Attention,ambivalence and algorithms: Publishers in the era of ubiquitous connectivity and expanding platforms

Abstract

This article scrutinizes how digitalization influences fiction and non-fiction literature publishers in the era of ubiquitous digital connection. The analysis states how a lack of attention is triggering a sense of urgency for the future of literary reading. Further, the digital transition entails an overarching ambivalence. Key stakeholders in literary publishing are experiencing how media on platform-based streaming services is competing with traditional reading. They perceive a battle for time and question the future of reading. From the perspectives of Bourdieu’s theory, the article reveals how penetrating connectivity is leading to a change in the professional habitus. Continuous busyness and increased professional presence are triggering ambivalence between work-related duties and personal well-being. Moreover, the publishing stakeholders reveal an ambivalence in voicing future expectations. While worried about the future of reading, the professional habitus leans on a promising future for the industry.

Introduction

Literary reading and publishing are undergoing a digital transformation. E-books and audiobooks are replacing traditional text reading in paper books (Balling et al., 2019; Mangen et al., 2019; Tattersall Wallin and Nolin, 2020). Literature is more available, and reading is adapted to a wider range of situations by the affordances in tablets for reading and smartphones for listening (Gibson, 1977; Norman, 2013; Spjeldnæs and Karlsen, 2022). The growth in subscription-based streaming services has reorganized the distribution and vending of audiobooks (Colbjørnsen, 2021; Have and Pedersen, 2020; Lotz, 2017), challenging publishers, their business model and the dissemination of literature as a paper book medium.

Moreover, literature has merged into a technology sphere, namely the digital platforms distributing digital content. Algorithms handle detailed information about customer consumption to fuel the marketing and distribution of literature. The publishers’ longstanding business model based on turnover from the sale of physical books is being (partly) substituted with a share of digital consumption (Dijck et al., 2018; Lotz, 2017; Maasø and Spilker, 2022; Sundet and Colbjørnsen, 2021).

While digitalization brings along new opportunities to the literary industry and its customers, the industry depends on readers managing to concentrate. The reading of longer texts demands the readers’ focused attention, to make room for the interchange between the authors’ texts and the personal experiences activated to establish meaning when reading (Baron, 2021; Baron and Mangen, 2021; Thompson, 2010, 2021). Attentive presence is a prerequisite whether reading a traditional paper book, an e-book or an audiobook, regardless of how the digital formats and their affordances influence the cognitive processes in reading (Clowes, 2019; Hillesund et al., 2022; Mangen, 2020; Mangen et al., 2019). Deep reading depends on immersion. It is vulnerable to distractions (Birkerts, 1994; Wolf, 2018; Wolf and Barzillai, 2009). Distractions and disruptions are phenomena as old as the practice of reading (Furedi, 2015). However, the possible distractions offered by online media and, not least, by the invading character of social media, are omnipresent (Karppi, 2018; Karppi and Nieborg, 2021; Ytre-Arne and Moe, 2021b).

Along with the digitalization of the literary industry, the ubiquitous digital connection influences the everyday life of its users (Couldry and Hepp, 2017). The smartphone has become a close ally to most people and brings along continuous offers of digital media, digital relationships and possible distractions (Abeele et al., 2018; Karppi, 2018; Karppi and Nieborg, 2021). Studies on digital disconnection demonstrate how the smartphone is experienced as the most invading digital device in everyday life (Ytre-Arne and Das, 2019, 2020). People experience digital media as time-consuming, and express ambivalence concerning their use of it (Ytre-Arne and Moe, 2018; Deloitte, 2018). Statistics on media use show how analogue reading, such as newspapers and books, is being replaced by digital media use (SSB, 2023).

Digital media invites less attentive media consumption and more multitasking, such as audiobooks and other activities (Tattersall Wallin and Nolin, 2020), or time-consuming scrolling (Ytre-Arne and Moe, 2021a). The capacity to immerse oneself and keep on focusing diminishes when multitasking (Firth et al., 2019; Lupinacci, 2021; Terranova, 2012). Hence, shorter attention spans challenge the act of long-form reading (Baron, 2021; Baron and Mangen, 2021).

