It really will depend on the distributor. It depends on their initial expenses and if they were barely making ends meet by paying their writers in the first place.

The bulk of my writing success comes from fiction. More and more short fiction publishers, and even many long fiction publishers, are dropping off their print publications and changing to an electronic only market. As such, they went from offering any sort of compensation to now offering a contributor’s copy. But given that it’s electronic, that was available to everyone anyway :)

On the other hand, new publishers have arisen, such as Damnation Books, who are going the other direction. Their business plan is to start the year as an e-publisher, build authors and revenue to a higher level and then take their publishing house into the print arena. They are one of the few publishers, outside of the majors, I’ve come across that offers generous rates and royalties.

But despite that, I don’t think print publications are going anywhere. Places like Borders and Barnes & Nobles aren’t just retail stores. They are destinations. People go to these places for coffee, to hang out, as well as to touch the book they’re interested in sampling.

I do see how the value of physical locations could change, however, as we move into the next generation. The internet has taken off not just from developed technology but from a new generation that’s grown up inundated to the electronic age, whereas for many of us the internet was a new technology we’ve adapted to in later years.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/65
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/481
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/463

Gannett and others are testing an e-reader that would be given to newspaper subscribers. Newspapers are on a death knell as the economy, lower advertising and even lower subscription numbers are threatening the business. If they can do away with the costly business of delivery and dealing with subscriber complaints, it would go a long way toward shoring up the future of newspapers and freelance journalists.

One indicator at how well e-readers will be accepted is Amazon’s Kindle, which allows users to download copies of their favorite newspaper. Another is the Detroit Free-Press’ decision to replace some home delivery with an online version – which includes the ability to print out pages in PDF format for readers who must have the tactile sensation.

We are in the early innings of a technology showing great promise – not of killing reading, but of supporting reading. As polls show people placing less and less importance on reading paper books and reading paper newspapers, the next stage must be prepared. The question is whether writers will cling to their illuminated manuscripts or embrace the future and escape irrelevancy.

I do think there’s a better case for e-readers in the newspaper market than as a substitute for magazines – going to the importance of immediacy when it comes to news versus features and how they each tend to be used.

However, I don’t see any circumstances where e-readers go completely mainstream. Now that’s not to say I don’t think e-publishing could replace much of print. My problem is with the delivery.

There are far better options out there already, and they don’t involve yet another costly (and potentially fragile) piece of equipment to lug around on a regular basis. Could a magazine e-reader work for someone frequently traveling via plane? Sure. But the average user just doesn’t need it. You can access much of your subscription magazine and newspaper content these days through your smartphone / PDA. If you really want the bigger screens Hearst is talking about, and you’re really that interested in digital content, you can use a laptop (and cheap laptops these days aren’t much more than prices for things like the Kindle).

I look at the Kindle more skeptically than most. It’s easy to build hype around something being sold out when you plan a marketing gimmick of limited runs like they did. They’re also a perfect example of poor market research behind these devices. Now it’s certainly possible that the information is out there and I just haven’t come across it, but I haven’t seen a really comprehensive study out on whether or not the bulk of folks really want these devices! So my question is this: do we really need new toys just for the sake of having them, when other devices already exist which can get us to the same end? In Kindle’s case, I’d say they need to worry about those netbooks – same benefits of the small portable product, same basic price range, and far more features. I’ve especially been amused by the Kindle2 problems I’ve seen reported which could have been avoided by simply getting to know Amazon’s target buyers better (as in where they’re using their Kindles and how they’re using and storing that content).

I don’t think the Kindle is going to just go away either. But I think the initial hype is going to die down over the next few years rather than picking up more steam as more comprehensive devices keep coming down in price. There’s a reason it’s hard to buy a decent mobile phone that’s just a mobile phone – people want their technology to do more for them – not less. They’ve repeatedly shown they’re willing to shell out the money to consolidate. They don’t want separate devices that do this, that, and the other thing. And I see e-readers setting themselves up for long-term failure by pursuing limited products when the technology is far from affordable to the people who could most benefit from those limited use devices (those who can’t afford the more comprehensive options).

Hearst’s device, in my opinion, just takes a far from perfect idea and makes it worse. Not only would people have to carry around another device, but a large one at that. One of the perks of the Kindle is that it’s compact and easily portable – just stick it in a purse, backpack, etc. and be done with it. If they chose the larger size based on solid research of what people wanted, that would be one thing. But it seems it’s been openly admitted that the reasons aren’t about the readers as much as being about the publishers and advertisers – rather than adapting their business models to changing technology and learning to perfect digital publishing and new ad / revenue models, they’re trying to adapt the technology to fit what they’re already doing. It’s about as half-assed backwards as they can get, and if anything I see it slowing down real innovation in the publishing industry, as it’s an excuse not to start thinking about changing and improving overall business models to adapt yet–basically, a stall tactic.

Just my $.02 though. I suppose we’ll find out in the next few years.