Category Archives: Publishing

Non-linear Career Development

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve recently been asked several times, mainly by younger people in their 20s, what do I actually do for work, and how did I end up doing what I do?

Regular readers will know that career development is a topic I have commented on many times in past articles, either as a result of my coaching and consulting engagements, or in response to the current state of the world.

This month marks 10 years since I started working in the crypto and digital asset industry. While it’s not a full-time job, and I serve as a freelance consultant, it’s now the longest period of continuous “employment” I have had in a single role, sector or organisation. Not a bad gig for something that started out almost by accident – it certainly wasn’t part of a well-planned, linear and structured career path!

If I look back on my career, there is probably one constant factor – that at heart, I am an editor, and by and large, I have always worked in “content”, whether in traditional publishing, on-line data, or new media. My specific roles and the organisations I have worked for have been varied, but the output or format has been consistent.

After graduating in law in the early 1980s, I spent a stressful and frustrating few years as a paralegal in local government, helping people with housing difficulties or facing homelessness. Within 5 years, I was burned out, and needed a change.

So I retrained, and completed an evening class in journalism and sub-editing, run by a couple of senior editors from Fleet Street. However, my aspirations of working for glossy titles or cultural magazines came to nothing, as by this time I was probably too old to be hired as a trainee journalist or on a graduate program. Luckily, I spotted an ad for “legal editors”, and putting my formal qualification together with my recent night school learning meant I was exactly in the right place at the right time.

That initial foray into publishing took me from London, to Hong Kong, and then to Australia, and along the way I transitioned into financial services, market data, international roles, business development, product management and digital assets. And I still use my legal knowledge every day, and “content in context” (hence the name of this blog) is relevant to everything I do.

Fast forward to 2026, and here I am running a media company serving the crypto industry. (More on that next week).

Looking back, there was no master plan, or grand strategy. My curiosity just kept pulling me from one industry or one role to the next.

1. Law taught me how to think.
2. Publishing taught me how to communicate.
3. Capital markets taught me financial infrastructure.

And when I walked into a Bitcoin pitch night in Melbourne more than 10 years ago, I felt at home (which is perhaps a little weird when you think about the somewhat impersonal, anonymous and 100% on-line world of crypto).

I appreciate that my career path looks messy from the outside, and it’s not for everyone, but it all fits in the bigger picture.

I didn’t become a lawyer, but I use legal thinking every day.

I left traditional finance 15 years ago, but that background is largely the reason I ended up working in crypto and digital assets.

If you’ve had a non-linear career, you will probably recognise the following:

Every skill you have picked up, every industry you wandered into, and every unplanned detour has been accumulating in the background.

You don’t necessarily connect the dots looking forward, you only ever connect them looking back.

But in the end, it all fits in the bigger picture.

Next week: My 10 Years in Crypto

=======

My thanks to Simian Giria for helping to initiate this topic.

Cooking the books?

Posted on by
Reply

Over the many years I have been writing this blog, I have often commented on the publishing industry, from my personal experiences, to industry trends and future outlook. The recent collapse of Australia’s online bookseller, Booktopia, prompted me to revisit the topic.

First, a declaration – I am an unsecured retail creditor of Booktopia. Orders for books I  paid for in advance of their publication dates still have not been fulfilled. Obviously, I am not alone; there are about 170k retail creditors, owed a total of $15m. That is an average of about $90 per creditor, although some retail customers are owed more than $10k.

Second, Booktopia’s total debts of around $60m are nearly one third of annual turnover ($198m in FY2023). In FY2022, annual turnover was $240m. Clearly, this was a business in decline, and in financial trouble.

Third, I should have been alert to the problems when I enquired about my outstanding orders, shortly before the administrators were called in. I knew the books had already been published, so I wanted to know when to expect them. This was part of the reply I received, in mid-June:

“We have been experiencing difficulties procuring new stocks from our supplier lately, we are so sorry for the delay.”

Fourth, it transpires that publishers, wholesalers and distributors were experiencing payment delays from Booktopia. Suppliers were reducing or cutting off their credit lines, and declining to supply more stock unless the existing debts were cleared. The administrators are doing their best to realise any remaining value of the business, including a trade sale of Booktopia (as a whole, or as parts). The assets include warehouse stock (some of which may still be owned by the publishers/wholesalers), customer lists, technology, goodwill and other IP. But it was made pretty clear at the first creditors’ meeting that unsecured trade and retail creditors should not expect to get their money back any time soon, and certainly not in full. (A total of $15m in secured debt will get preference, including employees.) So even if the unfulfilled but paid-for stock can be located, there is no apparent obligation for outstanding orders to be completed. In fact, the administrators were suggesting that retail creditors should contact their banks or credit card providers, to see if they could recover their money via those channels. (Which is why insurance premiums, card fees and bank charges go up, of course.)

