<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Business &#38; MoneyCategory: Publishing &#124; Business &#38; Money &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://business.time.com</link>
	<description>The latest news and commentary on the economy, the markets, and business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:00:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='business.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://business.time.com/osd.xml" title="Business &#38; Money" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://business.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Beyond Showrooming: 3 Quirky Ways Smartphones Are Changing How We Shop</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/03/29/beyond-showrooming-3-quirky-ways-smartphones-are-changing-how-we-shop/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/03/29/beyond-showrooming-3-quirky-ways-smartphones-are-changing-how-we-shop/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:45:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kit Yarrow</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Future of Retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Odd Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology of Money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[candy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[checkout line]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impulse buys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impulse purchases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Magazines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[showrooming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smartphones]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=75965</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When shoppers met the smartphone, they quickly learned that the device was ideal for shopping around &#8212; while shopping in person. They could do things like check Kelley Blue Book prices at car dealerships, or see if a dress in a store was being sold for less at the shop down the street—or online. More than half of Americans now own smartphones, and it&#8217;s this practice of &#8220;showrooming&#8221;—touching and feeling merchandise in stores before consulting the smartphone for a better deal—that seems to have most changed how consumers shop lately. But there are other, quirkier and somewhat unexpected ways that smartphones are affecting the retail scene. Here are three: Fewer Impulse Purchases in Checkout Lines The people waiting in a store checkout line are considered a captive audience—one that might be tempted into buying candy, soda, celeb magazines, and any number of goods, without thinking much of it. But smartphones seem to be more interesting than the magazine cover featuring Kim Kardashian’s latest antics. Single sale copies of magazines, largely purchased while waiting in line at the grocery store, are down 8.2% from last year. Sales of gum have taken a hit, too, declining 5.5% last year. Evidently, instead of amusing ourselves examining new gum flavors, we’re checking our emails or playing Angry Birds. (MORE: Why We&#8217;re So Irrational When It Comes to Tax Refunds) More Shopping Collisions In my research, I speak with lots of consumers, including Brett, who has been a weekly regular at San Francisco’s popular Saturday morning farmers market since it opened. Not anymore, though. “It’s always been crowded but now it’s impossible,&#8221; Brett told me. &#8220;Everyone’s looking down at their phone, blocking passageways, walking right into you sometimes. It’s rude.” Another shopper named Julie feels the same way about shopping at Ross. “I was trying to make my way around this rack and there’s this girl just texting away, oblivious,” she said. It&#8217;s not just consumers who tell me there&#8217;s an epidemic of smartphone-distracted shoppers out there, some who obliviously bump into strangers while staring<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=75965&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/03/29/beyond-showrooming-3-quirky-ways-smartphones-are-changing-how-we-shop/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Odd Spending</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/saving-spending/odd-spending/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/143174930-e1364416548141.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/143174930-e1364416548141.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/143174930-e1364416548141.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Young couple shopping at supermarket</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/44310a1af940f994952d1e4db73096cd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">TIME.com</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ambassador of Buzz? Are Offbeat Job Titles Awesome or Unprofessional?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/11/ambassador-of-buzz-are-offbeat-job-titles-awesome-or-unprofessional/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/11/ambassador-of-buzz-are-offbeat-job-titles-awesome-or-unprofessional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business of Creativity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Career Strategies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Careers & Workplace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Job Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Work/Life Balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[About.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gen Y]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guru]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[job titles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[millennials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monster.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ninja]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trendy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=70171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why be just another generic associate when you could hold the job title of ninja, happy maker or ambassador of buzz? Quirky job titles can give the impression that worker and company alike are fun, hip and creative. Then again, they might just come off as silly. Offbeat job titles have been around for years, especially in cutting-edge tech firms and funky, laid-back places like Oregon. A 2009 story highlighted, for instance, how companies in the state were handing employees job titles such as consultant of pleasure and (you gotta love this one) grand pooh-bah. The Boston Globe now reports that the fun, irreverent-job-title trend is spreading to &#8220;more traditional fields&#8221; including publishing and advertising. So a young woman who answers phone calls and greets guests in an office isn&#8217;t being called a receptionist but a director of first impressions. An employee at an advertising firm traded in the stodgy title of senior vice president of business development for the New Agey (but sorta vague) title creator of opportunities. And yes, a worker who might have been a mere corporate-communications assistant in a different era is now known as the firm&#8217;s ambassador of buzz. (MORE: 5 Reasons Your Top Employee Isn&#8217;t Happy) The shift to hipper, offbeat job titles is motivated partly because companies want to come off as trendy, creative, innovative and forward thinking. It certainly doesn&#8217;t hurt that the titles seem to make millennial workers happier with their jobs. Surveys show that younger workers aren&#8217;t fans of traditional workplace rules and hierarchies, and instead of being a small cog in a firm, they like to consider their roles to be crucial to their employers&#8217; success. In which case, a pumped-up job title fits, Susan Heathfield, a human-resources expert for about.com, told the Globe: &#8216;Generation Y, or our millennials, were groomed by families to have an overly inflated emphasis on their own self-worth,&#8217; said Heathfield. &#8216;You are going to see this increasingly reflected in job titles. They are not going to have a title like receptionist and feel rewarded.&#8217;<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=70171&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/11/ambassador-of-buzz-are-offbeat-job-titles-awesome-or-unprofessional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Careers &amp; Workplace</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/careers-workplace/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/1500_jobs.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/1500_jobs.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/1500_jobs.jpg?w=240" medium="image" />