The growth in subscription-based streaming services has accelerated the influence of audiobooks (Döring et al., 2022). The radical and rapid change following digitalization calls for a deeper understanding of its impact on the literary industry. However, there is little research on the influence of digitalization on decision-makers in the trade publishing of fiction and non-fiction literature. Therefore, it is necessary to explore how editorial leaders perceive the conditions surrounding them and the books they publish, to understand more of the long-term influence of digitalization on literary reading and publishing.

The empirical focus of this article consists in publishers of fiction and non-fiction literature in the era of ubiquitous digital connection (Fast, 2021; Karlsen and Ytre-Arne, 2022; Syvertsen, 2020) and their encounter with a platform-based economy that is reorganizing the value chain between the content provider and the end customers (Dijck et al., 2018; Lotz, 2017; Nieborg and Poell, 2018; Porter, 1985). Based on a qualitative interview study of editors in chief in Norwegian publishing houses, this article scrutinizes the influence of digitalization in a profession which produces content that demands continuous attention from its customers. The article aims to create new knowledge on the interrelations and dependencies between digitalization and literary publishing.

The analysis focuses on two research questions: (1) How do literary publishers perceive conditions for literary reading under ubiquitous digital connections? (2) How do literary publishers perceive their field of professional responsibilities when a ubiquitous digital connection is the new normal?

Before proceeding to the analysis and the discussion, we will introduce the theoretical approach, the empirical base and the applied method.

Analytical framework

This article explores publishers’ perceptions of digitalization and how these influence their cultural field and line of work. We apply the perspectives from Pierre Bourdieu’s theoretical concepts of habitus, field and capital as an analytical framework. The habitus perspective centres on the informants’ agentic role and their perceived room for action. The field and capital perspectives are partly brought into the analysis as they are essential to understanding practice (Bourdieu, 1977; Grenfell, 2014).

Bourdieu introduces habitus to highlight how agentic subjects’ driving forces are brought forward through an amalgamation of personal history, personal deliberation of the moment and the structural frames. Habitus is defined as ‘subjectivity conditioned by structural circumstances’ (Bourdieu, 2005), and explains how the individual agent has a broad motivation, including interrelations which may not be visible nor seem relevant from the outside (perhaps not even to the agentic subject themselves). Moreover, habitus captures longstanding personal traits brought forward depending on the situation (Grenfell, 2014).

The meaning of personal background when acting in the present is underscored in the habitus perspective. Education and cultural background shaped by social circumstances – notably class – play into everyday considerations and practices, even without awareness. Habitus works across chronology, and may combine experiences in the past to present situations and future expectations. Further, objective and subjective reasoning are seamlessly intertwined in habitus, and come to expression through the situational agency (Bourdieu, 1977).

The field perspective centres on the social world where individual acting takes place. Habitus is always placed in a specific field, and the habitus of its agents reciprocally defines a field. Historical tradition and the intrinsic meaning of roles and interrelations between agents are essential to a field. Hence, individuals act according to the structures and rules characterizing the field.

Habitus brings forward the interrelation between structural frames and human action. The relational aspect of human agency and the intrinsic connections between personal history and situational frames become significant (Lizardo, 2004). Deliberations may be combinations of unnoticed influence from the private sphere with objectives from the outside world (Grenfell, 2014). The field perspective tightens the relational aspect, as agents do not belong only to one field. Fields are bordering and overlapping. There are fields within fields, and fields are evolving. Further, competition within and among fields always leads to change (Grenfell, 2014).

The struggles within and between fields relate to the capital perspective. Social, economic and cultural capital are essential to the meaning of class within societies and to the understanding of society. While financial capital concerns material wealth, social capital underscores the importance of social background (Bourdieu, 1984; Grenfell, 2014).

On the one hand, Bourdieu’s relational focus between structure and agency demonstrates how individuals internalize rules in a field to constitute an acting habitus. On the other hand, the relational emphasis brings forward an externalization of the intrinsic regulations and relationships within a field when acting in it. Current practices depend on how past practices and systems are perceived without paying attention to them (Bourdieu, 1984).