I don’t understand why Booktopia’s retail and trade debts were allowed to get to such a high percentage of their turn over. Book publishing and distribution shouldn’t be that hard – either the book is in stock at Booktopia, and can be sent immediately, or it is available to order from suppliers and can be fulfilled within a reasonable time. For books that have not yet been printed, surely the customer’s money should be held in some sort of escrow account, and the cash not accessible by the seller or recognised as revenue until the order has been completed?

Of course, books go out of print, and customers may have to wait for a re-print or a new edition. Or the industry needs to consider print-on-demand solutions. Funnily enough, that is one of the key recommendations of the Ad Rem report on the Australian publishing industry (“The Australian Book Industry: Challenges and Opportunities”) in 2001….

Next week: Notes from the UK

 

 

A postscript on AI

Posted on by
Reply

AI tools and related search engines should know when a factual reference is incorrect, or indeed whether an individual (especially someone notable) is living or dead. In an interesting postscript to my recent series on AI, I came across this article – written by someone whom Google declared is no longer with us.

Glaring errors like these demand that tech companies (as well as publishers and media outlets who increasingly rely on these tools) take more seriously the individual’s right of reply, the right to correct or amend the record, as well as the right to privacy and to be forgotten on the internet.

As I commented in my series of articles, AI tools such as ChatGPT (and, it seems, Google Search) can easily conflate separate facts into false statements. Another reason to be on our guard as we embrace (and rely on) these new applications.

Next week: Bad Sports

 

 

The Five Ws of Journalism

Posted on by
Reply

The importance of a free press within a democratic society cannot be overstated: without the Fourth Estate who will “speak truth unto power”? The role of the printing press was critical to the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the great political reforms in nineteenth century Britain.

But lapses in journalistic behaviour and a decline in editorial standards over the past few decades have brought the press and broadcast media into increasing disrepute – to the point that mainstream media (MSM) has become a pejorative term, and social media (SoMe) claims to be the last bastion of free speech.

I think the truth lies somewhere between those two positions – I don’t believe that the MSM is totally devoid of ethics, nor do I believe that SoMe will displace formal journalism (and it certainly isn’t without its own ethical challenges when it comes to dis/misinformation and hate speech).

But what do I mean by “formal journalism”? After all, we have seen a raft of platforms giving rise to “citizen journalism” and other services which rely heavily on community sourced content, but few of these platforms appear to operate to the same professional standards of traditional reportage, fact-checking, investigative journalism or news dissemination. It also remains to be seen whether these new media channels can displace traditional print (and online) news media as “papers of record”.

As part of a career transition, I took a night class in journalism and sub-editing, with a view to becoming a writer or editor. Although I did work as an editor for many years, it was in the field of legal publishing, and not for a newspaper or magazine. Even though the course I completed was not a traditional degree in journalism, communications or media studies, I was still taught some of the key tenets of serious journalism, principally the Five W’s – the “who, what, where, when and why” of any news event (with the “how” also being an important component of any credible story).

This foundational approach to news reporting underpinned many of the most significant pieces of investigative journalism in the late 20th century, some of which changed laws and government policies, as well as influencing public opinion. Think of the role of the press in breaking the thalidomide story, publishing the Pentagon Papers, or exposing the Watergate cover-up. Even the Panama Papers relied on the collaboration of traditional news media outlets to bring the story to public attention. More recently, the work of Private Eye in helping to bring the UK’s post office miscarriage of justice to light is a prime example of the power of journalistic persistence in search of the truth.

On the other hand, a raft of tabloid scandals have dented the public trust in the traditional press, in particular the phone hacking exploits within the British media. Here in Australia, a recent high profile defamation case prompted the judge to put TV journalism under the microscope – and neither broadcaster involved in the case came away covered in glory. In particular, the court questioned whether the journalists involved had breached their own industry code of practice, by failing to check their facts and by inadequately testing the credibility of their witnesses. The grubby practice of cheque book journalism also came under renewed scrutiny, as did an ill-advised speech on TV by one of the parties that could have been prejudicial to a criminal case. More significantly, one media organisation displayed a willingness to believe (and even assert) that there had been a political conspiracy to suppress an alleged crime, when no such evidence of a cover-up had been established. This case (and its associated claims and counterclaims) still has a fair way to go, and has already embroiled senior politicians (some of whom have been accused of lying about what they knew, when and how), civil servants, political staffers, public prosecutors, multiple police forces, so-called “fixers” and “influencers” with their insidious “back grounding” and a number of TV producers who will probably never work in the industry again.

Added to this sh!t show has been the misnaming of a suspected murderer by one of the above-mentioned TV news channels. This major and latest faux-pas is believed to have been the result of “reporting” some false, misleading or mischievous commentary circulating on social media.

Apart from undertaking more rigorous fact-checking, and enforcing the established journalistic practice of getting actual confirmation of events from at least two credible sources, the news media also needs to make a greater distinction between the facts themselves on the one hand, and conjecture, speculation, opinion, analysis and commentary on the other.

Next week: Is it OK to take selfies in the gym?