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Most Personal Finance Advice Useless? Author Exposes Industry&#8217;s &#8216;Dark Side&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/10/is-most-personal-finance-advice-useless-author-exposes-industrys-dark-side/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/10/is-most-personal-finance-advice-useless-author-exposes-industrys-dark-side/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Decision Making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Work/Life Balance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=66178</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to a new book digging into the curious history and modern-day big business of personal finance, much of the advice doled out by &#8220;experts&#8221; in books, on Oprah Winfrey&#8216;s couch, and on their own TV shows is simplistic, misleading, contradictory, or otherwise useless. Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, and Jim Cramer are among the boldface-name financial gurus who are skewered in Pound Foolish: Exposing the Dark Side of the Personal Finance Industry, the new book by Helaine Olen, a New York City-based journalist and former personal finance columnist herself. The book was recently described by the New York Times as &#8220;a take-no-prisoners examination of the ways she says we have been scared, misled or bamboozled by those purporting to help us achieve financial security.&#8221; Below, Olen answers our queries about her new book, the state of financial literacy, and the worst personal finance advice she&#8217;s ever heard, among other things: TIME: Many of the critiques in the book concerning personal finance gurus involve the way they spread the (unfair) message that basically says: If you&#8217;re not rich, it&#8217;s your own damn fault. Look in the mirror rather than blaming the economy, health emergencies, job layoffs, or any outside circumstances. But sometimes, isn&#8217;t it largely the individual&#8217;s fault that he or she is deeply in debt or hasn&#8217;t saved a penny for retirement? What about the people whose closets are overflowing with rarely or never-worn clothes, and the families with smartphone bills over $300 a month? Helaine Olen: Our salaries are stagnating or falling, and our net worth plunged by 40% between 2007 and 2010. That didn’t happen because people had a $300 a month smartphone bill. Give me a break. Are there financially irresponsible people out there? Of course there are. Always have been, always will be. But if we are going to tell people to look in the mirror, we need to take a hard look at the precariousness of American life and the predatory nature of our financial institutions as well. (MORE: Why More Americans Will Fall Behind<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=66178&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/10/is-most-personal-finance-advice-useless-author-exposes-industrys-dark-side/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Personal Finance</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/personal-finance-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ap050705016470.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ap050705016470.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ap050705016470.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">AP050705016470</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s Getting Cheaper – and What You&#8217;ll Pay More for – in 2013</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/04/whats-getting-cheaper-and-what-youll-pay-more-for-in-2013/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/04/whats-getting-cheaper-and-what-youll-pay-more-for-in-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budgeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food and Beverage Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Groupon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bacon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dairy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ebooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas prices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gasoline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[milk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSRP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TVs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=65882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s the time of year when lists are made forecasting the rise and fall of household expenses, big and small. Accordingly, it may also be time to tweak the family budget. The top ten list from CNN Money of things that&#8217;ll cost more this year is dominated by everyday expenses, including meat (specifically steak, hamburger, and bacon), which is projected to increase in price by 3% to 4%, and dairy (milk, cheese, eggs), which could be 4.5% more expensive in the near future. Things could be a lot worse. During occasional freakouts over the past year, consumers were warned that there would be an &#8220;unavoidable bacon shortage&#8221; in 2013, and that dairy prices could double if Congress failed to pass a new farm bill. By comparison, a price hike that&#8217;s only slightly higher than inflation seems like a deal. Other items in the roundup include satellite TV (reflecting rising programming costs), new cars (base prices are rising—and the average price paid per car has never been higher), and pro baseball tickets (no one should expect them to be cheap to begin with), as well as mail (stamps are going up by 1¢) and public transportation in big cities like Chicago and New York. Mind you, those latter two expenses are still relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things, even after a price hike. (MORE: Top Money Resolutions for 2013) Then there are a couple of price increases that are truly painful—taxes and health care—in that they&#8217;re expenses that generally can&#8217;t be avoided, and that most people think that that they&#8217;re already too burdensome to begin with. Most workers will see their paychecks shrink by 2% in 2013, and health care premiums are projected to rise 6.3% this year. Together, they&#8217;ll make the average worker roughly $1,500 poorer in 2013. In a dealnews post featuring 12 things that&#8217;ll be more expensive in 2013, there is plenty of overlap with the CNN Money list. Health care, cars, and various groceries are on both lists. The dealnews roundup also highlights college tuition<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=65882&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/04/whats-getting-cheaper-and-what-youll-pay-more-for-in-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Budgeting</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/saving-spending/budgeting-saving-spending/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/872252-001-e1357319620153.