The focus on the interrelation between the individual and a collective entity of prevailing social and cultural conditions is relevant to this study of informants in a professional setting. Equally relevant is the focus on how structures become internalized and shape what are perceived as individual worldviews, but are shared within the group (Bourdieu, 1977; Hesmondhalgh, 2006).

Empirical base and method

The empirical base of this article consists of leaders in Norwegian trade publishing responsible for Norwegian language fiction and non-fiction literature (originals and translations) for Norwegian readers. In the following, we will use the term ‘readers’ when focusing on the action of end-customers to publishing, and the term ‘customers’ when focusing on the business transaction taking place. Norway is a highly digitalized and digitally connected country with a high penetration of smartphones (SSB, 2023). The ongoing transformation in the Norwegian literary industry is reflected in turnover from sales in digital literature. The impact of audiobooks on streaming services is the most remarkable, having risen from 10 to 23.5% of the total turnover from 2018 to 2022 (NPA, 2023). As the statistics available are limited to Norwegian language titles, the penetration of foreign language e-books, such as Kindle books from Amazon, and audiobooks in other languages is unknown.

The article is based on a qualitative study of semi-structured interviews (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2015) with twelve publishers working on adult literature, covering small, medium-sized and sizeable Norwegian publishing houses. The informants are in charge of editorial processes and the titles being published. They are responsible for their publishing list’s financial results and cultural impact. Even though the Norwegian publishing business is thriving, the industry is relatively small compared to industries covering languages with a more extensive reach. Hence, the twelve informants constitute a representative group of Norwegian publishers responsible for a broader list of narrative fiction for adult readers, whether fiction or non-fiction or both genres. They are in positions to make decisions about manuscripts and publishing strategies, with titles such as Publisher, Editor in Chief or something similar. In the following, they will be referred to as publishers.

The informants count nine women and three men with more than ten years of experience in Norwegian trade publishing. The publishing houses vary in size and structure, and so do the informants’ range of responsibilities. The smaller the publishing house, the less specialized the tasks and the broader the responsibilities of the informant. For example, in larger publishing houses, the responsibility for reformatting the text to e-books and audiobooks is placed in separate departments. It is worth noting, though, that most of the roughly 100 members in the Norwegian Publishers Association are smaller than the ones categorized as ‘small’ in this study.

The informants were recruited by personal emails. Ten out of 12 informants confirmed their interest in participating shortly after receiving the first email, and 2 after a reminder. After the first inquiry, the informants were sent a new email describing the project more broadly and asking for written consent for participation. The 12 informants consented to further participation. Each interview was undertaken by one of the authors. Ten took place at the informants’ offices and two online because of the Covid situation. The interview sessions followed the same guide and lasted between 40 minutes and 1 hour. The interviews were transcribed and sent back to the informants for acceptance. Some minor corrections by the informants were worked into the corpus of approved interviews that constitute the empirical base for this article. Informants have been anonymized and assigned a capital letter for reference. Citations have been translated into English by the first author.

Interviews were analysed using the inductive method, following the principles of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The material was first systematized into 18 categories, such as ‘Changes following datafication’ and ‘Audio accelerates change’. The axial coding produced four categories relevant to the aim of this article: (1) attention, (2) notions of change, (3) balancing of (dis)connectivity, and (4) influence of digital connectivity.

The habitus lens leads us to analyse the publishers’ perceived room for action when their field is under transformation, focusing on the interrelation between personal experiences and the frames of their professional daily life.

The industry in focus is characterized by highly skilled knowledge workers (Rønning and Slaatta, 2011; Thompson, 2010, 2021). In this respect, the theme of this article is relevant not only to the industry of the informants, but also to the broader context of content industries undergoing digital transformation, that depend on highly skilled and experienced employees.

We will now proceed to the analysis, where results from the axial coding are further scrutinized in relation to the research questions (Braun and Clarke, 2006). In the following, we will first focus on the literary publishers’ perception of conditions for literary reading under ubiquitous digital connections, according to the first research question.

