GROLIER HEAD OFFENDED BY ‘ENCARTA’ PIECE
David Arganbright, President
Grolier Electronic Publishing

As a subscriber to Digital Media I have, in the past, generally found the articles in your newsletter and the opinions they express to be timely, accurate and unbiased commentary on developments relating to CD-ROM, CD-I and other digital media.

Consequently I was astonished to read the article on “Microsoft Encarta Sets Precedent” in the October 12, 1992, issue of Digital Media, because it was not only full of inaccuracies, but as written, effectively serves as a PR effort for the benefit of Microsoft.

As you are no doubt aware, Grolier has been publishing a CD-ROM encyclopedia since January 1986, and has recently introduced the New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia in its 5th DOS edition, 4th Macintosh edition and first Windows/MPC edition. Based on our sales performance; broad acceptance by schools, libraries and in homes; and the many excellent reviews that we have received, I take exception with the opening remarks of the article. These state that “multimedia encyclopedias have been a big disappointment in the home and educational markets.”

In the second paragraph of the article you say “One of the biggest complaints is that electronic references… are produced mainly by software developers… more interested in conquering the technological hurdles… than they are in creating a browsable, attractive, interactive, literate and even accurate reference work.” Who is being described here? There are currently three U.S. CD-ROM encyclopedias based on multiple volume sets, published by Grolier, Compton’s (a division of Encyclopedia Britannica) and World Book —all print publishers that are renowned for the accuracy of their respective reference works.

Microsoft, on the other hand is the only software developer currently producing a CD-ROM encyclopedia. In your review of Encarta, the origin of the “28-volume A–Z encyclopedia” that forms the essential core of the work is never discussed, even though it is widely known that Microsoft licensed the text of the 28-volume Funk and Wagnell’s Encyclopedia, which is sold in the U.S. via supermarkets at a retail price of $5.95 per volume. In terms of the quality of the text, I have no reason to doubt the editorial integrity of Funk and Wagnell’s, but ask any librarian which they would recommend, given a choice between it and Grolier’s Academic American Encyclopedia, or, for that matter, our other competitors.

In terms of other comparisons between the “nifty” features in Encarta and Grolier’s CD-ROM, your article describes Encarta as a “93-volume thematic encyclopedia,” which “offers more than 21,000 articles in 93 categories.” First, it is a complete misnomer to describe the thematic breakdown of the encyclopedia’s contents in terms of “volumes,” because it suggests that it is the equivalent of 93 printed volumes — which it clearly isn’t.

Second, Microsoft has not pioneered the thematic approach that is described — Compton’s uses a similar “Topic Tree” while the Grolier CD-ROM incorporates a hierarchical “KnowledgeTree” which is a quite detailed and comprehensive breakdown of the content of the encyclopedia, providing access to 33,000 articles via several hundred thematic categories.

Microsoft also did not pioneer the concept of a “linked timeline of history.” Again, Compton’s includes a U.S. History Timeline, while the Grolier CD-ROM has a Timeline of World History that includes more than 5,000 descriptions of historical events, all linked to articles. Although it may be difficult to make a meaningful comparison among the various timelines, any such comparison should be made on the basis of number of entries, links to other encyclopedia features and editorial integrity — not that it is “20 feet long.” Your article also comments that Encarta “appears to offer individuals enough reasons to come back to it again and again” and that “if this continues to be true… it will be an amazing and noteworthy accomplishment.” The Grolier CD-ROM has been accomplishing this for the past 6 years with healthy update sales — would users buy an update if they weren’t using the current version on a regular basis?

This comment on our sales brings me to the closing section of the article, and to my mind what is the most inaccurate comment in the entire piece. In this section you state, “So the problem is not the product [Encarta], but the market. The problem has always been the market, because there isn’t one.” This comment is further reinforced by the assertion that prior to Encarta “millions of dollars were wasted on ill-conceived titles that obviously, to date, no one wants to buy.”

How do you arrive at such damning and erroneous assertions? Please believe me when I say that it is a very real business. After all, conventional wisdom leads us to believe that the emergence of competition is a clear indication of the viability of a business and now, with the introduction of Encarta, there will be four competing CD-ROM encyclopedias. If anything, this healthy competition is a vindication of Grolier’s early belief in the potential of the market — a market that we have helped to create by our pioneering efforts during the past six years.

I would like to think that a later article in your newsletter might reflect more accurately on the current state of the CD-ROM encyclopedias that have been published, and not simply reflect on the glossy features of a beta demonstration and PR hype. At Grolier we recognize that Microsoft will be a formidable competitor, and even though we haven’t seen it, we expect that Encarta will extend the concept of a multimedia encyclopedia. But we are also confident that the Grolier CD-ROM, in its current and future versions, will remain the encyclopedia of choice when customers have an opportunity to make a comparison in an open forum.

David Arganbright

I find it remarkable that you would write so damning a letter — claiming we did a “PR job” for Microsoft — while simultaneously admitting that you haven’t yet seen Encarta!

Janice Maloney