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/872252-001-e1357319620153.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/872252-001-e1357319620153.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">fortune teller looking at crystal ball</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google Books Deal Bolsters Dream of Universal Bookstore</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/10/08/google-books-deal-bolsters-dream-of-universal-digital-bookstore/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/10/08/google-books-deal-bolsters-dream-of-universal-digital-bookstore/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Gustin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Association of American Publishers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Authors Guild]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Library Project]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=51036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google&#8217;s deal to settle a seven-year conflict with five major publishers over the search giant&#8217;s book-scanning initiative is a milestone in the publishing industry&#8217;s grinding transition from print books to e-books. The pact, struck by Google and the Association of American Publishers (AAP), does not address the underlying question of whether Google violated copyright law by scanning millions of books over the last several years. Both sides, apparently weary of legal wrangling, have agreed to disagree on that point. The deal also doesn&#8217;t affect an ongoing lawsuit filed against Google by the Authors Guild, which represents thousands of authors. Nevertheless, this landmark agreement is an important step toward the ultimate end-game in this conflict: a system in which Google works together with the publishing community to make millions of hard-to-find books accessible to consumers. That&#8217;s the bottom-line: Google&#8217;s book-scanning project &#8212; now known as the Google Library Project &#8211; holds out the promise of a giant Internet library and bookstore, but that outcome is only possible if Google and the publishing community work together. &#8220;In the last few years, Google and the publishers have made their peace; this is just the treaty-signing ceremony,&#8221; James Grimmelmann, a copyright expert at New York Law School who has closely followed the case, wrote on his blog. &#8220;The publishers have embraced the digital transition in books; Google is now a player and partner in that ecosystem, rather than a dangerous disruptive presence.&#8221; The five major publishers included in the settlement are McGraw-Hill, John Wiley, Simon &#38; Schuster, Pearson Education and Penguin Group (also owned by Pearson). (MORE: Explaining the Google Books Case Saga) When Google announced its book-scanning project in 2004, the concept captured the imagination of many in the tech world. What if millions of books &#8212; including rare and out-of-print books &#8212; were made available on the Web? At the time, Google, which had just gone public and was the toast of the tech world, seemed like the only entity with the resources and resolve to undertake such a massive and ambitious project. Google Books was a signature project for<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=51036&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/10/08/google-books-deal-bolsters-dream-of-universal-digital-bookstore/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_google_books_1005.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_google_books_1005.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/600_google_books_1005.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Google Book</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/60187828ab0bda2734e1a17a173fabde?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">shgustin</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why J.K. Rowling&#8217;s New Ebook is $17.99</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/09/27/why-j-k-rowlings-new-ebook-is-17-99/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/09/27/why-j-k-rowlings-new-ebook-is-17-99/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:47:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laura Hazard Owen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ebooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hachette]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harry Potter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J.K. Rowling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Casual Vacancy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=50382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Casual Vacancy, the first and much-buzzed-about book for adults from “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling, hits shelves (and the e-readers of those who’ve preordered it) on Thursday. The book, an almost guaranteed bestseller, is likely to be publisher Hachette’s top-selling title this fall or even this year. Many readers will rush to buy it tomorrow — but thanks to the realities of the ebook price fixing settlement, they’ll be paying an unusually high price for it. That won’t be the case for long. Soon enough, retailers will be able to sell the ebook edition of The Casual Vacancy for $9.99 or whatever price they want. But tomorrow, when the ebook goes on sale, and for several weeks after that, customers will be paying more for it than they would have before the ebook pricing settlement was approved. Here’s why. The suggested retail price of The Casual Vacancy hardcover is $35. Publishers use wholesale pricing for print books: They set the books’ list price; retailers buy the books at a discount and can then resell them at whatever price they want. That’s why The Casual Vacancy hardcover is $20.90 on Amazon. (MORE: J.K. Rowling&#8217;s The Casual Vacancy: We&#8217;ve Read It, Here&#8217;s What We Thought) For ebooks, things are different. Recall that Hachette is settling with the Department of Justice over allegedly colluding to fix ebook prices. Upon the settlement’s approval, Hachette (and the other two settling publishers, HarperCollins and Simon &#38; Schuster) had seven days to terminate their contracts with Apple. Now Apple’s price bands — which would have stipulated that The Casual Vacancy ebook be priced at a maximum of $16.99, assuming a hardcover price of $35 — are no longer in effect. The settling publishers have longer to terminate agreements with other retailers, like Amazon: “Starting 30 days after the Court enters the proposed Final Judgment,” they may terminate those contracts ”as soon as each contract permits” (i.e., when it expires), or the retailers can terminate the contracts on 30 days’ notice. That adds up to about sixty days of wiggle room. (Thanks to Dear Author blogger and attorney Jane Litte who helped me with<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=50382&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/09/27/why-j-k-rowlings-new-ebook-is-17-99/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/152822012.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/152822012.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/152822012.