"Micro persuasion" is the new black

I don't know if it's the adorable graphics on Twitter, or the fact that words like 'tweet,' 'twittering,' and 'tweet-up' make us feel like we're communicating in cartoon-language, but many authors and book industry individuals can't help but smirk - still - when we extol the very real virtues of Twitter.

"But you can interact with consumers in a way you normally wouldn't!" we cry. "Even media tweets! Oprah has started tweeting!!"

"Yeah yeah, 'Twitter.' I get it. Real cute. Have you called the New York Times yet?"

Phrases like "old media" and "new media" are fraught with connotations ("stodgy" and "over-hyped" come to mind), so let's not even go there. Instead, Dear Reader, I'd like to turn your attention to an article that released this week from The New York Observer about publishers' changing attitudes towards social media. Here's a chunk:

"The central insight driving much of the outreach that publishers have undertaken online is that, if used with finesse and attention, social media platforms like Twitter can be used deliberately to generate that invaluable, heretofore elusive phenomenon known as word of mouth...publishing houses have sought to integrate themselves and their authors into various online communities of readers, and to interact—meaningfully!—with the individuals who participate in them. While they make no attempt to conceal their affiliations, the publicists and marketing people who man their companies’ accounts on Facebook and Twitter aim to be seen not as corporate promoters, but as friends taking part in a conversation."

Most people now understand what the point of social media is. If the book-buying public is a classroom, and Oprah, The Today Show, and The New York Times our teachers, Facebook and Twitter are the notes we pass in class. It feels fun, almost conspiratorial, and if you're already on-board with social media then I don't need to preach to you anymore. Except to say:

Our "teachers" have taken up the notes. And they want in on the party.

I've been hearing a lot about "the open web" lately, and the gist is basically this: EVERYTHING, all media, is going social. "Well, duh, that's what the comments section is for," you say. But by "social" we don't just mean "interactive" - the open web will reverse the top-down way media currently works (saw a book on the The Today Show, blogged about it, my readers bought the book), and instead, foster a network of online channels where the biggest stars interact the most places. From MicroPersuasion.com:

"Tomorrow, as everything becomes social, you will be able to shop Amazon directly from within your iGoogle page without ever having to visit the site. What's more, Amazon will show you what your Gmail address book friends have publicly said about a product and/or its category in any one of thousands of online communities. Finally, to help you further Amazon will offer an aggregated view of your friends' friends opinions in a way that protects their identity....

Marketers need to really embrace the fact that it's peers and their data, rather than brand, that will become the primary way we make decisions. The greatest rewards will go to those who embrace and participate in as many communities as they possibly can in credible ways."

For the sake of argument, let's switch out "marketers" for "publicists" and "brand" for "big media" - Oprah, Today Show, etc. If micro persuasion pans out, we'll pay a LOT more attention to those little notes our friends are passing us, rather than the algebra lesson our teacher is writing on the blackboard. (Especially if your friend is @johncmayer, in which case you might have to deflect his 10,000,000 daily notes with a sturdy Trapper Keeper).

Now, book publicists have always placed a high premium on relationships, but that's about to go into overdrive as we look down the road to 2010 and beyond, as consumers become the media. In five years, we may very well be saying, "Oprah likes Eckhart Tolle's new book? Who cares? My ex-boyfriend, my second cousin, that girl I met at a party last weekend and my accountant all like the new Martha Beck book, so I'm going with that."

What a difference a year makes

I'm in Boston getting ready for the start of "Publishing Books, Memoirs and Other Creative Non-Fiction" conference, which is put on by the Harvard Medical School's Department of Continuing Education.

It's a sweet gig--the conference is at the Fairmont Copley Square and Boston is always fun. This is my fourth year and it is one of my favorite trips each year. I'm due to give a media training workshop at 2:30 PM each of the next two days and then a speech on the broader publicity process Saturday at 11:30 AM.

As I prepped today on the flight up to Boston it was pretty eye-opening to think about how much I've had to revise last year's presentation. Each year I go through the normal updates but this year was almost a total rewrite. It is amazing how much the publicity process has changed in just one year...

Social networking?

Last year: "If you have time, I suggest a MySpace page for your book."

This year: "A commitment to social networking is no longer an option, it's a requirement. By the end of the weekend you should start building your presence on Facebook and Twitter and thinking about viral strategies for your book."

Newspaper coverage?

Last year: "Although slowing down, daily newspaper coverage - in print form - remains one of the most realistic and sought after targets for authors and publicists."

This year: "Thanks to mobile extensions, Twitter applications and clicks per day, online extensions of traditional print outlets like the New York Times are more visible bookings for authors and publicists."

Mommy bloggers?

Last year: "It's a cute trend we're starting to see--moms reviewing books, commenting on pop culture and generating conversations with each other in their spare time. It must keep them busy."

This year: "Mommy bloggers have become one of the most influential target markets for books online. Any book targeting women 25-55 has to resonate with this segment of the market. Oh, and they're making a fortune off of ad revenue. The more popular mommy bloggers have opened the door for the dudes they married to leave their jobs and stay home and count money."

Blog tours?

Last year: "Apparently, New York Times thinks we should send our authors on "appearances" around the internet."

This year: "Blog tours, online book giveaways, author guest posts, etc. are crucial to every book publicity campaign. Try giving your bloggers a time range - a 3-4 day window, for example - to post their reviews, giveaway, etc. in order to spike Amazon rankings and increase the book's search engine optimization."

How much will change between 2009 and 2010? Any thoughts?

R.I.P Gourmet Magazine?

One of our office favorites, Gourmet, may not last through the end of the year, according to Eater.com. Shockingly enough, it appears that the economy had something to do with it.

"Gourmet will probably not see the end of the year. Its parent company, Conde Nast, can no longer rely on the huge profits of the newspaper portion of the Newhouse family business...It owns Gourmet, Bon Appetite, and epicurious.com. Conde Nast simply owns too many titles in this category. From 2004 to 2008, Gourmet’s ad pages have dropped from 1,364 to 955, with a 24% drop last year. January’s ad pages were down another 32%."

Read more of the story here or here.

This makes me particularly sad for Ruth Reichl, former food critic for New York Times and grande dame of Gourmet. I read her book Garlic and Sapphires a little over a year ago, and couldn't stop jabbering about it to absolutely everyone around me. "Have you read Garlic and Sapphires? No? Why are we even still talking??"

But perhaps there's a silver lining. The lining that surrounds the interwebs, of course. So let's take a vote: Should Ruth Reichl start a food blog? (I say YES).

EDITOR'S NOTE: A reader brought it to our attention that this information does NOT come directly from Eater.com, but rather 247wallst.com, which Eater.com sourced. You can read the original piece by Douglas A. McIntyre here.

Thanks for keeping us accountable, Anonymous! Anonymous also let us know that this piece, titled "Twelve Major Media Brands Likely To Close In 2009," includes editorial mistakes...suggesting that the grim prediction for Gourmet may be questionable. (But - to give credit where credit is due, we should also mention that McIntyre is the former president of Financial World Magazine and also used to work for Time, Inc. - not just Joe Blow Blogger.) If there is evidence to the contrary about Gourmet, proving that the magazine has a big, vibrant future ahead of it, that would dreamy to us here at P&P....and I imagine to most in book publicity.