Battling for time and questioning the future

Concentrating on the publishers’ perceptions of change in literary reading, the first point to notice is how all informants immediately and unsolicited introduced concepts of time. Reading was translated into slots of time, and the informants described feelings of time pressure. They reported less time to read and stress about always being online. When asked to name the most critical topics mentioned during the interviews, half of the informants listed time-related perspectives, such as: ‘It is a competition for people’s time. And I am afraid that the ability to sit still and concentrate on only one thing is getting weaker. I am worried about even less undisturbed time to read’ (Publisher A). Informants perceived the increased time pressure as an overarching influence from digitalization. According to this study, the influence of digitalization and continuous connection is a matter of time.

Further, the sense of time pressure is closely related to deliberations on attention and concentration. All informants stated, in various ways, that the art of literary reading is decreasing. The matter was stated without any references, as if referring to common knowledge. They considered their profession as being in a battle for attention: ‘People’s ability to concentrate is deteriorating. Their attention span has become shorter’ (Publisher H). They did not question the interrelation between time pressure and lack of attention. All informants were worried about the advance of invasive digital media: ‘this 24/7 to see what you want whenever you want represents a constant and negative pressure on literature consumption’ (Publisher G).

The informants feared for the future of the industry they were deeply engaged in and, more generally, the consequences of less reading for society. Concerns came across primarily as afterthoughts, usually directed at non-professional readers: ‘It worries me that people are not interested in books, perhaps not even able to read a longer text’ (Publisher F).

Significantly, when they were asked to choose the most important topic at the end of the interview, the future of reading was seen as even more essential than the battle for time. Looking ahead, all informants were anxious about the trend in reading. They expressed a shared sentiment of serious loss to society if the decline was to continue, especially as young people seemed to be skipping recreational reading.

Competing media challenge attention to read

A significant observation from this study is how publishers stated and took for granted that the base of their industry is severely challenged. Literary reading is under pressure, and the trend is going in the wrong direction. The publishers did not have one common explanation for the vulnerable state of literary reading. However, ubiquitous digitalization was a common denominator in all deliberations on the reasons for the decrease. Further, according to the informants, adult literary reading faces two main competitors: audiobooks and TV series. This notion of change due to competing digital media was stated as a matter of fact, and presented as a probable reason for the decline in reading books.

The growth in audiobooks following the steep rise in streaming services triggered a double set of reflections regarding reading. First, informants stated that the audiobooks’ contribution to upholding and even growing the literature audience is essential to the industry. Second, they questioned the influence of audiobooks on general reading competences: ‘The growth in audiobooks is important. Hopefully it makes people read more because there is no doubt about people reading less’ (Publisher D).

On the one hand, the publishers highlighted the positive contribution to their industry brought by the rise in audiobooks, such as reaching out to a broader audience and to people who would not have consumed literature otherwise. They were positive about audiobooks bringing literature back on the public agenda: ‘The most important thing is how we are talking about books again, in public and private’ (Publisher J).

On the other hand, the informants considered audiobooks a challenge to their publishing tradition. They expressed uncertainty about the long-term effect of the audio turn in literary publishing. In this, they addressed an internal competition, as the audiobook format is – directly or indirectly – their responsibility, or at least the responsibility of the publishing industry. However, there were few comments on this conflict of interest.

The study leaves a general impression of the ‘wait and see’ attitude regarding the growth in audiobooks and the influence of digitalization on the informants’ business premises. They reported that paper books are selling less, both in the original hardback format and in paperbacks. They revealed an awareness of the expectations leaning on them about delivering content to future audio successes, especially the publishers in the larger publishing houses. But they also conveyed a solid position in the paper book tradition they pointedly adhere to, meaning that the paper book was still the main occupation and by far the primary format for the publishers. They related their professional responsibility to the tradition, as expressed in statements such as: ‘publishing work is surprisingly similar to what it was in 1999’ (Publisher E). A mixed sentiment of nostalgic pride and slight resistance was conveyed: ‘Some may say that publishing should change due to audiobooks. In my perspective, we must stick to the book and the text one way or another. It still works’ (Publisher I). The meaning of the written text and the dependence on it was unquestionable to these informants.