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">BRITAIN-ENTERTAINMENT-LITERATURE-ROWLING</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/44310a1af940f994952d1e4db73096cd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">TIME.com</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/70_paidcontent-square.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">70_paidcontent-square</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ahead of IPO, Moleskine Evolves From Notebooks to Apps</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/08/30/ahead-of-ipo-moleskine-evolves-from-notebooks-to-apps/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/08/30/ahead-of-ipo-moleskine-evolves-from-notebooks-to-apps/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Josh Sanburn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mobile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Silicon Valley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ernest Hemingway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evernote]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moleskine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Notebooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pablo Picasso]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stationery]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=47956</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Notebook maker Moleskine is set to go public by the end of the year and is focusing on accessories and apps more than standard notebooks these days. But does that mean an IPO for the company is a smart move?<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=47956&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/08/30/ahead-of-ipo-moleskine-evolves-from-notebooks-to-apps/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/moleskine.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/moleskine.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/moleskine.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">moleskine</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d88247e41871fc555c4a2747167091d2?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jsanburn</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/moleskinenotebooks.jpg?w=360" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">moleskinenotebooks</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOJ Compares Apple and Publishers to Big Oil in Ebooks Case</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/08/24/doj-compares-apple-and-publishers-to-big-oil-in-ebooks-case/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/08/24/doj-compares-apple-and-publishers-to-big-oil-in-ebooks-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laura Hazard Owen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barnes & Noble]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publishers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=47541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its response to recent filings from Apple, publishers and booksellers on its proposed ebook settlement with three publishers, the Department of Justice addresses few specific complaints (PDF; full filing embedded below). Rather, citing the “unmistakable consumer harm that has resulted from the conspiracy in this case,” the DOJ calls on Judge Denise Cote to approve the settlement without a hearing. Last week, attorney Bob Kohn and the Authors Guild sought permission to act as “friends of the court” in the proposed settlement and filed amicus briefs. We have not yet seen a filing from Judge Cote granting their requests, but both parties are listed as “amicus” on the docket report, along with Barnes &#38; Noble and the American Booksellers Association. However, the DOJ does not respond to Kohn or the Authors Guild in its response. The DOJ shoots down the argument that ebooks are different from print books but doesn’t elaborate on why they are the same (and doesn’t respond to the criticism that it has failed to take interrelated markets, like those for e-readers, into account). Rather, it says, “Railroads, publishers, lawyers, construction engineers, health care providers, and oil companies are just some of the voices that have raised cries against ‘ruinous competition’ over the decades,” and publishers should not be granted special treatment. (MORE: Why Wall Street Loves Apple and Google as Facebook and Friends Fail) Response to Apple Last week, Apple argued that the DOJ’s proposed settlement, which it has not joined, affects its interests by forcing it to tear up existing contracts. As such, Apple says it’s entitled to a trial before the settlement is approved. The DOJ says Apple “is not entitled to preclude the United States and Apple’s co-defendants from obtaining the immediate benefits of their settlements, as it is well established that the United States ‘need not prove its underlying allegations in a Tunney Act proceeding.’” (The Tunney Act relates to anti-trust proceedings). The DOJ claims that “in reality, what troubles Apple is that the decree returns pricing discretion not just to Apple, but also to its retail competitors.” Response<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=47541&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/08/24/doj-compares-apple-and-publishers-to-big-oil-in-ebooks-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/scc.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/scc.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/scc.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">US-IT-APPLE-FILES</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/44310a1af940f994952d1e4db73096cd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">TIME.com</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/70_paidcontent-square.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">70_paidcontent-square</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Free Textbooks Shaking Up Higher Education</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/08/10/free-textbooks-shaking-up-higher-education/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/08/10/free-textbooks-shaking-up-higher-education/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Victor Luckerson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bill and melinda gates foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[college textbooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coursesmart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flat world knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free textbooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[openstax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rice university]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[textbooks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=46178</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Open-source textbooks are gaining traction with educators and may work hand-in-hand with the rise in free online courses to revolutionize the way we view—and pay for—higher education.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=46178&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/08/10/free-textbooks-shaking-up-higher-education/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/360_biz_textdrop_0318.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/360_biz_textdrop_0318.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/360_biz_textdrop_0318.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">360_biz_textdrop_0318</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/40c4f40351434bf8e04405d4231aaecd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">vluck2012</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should Justice Drop the Apple Ebook Lawsuit?