Eoin

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/

(Exits, quietly pushing the soapbox away with her….)

Well put–I completely agree.

Cheers, Tim

Thanks for this.

No, I think your concern over terminology and thinking is valid. I like your three points in terms of engaging with a community, I don’t think I would gainsay any of them. Perhaps though I gave too narrow an explanation of what I mean.

A few points I might respond to.

1) Creating/Developing community:
While I think something created just to sell books and exploit a community will fail, a community fostered by a publisher in the right spirit and culture can thrive, just as Tor.com is. They thrive by adding value to the community and enhancing engagement. But as you imply, it must be real, open and honest.

2) Communities exist in the wild and can be engaged with there:
I’m distilling you here but I think you are saying by using the tools of honest engagement then you will succeed in becoming part of the community. I’ve no problem with that and I have problems with the concept of “owning” a community as I indicated above.
But I question your idea that these communities exist in the wild. Outposts of these communities exist sure but a unified conversation no. By providing a platform for that conversation a publisher can without “owning” the community help curate, enrich and develop it.

In summary there is no doubt that publishers are no necessarily creating these communities but they can provide the tools for them to coalesce in a digital environment around the thing they value (content).

Eoin
PS Thanks for the compliment!

All the best,
Eoin

I’d suggest that something created around a product line isn’t a community at all, and has little chance of coalescing into one.

Rather than saying a publisher can “own” a vertical, might it be more accurate to think in terms of level of engagement? So, the publisher who truly understands and is actively participating in a particular niche area finds a way to offer its own products, competitors’ products, free advice and content, basically any products or information members of the vertical can use…and the important (albeit admittedly completely subjective) measure is the community’s sense of whether the publisher is really an active and engaged member or just a corporate entity out to make a buck.

Would love to read your thoughts on specific publishers that have successfully “created” a vertical niche, rather than identifying an existing community and trying to sell to it.

(Perhaps I’ve read the post above too narrowly; if so, sorry for the nit-pick. Many thanks for your great blog and thoughtfulness on this and related topics…)