Freedom of the Press
Freedom of the press belongs to whomever owns the press. Or so it has been said. But isn’t it more true than ever that freedom of the press belongs to whomever owns the customer relationship?
If being a “publisher” is defined by the act of making written work public, then is it possible to be a publisher without distribution? Obviously not, otherwise the publisher is no better off than the creator.
So in an electronic distribution environment where distribution is determined by the entities that own the customer relationship, doesn’t that make publishers dependent on Amazon, Apple and to a lesser extent Barnes & Noble and the other myriad of smaller sites where readers are willing to give up their credit card and some other private information in order to be able to safely download content?
Freedom of the press belongs to any publisher whose technology enables readers to access that publisher’s work.
What’s a better play for the publisher then? Kindle or iPhone?