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/07/23/should-justice-drop-the-apple-ebook-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/07/23/should-justice-drop-the-apple-ebook-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Matthews</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amazon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ebooks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=44176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the news of the Department of Justice’s antitrust suit against Apple and five of the nation’s largest book publishers became public earlier this spring, it took many by surprise. The suit accused Apple and the publishers of illegally colluding to resist Amazon’s aggressive strategy of pricing many new and bestselling books at $9.99 &#8212; well below the prices charged for hardcover copies and below what many in the industry say it costs to produce those volumes. The popular conception of an antitrust suit involves the government going after a corporation that&#8217;s using its market dominance to keep competitors at bay, like the famous Microsoft case in the 1990s. But in this situation, the targets of the government&#8217;s suit were publishing houses &#8212; a group of companies whose influence and power are obviously on the wane &#8212; and Apple, a company that was only just entering the ebook market and trying to challenge Amazon&#8217;s near-monopoly. When the details of the case emerged, however, they looked pretty damning for the publishers. The Justice Department accused them, and Apple, of collusively agreeing to sell books using a so-called agency model under which the publishers would set ebook prices and retailers would take a per-book commission &#8212; but be unable to compete with each other on price.  By forcing the agency model on all retailers this way, publishers could keep consumers from getting used to paying only $9.99 for new releases and best sellers. (MORE: Sued: DOJ Brings E-Book Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple, Publishers) The strategy more or less worked: Once the publishers had the agreement with Apple, Amazon was forced to accept the agency model or forgo selling some of the most popular releases. According to the Justice Department’s complaint: “Beginning no later than September 2008, the Publisher Defendants’ senior executives engaged in a series of meetings, telephone conversations and other communications in which they jointly acknowledged to each other the threat posed by Amazon’s pricing strategy and the need to work collectively to end that strategy. By the end of the summer of 2009,<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=44176&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/07/23/should-justice-drop-the-apple-ebook-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2100_biz_amazonantitrust_0720.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2100_biz_amazonantitrust_0720.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2100_biz_amazonantitrust_0720.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Amazon Antitrust</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/8f9a71742e964af96ca58c01a0577a0d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">christopherrmatthews</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will Murdoch Agree to Spin Off News Corp. Publishing?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/06/26/will-murdoch-agree-to-spin-off-news-corp-publishing/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/06/26/will-murdoch-agree-to-spin-off-news-corp-publishing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:34:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Frankel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News Corp.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rupert Murdoch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=41655</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nearly a year after hacking allegations led to the closing of tabloid News of the World, it sounds like News Corp. is considering a move that Rupert Murdoch has brushed away in the past — spinning off publishing. The variation being floated via unidentified sources in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, the media conglomerate’s flagship business publication, is as simple as it gets: split publishing and entertainment into two companies. It’s being compared to the Viacom CBS split in 2006 — but that was like dividing a really thick sandwich in half. This would be more like keeping the sandwich and spinning off the chips. (MORE: Coming Soon: A Softer Approach to Online Piracy) In May, News Corp. reported $4.1 billion profit on revenues of $25.3 billion for the first nine months of 2012. Publishing — newspapers (News International, Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal, Australia) and book publisher HarperCollins — accounted for $458 million of profit and $6.2 billion of the revenue. Nearly all of the rest, roughly 90 percent of the profit and three-quarters of the revenue — came from Fox, cable programming (Fox News, FX, the sports regionals, National Geographic, etc.) 20th Century Fox, and Sky Italia. Rupert Murdoch is passionate about newspapers, investing in them when others in the company demurred. (One of the hardest aspects of the hacking scandal to reconcile is the insistence on his distance from the way News International operated compared with his hands-on activity and keen interest over the years at the papers.) But the hacking scandal and its high-profile fallout — including closing of the News of the World, the loss of the chance to acquire the rest of BSkyB, executive resignations, arrests, and the tarnishing of James Murdoch — put it in a different light. Instead of simply being too small or high enough margin, parts of the publishing unit were causing problems, one of the moneymakers was gone and those who think News Corp. should focus on its video business, including COO Chase Carey, have a shot at<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=41655&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/06/26/will-murdoch-agree-to-spin-off-news-corp-publishing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/rupert-murdoch.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/rupert-murdoch.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/rupert-murdoch.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Rupert Murdoch</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/44310a1af940f994952d1e4db73096cd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">TIME.com</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/70_paidcontent-square.