The interviews leave the impression that we have only seen the beginning of the changes instigated by audiobooks. There seems to be a shared opinion about ‘a high risk for what is to come because of audio’ (Publisher G). The result of fast growth appeared to be a kind of neutral passivity, neither embracing nor rejecting the development. The informants balanced out a double-sided reaction: There are advantages to digital media, and we better leave the task to those coming after us. However, while change was definitively on the agenda, the general tendency may best be summed up in the following statement: ‘I know it is there and that I must relate to it even more. But it is as if I do not have the energy to go into it until it is decisive to me – or, rather – to my publishing house’ (Publisher D).

The informants highlighted the competition to the traditional text format from Netflix and TV series. The publishers revealed a shared notion of TV series as the main competitor to their own business: ‘Netflix and others like them are the biggest competitors. In many ways, the TV series has become the new novel’ (Publisher H). All informants referred to TV series, even though the interview guide had no questions directly about them. Moreover, the term Netflix had a double meaning to most of these informants, indicating both the specific streaming service named Netflix and TV series in general.

They referred to the phenomenon of modern TV series being spread through platform-based subscription services (Colbjørnsen, 2021; Dijck et al., 2018; Nieborg and Poell, 2018), like Netflix and HBO. However, except for one of the informants pointing directly to the power of algorithms, the structural foundation of platform-based TV series was not the informants’ focus of attention. Instead, they emphasized the content and the opportunity to choose between a broad selection of quality series. Furthermore, the convenience of ‘all you can eat’ and ‘whenever you want’ was an underlying factor when the publishers considered TV series the main competitor to literary books. These practical matters were implicit in their reasoning in favour of TV series, even if not directly addressed during interviews.

None of the publishers referred to any surveys, statistics or other kinds of facts when stating the influence of TV series on literary reading. Instead, their justification of the impact of streaming services was based on anecdotal conversations, as expressed by one of the informants: ‘We experience being in a very tough competition, especially towards TV series. This is also reflected in how people talk, you know. They do not talk about books any longer, they talk about TV series’ (Publisher D). Several informants noted how contemporary TV series bring the appeal of convincing narratives to broader audiences, which is a reason for their competitive power. As one informant summarized: ‘Netflix is the new novel, right?’ (Publisher L).

The informants pondered the future opportunities for their trade. There was a shared notion about the future getting more demanding. Publishers will have to perform even better when competing for attention with other media: ‘Obviously, there is tough competition for peoples’ time. This means that [as a publisher] you have to be super relevant, trying to crack some of the codes about the kind of content people want’ (Publisher L).

Summing up research question one and the publishers’ perceived influence of digitalization on literary reading, the relational perspective in habitus highlights a dilemma for literary publishers. There is tension between what they experience now and what they expect for the future. On the one hand, they expressed a consistent experience about how a sense of lost opportunities for reading is linked to a lack of time. They considered literary reading as decreasing because of competing TV series and audiobooks, and they were genuinely worried about the future of reading. On the other hand, it was as if they could not fathom the prospect of literary publishing and literature losing its position and power. Hence, they expressed a vague optimism towards the future. While they referred to the surrounding signs pointing towards a decline in literary reading, they were unwilling to accept this as unavoidable. They kept an optimistic eye on the possibilities brought on by audiobooks, even though most of them were hesitant about actively engaging in the growth of audiobooks. Although digitalization has led to significant transformations already, the informants conveyed an impression of a thriving and vibrant industry. The fact that physical bookstores are still there, and that the paper codex is the trade industry’s primary format, were common notions.

The publishers were genuinely ambivalent in their encounter with digital development. Moreover, they conveyed an underlying trust in the literature itself. The times are changing, and, while there surely are more changes to come, the literature will still be there. Even though the long-term future might seem insecure to the industry, literature and reading will survive, one way or another. The publishers expressed a conviction in this, and a trust that someone – probably not themselves – will find the way to the future.

