Ain't Nothing Wrong With Getting Horizontal - Just Let's Maybe Get To Know Each Other First.
Friday, August 14, 2009 at 9:47PM 
Horizontal and Vertical - live together in perfect harmonyGeometry really was my strong point - where highschool math was concerned. Which is why it should be no surprise that I'm very concerned about the recent hub-bub in publishing circles predicting the end of HORIZONTAL.
The rockin' cool Mr. Mike Shatzkin is one of many who as of late is all about the vertical ...Vertical this, vertical that . Yadda yadda vertical.
Well, okay, vertical is nice and all, but really. Is horizontal going to go away? Henceforth, shall all readers and publishers be bound to niches (not that there's anything wrong with that)?
Yes, I get all the smart reasons that vertical makes CENTS for publishers and readers, but I think horizontal is still a viable marketing probability. Just well, - just maybe not in the way it has been in the past.
Me? My bookish self has no problem getting horizontal. But (and, mine is a big but), I think we readers are a little coy of late. We want to get horizontal, but we want to get to horizontal a little more slowly than we used to.
Instead of going horizontal based on relentless push marketing ("come on you reader, you. You know you want it! right? come on - i won't go away until you read me!"), today's reader needs to be able to trust that oh-so-widely-appealing book.
It's a whole new ball game. Nobody's a so-called "general reader" anymore. But, given the right introduction, everyone can be. As verticals form and grow, a book can still go "horizontal." But that book is much more likely to go horizontal via an enthusiastic "word of mouth" campaign that crosses vertical community boundaries than it might based purely on the publisher's PUSH marketing campaign.
Again, vertical is super-nice (and, as a publisher who is about to launch in what is considered to be a largely vertical market - I very much dig that vertical makes financial sense), but, for publishers who want to see the widest possible readership find their books - horizontal rocks! So, let's not throw the potential best seller baby out with the mass media market channels bathwater.
Let's use Mr. Shatzkin's example - "If the novel is about alcoholism, find the web communities that care about that." Hell, don't just find the web communities that care about that, but think about how those web communities relate to one another, and think about elements of that vertical book that have nothing to do with it's vertical-ness (it's okay if that's not a word - this is just a blog). For example:
- does this particular book about alcoholism happen to be written by a hot young film star? HORIZONTAL!
- Does this particular book about alcholism cite the urgent need for friends and family of alcoholics to learn more and get involved (preferably by reading the book)? HORIZONTAL!
- Are there plenty of lurid and shocking never-before-revealed secrets in the book? Preferably the type of lurid and shocking secrets that would make for a fabulous Today Show segment? HORIZONTAL!
Tonuge in cheek, silly sarcastic point being, we can always find ways to meaningfully cultivate books across vertical borders. AND, if we really believe that the stories (be they fiction, non-fiction, or something in between) truly deserve a horizontal/general reader audience, then let's do what we can to help the verticals who make up that horizontal audience engage with one another about the book.
What does this look like? One idea: no more PUSHing books, and a lot more facilitating Word Of Mouth within, and across vertical communities. Publishers: put your marketing time, money, and efforts into the acts of engaging meaningfully with core target markets. Let the word of mouth ripple out to the horizontal - increasingly elusive general reading audience. (e.g.: Love your core alcoholics first, and the tangential alcoholics and FOAs will come).
And I do love verticals, but Vive le Horizontal!
Disclaimer: My theories are untested by modern science. But, I do think I'm right.
:)
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (3)
Hey Kat, great post! I think I'm confusing Shatzkin's idea of vertical with your idea of vertical. After reading your post I'm thinking they may not be the same. I've been thinking about vertical in terms of what content publishers choose to publish, not in terms of how they choose to market it. In other words, vertical is about serving up content to a community of interest that has the in-built community, word of mouth, passion, buying tastes and demand to make publishing that content profitable for the publisher, whether at a smaller scale or not. Thinking of vertical this way doesn't preclude the idea that any content at any time can transcend the boundaries of a niche, just like it does now, when market hooks or opportunities are available.
On the other hand, I'd been thinking that when Mike talks about horizontal, what he's really talking about is the way general trade publishers work now, by publishing across a very broad range of topics and content areas, without developing deep understanding or relationships with the audience for these areas. In this context, horizontal seems riskier because you have to work harder to gain a diminishing share of attention.
However, in either case, the marketing opportunities/strategies you list in your post are still viable, just not the only ones.
P.S. ur kitty is so cute! :)
And it's entirely possible that I'm confusing the issue (which I'm known to do). My larger point (other than to be funny about geometric concepts) is I totally agree with Mike that publishers need to start looking at verticals, but they should foster growth across markets.
And Hi! *wave*!! How's Oz lately?
It's winter there, yes?
will we see u at TOC in Feb?
*wave back* Am currently in the Outback so you wouldn't know it's winter except in the early mornings. The rest of the time it is warm and wide and clear and brown. :)
Things in Oz are very busy! Making almost-definite plans to be at TOC. Will be great to catch up in person again.