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">70_paidcontent-square</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Warren Buffett is Buying Newspapers</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/05/21/why-warren-buffett-is-buying-newspapers/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/05/21/why-warren-buffett-is-buying-newspapers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 10:45:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Roberts </dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Berkshire Hathaway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Buffett]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=37947</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Oracle of Omaha acquired his hometown newspaper in January and just snapped up dozens more in a $142 million deal. This is supposed to be the fastest declining industry in America. What is Warren Buffett up to? Here’s why the deal makes a lot more sense than it appears: A “three corner pool shot” This week’s deal makes Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, the proud owner of the Richmond Times-Dispatch and 62 other daily and weekly papers in Virginia and the South. Most of the titles, like The Goochland Gazette and The Bland County Messenger, have small circulations in the range of 5,000 – 25,000. The Oracle himself explained the deal this way:  (MORE: TIME’s Interview With Warren Buffett) “In towns and cities where there is a strong sense of community, there is no more important institution than the local paper. The many locales served by the newspapers we are acquiring fall firmly in this mold and we are delighted they have found a permanent home with Berkshire Hathaway.” Buffett can wax sentimental all he wants but he is still the same hard-nosed businessman who was tough enough to stick it to Goldman Sachs. Like any of his deals, this is all about money. “This deal is like a three corner pool shot that accomplishes several things at once,” says Ken Doctor, a media analyst. Doctor notes that the deal includes an enormous loan and credit line to the newspapers’ former owner, Media General, in which Berkshire Hathaway will earn 10.5 percent. Buffett’s company also obtained stock warrants that will likely pay out handsomely as Media General works on becoming a full-time broadcasting company. But what of the newspapers themselves? Doctor says that Buffett got them for a steal, noting that they sold on average for about $2 million a pop — or the price of an expensive home in each of the towns where they’re printed. Small town papers make money The story of the catastrophic decline in newspapers has been driven by metropolitan papers like the Washington Post  (on whose board Buffett sat for years)<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=37947&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/05/21/why-warren-buffett-is-buying-newspapers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Berkshire Hathaway</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/berkshire-hathaway/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/buffett.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/buffett.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/buffett.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">buffett</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/683dc7afe03e469543e390274804258f?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timepaidcontent</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/70_paidcontent-square.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">70_paidcontent-square</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Comes Down Hard on Publishers, Apple in E-book Case</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/05/16/judge-comes-down-hard-on-publishers-apple-in-e-book-case/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/05/16/judge-comes-down-hard-on-publishers-apple-in-e-book-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 13:13:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Roberts </dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amazon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti competitive behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=37722</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a strongly worded opinion, US District Judge Denise Cote rejected requests by Apple and five book publishers to throw out a class action suit that accuses them of price-fixing. Citing ongoing state, federal and international antitrust investigations, Cote turned down arguments that Apple and the publishers had acted independently when they changed the pricing model for e-books. (For more details on the case, see “Everything you need to know about the DOJ lawsuit in one post.”) Cote’s opinion is at times remarkable for the emphatic language in which she decries the alleged conspiracy. It is also noteworthy for citing the late Steve Jobs on several occasions to suggest that Apple was at the center of it: (MORE: E-book Price-Fixing: Finding the Best Model for Publishers — and Readers) &#8220;In short, Apple did not try to earn money off of eBooks by competing with other retailers in an open market; rather, Apple ‘accomplished this goal by [helping] the suppliers to collude, rather than to compete independently.’ [...] Finally, Jobs’ prescient prediction at the iPad launch that the prices consumers would be paying for eBooks would all ‘be the same’ and the other quotations from Jobs, Murdoch and Sargent, combine to provide ample evidence that the Publisher Defendants had agreed with each other to undertake collective action to raise eBooks’ prices and that Apple intentionally and knowingly joined that conspiracy.&#8221; Apple has argued that its entry to the e-book marketplace was pro-competitive at a time when Amazon controlled 90 percent of e-book sales. The company has also stated that it had no motive to raise e-book prices at a time when it was looking to attract content onto its new iPad tablet. Cote said Apple had the motive to act as the hub of a conspiracy: &#8220;Finally, the fact that Apple might have had different motivations for joining the conspiracy, and was involved in only a portion of it, does not undermine the existence of the conspiracy itself or Apple’s role as a participant.&#8221; Cote does not address what may have been the plaintiffs’<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=37722&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/05/16/judge-comes-down-hard-on-publishers-apple-in-e-book-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Legal</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/legal/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ebook.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ebook.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ebook.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ebook</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/683dc7afe03e469543e390274804258f?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timepaidcontent</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>News Corp.’s Hacking Tab So Far This Year: $167 Million</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/05/11/news-corp-s-hacking-tab-so-far-this-year-167-million/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/05/11/news-corp-s-hacking-tab-so-far-this-year-167-million/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 16:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Staci D. Kramer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News Corp.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phone hacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rupert Murdoch]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=37298</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It may be years before anyone can figure out the real cost to News Corp. and its shareholders of the UK hacking scandal that has dominated the headlines for months. For now, whatever the reputation cost for Rupert and James Murdoch or the financial impact of losing the chance to own all of BSkyB, News Corp.’s hacking losses are barely a blip. News Corp. spent $63 million on hacking-related costs in the quarter ending March 31; overall in the first nine months of fiscal 2012, costs related to the ongoing investigations dating back to the closure of The News of the World last summer have run to $167 million. In addition, the NotW closure plus some currency changes in Australia contributed to a $31 million drop in publishing revenue last quarter. (MORE: As Scandal Swirls, News Corp. Shareholders Call For Reduced Murdoch Influence) Compared with $8.4 billion in revenues for the quarter, up 2 percent over last year, and total operating income of $1.31 billion, up 23 percent over the same quarter in 2011, $200 million or so is enough to take earnings per share down a couple of cents but it’s not the kind of hit you might expect on a company being bombarded with negative publicity in a very public way. Rupert Murdoch skipped the earnings call but COO Chase Carey took strong exception to some last week’s findings by the select Parliamentary committee exploring News International’s role in hacking. Carey said he and the board agree with some of the “hard truths” but not the “partisan” claim that Rupert Murdoch is unfit to lead a media company: “He’s one of the smartest, more forward thinking executives of his time and the board and I reject any notion that he is unfit.” Full earnings details in the release.