for ebooks, and a bad one. Exactly.
Finally, if you haven’t seen it, this is a pretty good (if not, certainly, apocalyptic) view of what’s wrong with publishing in the face of digital changes. I can’t help but agree with a lot of these points. It all comes down to clashing old skool vs. new skool business models and, well, you know which one my money’s on.