Professionally connected and continuously busy

Proceeding to research question two and the publishers’ perception of their field of professional responsibilities when a ubiquitous digital connection is the new normal, we first focus on the professional handling of continuous connectivity.

The informants described highly digitalized working days, not least during the Covid pandemic. Several shared examples of how they accomplish their work entirely online. Being happy about being back in the office and meeting colleagues and authors face to face did not overshadow the advantages of digitalization. Some read most of the manuscripts they work on digitally, and some prefer physical paper for editorial work and personal reading. However, everybody depends on a digital connection, especially smartphones, in their everyday life, regardless of whether they prefer paper or screen for their professional tasks, and audio or text for recreation or the benchmarking of competitors’ recent titles.

Their smartphone was always at hand and influenced their working life both positively and negatively. Not least, the combination of literary reading and smartphones was frequently mentioned as a challenge. Generally, references to smartphones and social media evoked the same concern: ‘we squander our time on social media, a time we could have spent on reading literature’ (Publisher C). Moreover, they were troubled by the distractions from social media brought on by the ever-present smartphone. This influence did not need any justification or further explanation. Moreover, ‘this goes for everybody’, as one informant commented when talking about the power of smartphone distractions. Then he continued, ‘the hours pass by when you might have read a book instead’ (Publisher H).

Ubiquitous digital connection through the smartphone was intimately integrated into the everyday life of the publishers. Continuous digital connection turned out to be a prerequisite, and several informants deliberated on the duality of being online. The internal debate was between the practical solutions to matters having to be taken care of, and the stress coming from the never-ending stream of notifications, news and emails. On the one hand, the informants said they made no excuses when popping into a dialogue with a nervous author on a Saturday afternoon when the smartphone was available. Similarly, the possibility of having a glance at a literary event they were not personally attending, and giving a ‘thumbs up’ to support an author, were considered as quick-fixes for following up.

On the other hand, about half of the informants addressed the negative impact of constant connectivity in general, and the smartphone in particular. The never-ending rush of emails and social media updates comes with a price. As one informant described: ‘It leads to a kind of stress, always being connected’ (Publisher F). The reaction is immediately balanced out by mentioning the practicality of being able to throw off some emails while commuting to work.

One third of the informants shared sentiments of discomfort, such as: ‘The smartphone takes enormous amounts of time, also from me. I find it shameful and evil and that is how it is’ (Publisher D). Various strategies, such as putting the smartphone away to decrease its presence, were described, but the process could be cumbersome: ‘It is so easy to grab this [the smartphone] in many situations. I am working on it. Away with it! I am not allowing it into the bedroom, for instance’ (Publisher E).

Being in leadership positions influenced how the informants considered their space for action and the expectations they put on themselves. Stress brought on by continuous digital connection was considered unavoidable, but as leaders, they expected themselves to find the balance and to cope. The underlying assumption was: If I cannot handle digital stress, then who can? As one informant expressed: ‘I am in a way always ‘on’, but that is how it used to be before also. And I feel that it is OK. I can handle this, and I get things done, you know’ (Publisher F).

The experience of being caught in an everlasting whirlwind of digital distractions came across as typical for their work situation. The sense of responsibility and the level of commitment to work seemed profound. One informant explained that if her concentration was broken because she was scrolling on the smartphone, her response would be to work for longer hours and compensate for the distractions. Typically, the informants worried more about the influence on others, as expressed by one of the informants: ‘Do we face a trend where readers become less patient and do not manage to concentrate on one thing only? The big and important question is what I am doing and what do I care about’ (Publisher E).

Analysing the publishers’ perception of continuous digital connection shows a two-sided reaction. The practicality of being online led to never-ending demands on their cognitive presence. Explored through the lens of habitus, the informants experienced a continuous balancing act between handling the responsibility tied to professional habitus and staying up to date on whatever came along on the smartphone. The workload was increased and breaks were gone because of constant digital connection. But the informants expected themselves to follow up on their responsibilities and the smartphone up dates, whatever the personal cost.