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=37298&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/05/11/news-corp-s-hacking-tab-so-far-this-year-167-million/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/rtr2otxg.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/rtr2otxg.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/rtr2otxg.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">The News Corporation building is seen in New York</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/683dc7afe03e469543e390274804258f?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timepaidcontent</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>E-book Price-Fixing: Finding the Best Model for Publishers &#8212; and Readers</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/04/27/e-book-price-fixing-finding-the-best-model-for-publishers-and-readers/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/04/27/e-book-price-fixing-finding-the-best-model-for-publishers-and-readers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Knowledge@Wharton</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amazon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti competitive behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pricing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=35628</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a case that has attracted worldwide attention, Apple and five book publishers were sued this spring by the U.S. Department of Justice on the grounds that they colluded to fix prices for e-books sold on Apple's iBookstore website. But does the "agency model" Apple and the book publishers employed actually hurt consumers?<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=35628&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/04/27/e-book-price-fixing-finding-the-best-model-for-publishers-and-readers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ebook.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ebook.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ebook.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ebook</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d446ccbf1f11d2a4bd5d41f4317b6739?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timeknowledgewharton</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amazon-owned Audible: Hey Authors, Want $20 Million?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/04/13/amazon-owned-audible-hey-authors-want-20-million/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/04/13/amazon-owned-audible-hey-authors-want-20-million/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:29:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laura Hazard Owen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amazon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ideas for Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Audible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[audio books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HarperCollins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simon & Schuster]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=34485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Amazon-owned digital audiobooks site Audible.com is launching a new program, “Audible Author Services,” that pays audiobook authors $1 per sale through Audible.com, Audible.co.uk, and iTunes, out of a $20 million fund. The audiobook publishers do not receive any of the funds. To sign up, authors must make their titles available as audiobooks through Audible.com. (Audible encourages them to do this via ACX, the audiobook rights marketplace it launched last year.) Once they enroll their books in the program, Audible says, they will: Receive an honorarium of $1 per unit sold at Audible.com, Audible.co.uk, and iTunes, and increase awareness of their book in audio format; [LHO note: Downloads via subscriptions count as sales] Obtain samples and links from Audible for use in social media, blogs, or on their websites – wherever they communicate most easily with their fans – as part of our “quick start” audio awareness plan; Gain direct interaction with Audible marketing and merchandising teams; and Obtain a free copy of their audiobook from Audible. Authors get an “honorarium,” publishers get nothing Significantly, the audiobooks’ publishers are cut out of the deal — the $1 per unit payment is an “honorarium,” “a direct payment from us to you, a way for us to reward you for promoting your work. Sharing the payment with your agent is at your discretion.” Audible continues to pay regular royalties on each audiobook sold. (MORE: Thanks to E-Books, Flat Revenues are No Problem for Publishers) While Audible encourages authors to market their audiobooks, they can get the $1/sale payment without doing any extra marketing at all. The authors get $1 whether the audiobook is sold outright or downloaded as part of a monthly or annual subscription. The fund runs through December 31, 2012. After that, “If you want the program to continue in 2013, please help us by signing up and raising awareness of your audiobooks.” “People buy a Neil Gaiman, not a HarperCollins or a Simon &#38; Schuster” As you may have imagined, Audible is not just doing this out of the good of its heart.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=34485&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/04/13/amazon-owned-audible-hey-authors-want-20-million/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Ideas for Business</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/ideas-for-business/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/audible.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/audible.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/audible.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">audible</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/683dc7afe03e469543e390274804258f?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timepaidcontent</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/70_paidcontent-square.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">70_paidcontent-square</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beware of Falling Trees: The Best and Worst Jobs in America</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/04/13/beware-of-falling-trees-the-best-and-worst-jobs-in-america/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/04/13/beware-of-falling-trees-the-best-and-worst-jobs-in-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Futrelle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Career Strategies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Careers & Workplace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food and Beverage Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee perks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work-life balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workplace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=34470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lumberjacks are celebrated in folklore (hello, Paul Bunyan) and in song (hello Monty Python), but as a career choice lumberjacking leaves something to be desired. At least according to the Jobs Rated 2012 report released earlier this week by CareerCast.com, which ranked lumberjack as the worst job in America. At the top of the job heap? Software engineers, who make great money sitting on their behinds in environments in which falling trees are relatively rare. So how did the CareerCasters arrive at their rankings – and do they really make much sense?<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=34470&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/04/13/beware-of-falling-trees-the-best-and-worst-jobs-in-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Jobs</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/jobs-economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/jobs.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/jobs.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/jobs.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jobs</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/297c01e606ce762c0604fa72c26c8b29?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dsfutrelle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sued: DOJ Brings E-Book Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple, Publishers</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2012/04/11/sued-doj-brings-e-book-antitrust-lawsuit-against-apple-publishers/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2012/04/11/sued-doj-brings-e-book-antitrust-lawsuit-against-apple-publishers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:33:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MATT PECKHAM</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amazon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=34290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just like that, Apple is officially on the receiving end of a major antitrust lawsuit filed this morning by the U.S. Justice Department for alleged e-book price-fixing. The suit, filed in New York district court, includes publishers Hachette SA, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon &#38; Schuster, reports Bloomberg<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=34290&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2012/04/11/sued-doj-brings-e-book-antitrust-lawsuit-against-apple-publishers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/44310a1af940f994952d1e4db73096cd?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">TIME.com</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sex on the Internet: Sizing Up the Online Smut Economy</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/04/04/sex-on-the-internet-sizing-up-the-online-smut-economy/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/04/04/sex-on-the-internet-sizing-up-the-online-smut-economy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:45:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Futrelle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goldman Sachs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online prostitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual trafficking]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=33286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These days there are plenty of other “income generators” on the internet, but porn and “adult services” still generate a boatload of cash.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=33286&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/04/04/sex-on-the-internet-sizing-up-the-online-smut-economy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/computerlip.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/computerlip.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/computerlip.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">computerlip</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/297c01e606ce762c0604fa72c26c8b29?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dsfutrelle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thanks to E-Books, Flat Revenue is No Problem for Publishers</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/03/30/thanks-to-e-books-flat-revenue-is-no-problem-for-publishers/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/03/30/thanks-to-e-books-flat-revenue-is-no-problem-for-publishers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:46:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Laura Hazard Owen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amazon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CBS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pearson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Random House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=33026</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Large book publishers’ most recent earnings reports reflect a new normal: Revenues are roughly flat, but profits are up—in large part due to e-books. In the 2011 Bertelsmann annual report released this week, Random House said it has nearly 40,000 titles available as e-books worldwide, and while revenues were down for the year, “operating EBIT was higher year on year, especially in the United States. This rise was helped by continued cost-cutting measures and lower return rates in North America and the United Kingdom due to increased e-book sales.” (LIST: The Top Ten Best Brand Extensions) Similarly, Pearson’s 2011 annual report shows that Penguin’s sales are roughly flat, while adjusted operating profit rose by 5 percent, again due in part to e-book sales. “Penguin saw e-book revenues in 2011 double on the previous year,” the report says. “In 2011 they accounted for 12% of Penguin revenues worldwide and more than 20% in the US. Since 2008, digital downloads of apps and ebooks across Penguin have totalled approximately 50 million.” And CBS’s most recent earnings report shows Simon &#38; Schuster revenues down by 1 percent for full-year 2011, while “publishing adjusted OIBDA for 2011 rose 28% to $92 million from $72 million for the prior year, reflecting lower direct operating costs” due in part to “the decline in expenses resulting from an increase in more profitable digital sales as a percentage of total revenues.” In other words, e-books are generally more profitable than print books for publishers. In 2012, I hope to see that reflected in higher e-book royalties for authors. (LIST: The 10 Most Memorable Ads Featuring Celebrities And Their Kin)<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=33026&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/03/30/thanks-to-e-books-flat-revenue-is-no-problem-for-publishers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Publishing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/companies-industries/publishing/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/kindle.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/kindle.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/kindle.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">kindle</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/683dc7afe03e469543e390274804258f?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timepaidcontent</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/70_paidcontent-square.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">70_paidcontent-square</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