Connectivity makes professionality personal

The publishers voiced dissatisfaction over the trends in literary reading and media consumption in society. Their narrations were combinations of personal reflections and deliberations on behalf of an unspecified group of readers they considered their peers. Generally, this study reveals how the influence of ubiquitous digitalization activates considerations based on personal experiences and preferences. The interviews touched upon issues experienced as personal matters, and references to close family, especially children, were frequent.

Recurrent themes were longing for an uninterrupted time and an ever-present feeling of never catching up with the load of media consumption awaiting: ‘I might be bothered with a bad conscious. I feel I am not up to date. It is a relatively constant feeling. Even though I see and consume media all the time’ (Publisher G).

The publishers expressed a continuous dissatisfaction caused by the fact that they always wanted to consume more media than they could manage. As a result, they experienced an inevitable gap between tempting offers and available time: ‘I am reading, and I see very few TV series. You cannot have it all – all the series on Netflix and read all the books at the same time. It is not possible’ (Publisher F). These informants were great achievers in their profession, in leading positions, and expected a lot from themselves – and they experienced the pressure of never achieving enough.

There was also a constant notion about wanting to read more, as expressed in: ‘I want more time to read, more time to read things that are not work-related’ (Publisher K). This is likely not new to the publishing profession. However, this study reveals a situation where the amount of media narratives to consume (books, audiobooks, TV series, podcasts, news, social media) has increased enormously, without any old expectations of media consumption being taken away, not practically, nor according to their expectations of themselves. One informant reported that after tracking her digital news consumption, she realized how much time she spent on something that left her with so little information, concluding that: ‘and in this, I am very much in sync with my contemporaries’ (Publisher C). The publishers expressed a craving for more reading and a longing for undisturbed time. But only a few were specific on the solutions: ‘I would have liked going to bed earlier, reading more in bed’ (Publisher D).

The awareness of personal media consumption triggered mixed feelings. ‘I am reading a lot, but always wanting to read more. I spend too much time checking the news on the smartphone, in a way. I miss reading more’ (Publisher E). There was an ambivalence about the varied consequences of digitalization, also relating to the publishers personally. On the one hand, the growth of the market for literature due to digitalization in general and audiobooks in particular, expressly implied new opportunities. In addition, TV series offer content to dive into and appreciate for the publishers and the readers of the books they publish. On the other hand, the smartphone and social media were continuously close companions, infusing some distractions but also necessary for staying up-to-date and easy handling of tasks to be done. Furthermore, the multiplication of media to consume and the convenience of digital online media constituted a continuous pressure to consume more media. It is never enough. There is always more to check out.

To sum up, on research question two and the publishers’ perception of their field of professional responsibilities under ubiquitous digital connection, two findings are notable: Few physical and temporal restrictions to the professional obligations imply a constant pressure in relation to cognitive presence. Further, because of digitalization, professional and personal agency fields are impossible to separate. Thus, the publisher’s habitus and the individual habitus are intertwined. The professional and the private are operated without questioning where one takes over from the other.

Attention, ambivalence and algorithms

Lack of attention to reading and an overarching ambivalence concerning digitalization are essential findings in this article. The ambivalence highlights three dilemmas. The first dilemma concerns the dual character of digitalization, primarily to publishers. On the one hand, there is an experienced battle for attention and pressure on reading time, and digital platforms make audiences exchange book reading with streamed media. On the other hand, digital platforms make literature reach new audiences through audiobooks.

Second, there is the dilemma of handling professional demands versus personal well-being (Beattie and Daubs, 2020; Karppi et al., 2021), also when the latter includes reading. Increased professional presence heightens time pressure and ubiquitous digitalization wipes out distinctions between the professional field and the personal field, creating a professional habitus of ‘always on’.

The third dilemma is about voicing future expectations. On the one hand, the personal experience with the ongoing digitalization makes the informants worry about the future of reading on a societal level. But, on the other hand, their professional position makes them emphasize the possibility of a positive outcome for literature and reading. Hence, even though personal experiences point towards decline, the professional habitus brings expectations about a promising future for the industry (Bourdieu, 1977).

The publishers’ immediate mentioning of time loss when deliberating on changes in literary reading underlines how handling of ubiquitous digital connection is perceived in concepts of time. Experiences of time lost when scrolling on the smartphone (Ytre-Arne et al., 2020) are ‘translated’ into measurable units of time passed, and the influence of digitalization turns out to be even more profound.

The informants express a duty to balance the continuous stream of digital obligations and opportunities in their unfolding combination of professional and private lives. The analysis demonstrates how even professional stakeholders perceive no alternative to personal handling of digital media, underpinning the increased level of individual responsibilization brought on by continuous digital connection (Moe and Madsen, 2021; Pyysiäinen et al., 2017; Syvertsen et al., 2019; Syvertsen and Enli, 2020). The personal responsibility to ensure a sustainable balance in digital connectivity is equal, whether in personal or professional circumstances (Fast, 2021; Guyard and Kaun, 2018; Karlsen and Ytre-Arne, 2022; Karppi et al., 2021).

Considering the informants’ involvement with their profession and their worries about the future of literary reading, it is worth noting that they do not seem to engage with the development and counteract unwanted consequences. The transition in their professional surroundings is defined by powerful agents beyond – or above – their professional field. The fast rollout of overarching and structural change following profound digitalization and platformization (Dijck et al., 2018; Srnicek, 2016) turns even prominent stakeholders into audiences.

Further, it is worth noting that the common denominator to the perceived threatening media technology, namely audiobooks and TV series, is distributed through subscription-based streaming services. The main competitors to literary reading depend on digital platforms where user data and algorithms are systematically utilized to enhance the platforms’ performance in the interests of the platform owners (Klatt, 2022; Srnicek, 2016; Sundet and Colbjørnsen, 2021). The power of the transition intrinsic to platform-based media industries is brought to the surface by the informants in this study, highlighting the interplay between structural frames and room for action (Bourdieu, 1984; Lizardo, 2004).

To conclude this part, a reflection on the transferability of the findings is warranted. As described earlier, Norway is a small country with a high level of digitalization. As a ‘media welfare state’ (Syvertsen et al. 2014), and with economic and political conditions typical for the Nordic model, the publishing industry is relatively stable and thriving. The large majority of books are published in Norwegian and the competition from other countries is also limited within the publishing industry. However, and as demonstrated in this study, powers outside of the publishing industry are of greater concern, be it social media platforms, TV streaming services or other types of media technology. In this respect, this study relates to various smaller media sectors also in other countries that compete in a global arena, despite being rooted in a national context. For the future, more research is needed to explore the further influence of platform-based structures and algorithmic power on the publishing industry – and, not least, on the readers.

Conclusion

The study demonstrates how experienced literary publishers rely on and refer to a pre-digital publishing industry. Their agency as literary publishers depends on tradition (Bourdieu, 1984). The publisher habitus revealed in this analysis is reasonable, considering that all informants were adults when digital devices and online media became seamlessly integrated into everyday practice. They received their education and training in an industry that produced physical books. Furthermore, their habitus as readers grows out of reading paper books and becomes truly inherent to their identity.

In Bourdieu’s perspective on the interrelation between the habitus, the field and capital, he emphasizes how people of the same field, and of the same social class, are likely to develop a similar habitus and value cultural capital equally (Grenfell, 2014). The level of shared notions about the meaning of literary reading and the call for urgency toward future development is an essential takeaway from this article. Further, the dilemmas raised make visible the interdependence between the personal habitus of the informants and the structural frames of their professional roles and the industry they belong to (Hesmondhalgh, 2006; Lizardo, 2004).

The analysis gives reason to ponder whether the transitional power in platform-based technology is being taken sufficiently into account in trade publishing. The dilemmas emerging from the ambivalent reactions to the challenge of attention and the power of algorithms underscore the complexity confronting publishers today. Furthermore, the pace of change is hard to keep up with in an industry accustomed to tradition. The long-term consequences following platformization, such as the change from physical sales to subscription and the transfer of power from the producers to the distributors, may be more challenging to the future of literary publishing than yet accounted for in the trade (Hesmondhalgh, 2006; Klatt, 2022; Prey, 2018).