“What in Heaven’s Name Are Big Publishers Thinking?” is an excellent post by Carolyn Howard-Johnson on her Sharing with Writers and Readers blog. Carolyn cites The New York Times article “Puttin’ Off the Ritz: The New Austerity in Publishing” byMotoko Rich, then shares her thoughts on the subject. Both are interesting. Both are illuminating. One is inspiring – Carolyn’s.
If you haven’t visited Sharing with Writers and Readers before, I suggest adding it to your blog roll or your feedblitz and paying attention. Especially if you have a book you wish to make popular. Carolyn’s post doesn’t require anything further from me then the recommendation to read it. Rather, I’m going to spend my time on other observations.
Rich’s article, while presenting the current nature of publishing – at least big house publishing as we know it – is pessimistic. He doesn’t offer hope for the future of the industry; simply spins his tale and shrugs his shoulders at the incongruity of it. Most discouraging, he doesn’t explore the connotations of several of the lines he types:
For authors it means the prospect of smaller advances and fewer books being acquired.
Cash advances for authors, which have risen in recent years, are being reviewed.
…experimenting with a model that substitutes profit sharing with authors for cash advances…
“The two biggest sucking sounds on profits in our business are on advances and returns,” the wonderful soundbite from Robert S. Miller, president and publisher of the new HarperStudio.
Sorry. I’m not buying it. Let’s put blame where it fair-and-squarely lies: on the shoulders of the big publishers. Not on the author’s advances; not even on the bookseller’s returns, though I am a huge proponent of eliminating, or at least severely restricting, them. Rich spends paragraphs relaying sob stories of editors who must refrain from ‘two-martini lunches’ and houses that must eliminate holiday parties or transform them from galas to pot-lucks. God forbid the desk jockeys give up their corporate Town Cars.
Where’s the voice of reason here, the voice noting the glaringly obviously absent fact here? Where’s the voice pointing out that this industry and all its sundry positions, titles (How many editors does it take to publish a book?), and roles owe 100% of their existence to forces outside themselves? Publishing is not a self-contained industry. No one within its greedy walls creates a dang thing. They simply package and sell the product of other people’s blood, sweat, and tears – hand-delivered by those very same creators. Who is pointing out that what the publishing industry ‘makes’ is absolutely nothing – but money off the backs of people who don’t even work for them! Even Hollywood has to make something by turning one medium into another.
With the advent of print-on-demand (POD) publishing and Internet marketing, anyone with a computer and words to share can sell those words. Just as abolition of the income tax and institution of a consumption tax has earned the eternal enmity of tax accountants, so too, has the abolition and replacement of big-business publishing with POD and viral marketing raised fierce opposition. Better – for the people and use of technology – is not enough for the power-players. They fear change, for change means less money NOW!
Running before the demands of NOW! is a terrible way to conduct any business. The American automotive industry fears non-gas fueled cars. American government fears a non-income tax form of taxation. Publishers fear POD and open bookkeeping. Foreign competition is forcing the first matter; the second seems impervious to change; medium and small press publishers have a chance to slip to the forefront and lead the way for the third.
I don’t like ‘The New Austerity.’ We might as well use the same label on the TARP requirements for executive compensation. I’d rather call them both ‘Common Sense’ – common sense methods of conducting business.
With this mentality, I fear the Rich article sums it best in this quote from Michael Korda, former editor in chief of Simon & Schuster:
“And everybody went back to doing what they were doing before.”
Related posts:
The book publishing industry is baffling even to those involved within it. The big publishers (and their editors) are always saying they only make money off one or two percent of their writers, the big-name writers (Koontz, Rice, Mitchell, etc.). And they say they don’t make a dime (or even run into the negative) on pretty much everybody else. I don’t buy it now and I’ve never bought into it. I’m not suggesting the big publishers are getting rich off some poor writer’s new first novel, but I am flat out saying that they are making some money there, even if it’s just a little. They are making money from their mid-list authors, even if it’s just a little; it’s one of the reasons they often have a number of mid-list authors.
I personally think the current state of things will be great in the long run for the smaller publishers much as it has been for the smaller recording studios in the music industry. Many an author has had a book published with a smaller publisher, but then when their book takes off a big publisher comes along to buy them out, gobble them up, etc. It happened to Tom Clancy and it happened to Paolini, as examples. I’m thinking this isn’t how things will work in the future. An author puts out a book with a smaller publisher, the catches a reading audience, then the author sticks with the original publisher. Why? Because it’s getting to the point the smaller publishers can get their books out there just like the big publishers. Sure, the small publishers can’t afford the fees at B&N to have their books placed on a huge display right at the front of the story, but guess what? It’s to the point where the big publishers can’t afford it either. B&N is going to have to change their way of business too. Actually, I believe this is already happening. Anyone heard of a book called “The Shack?” Small publisher, first novel. It’s a huge hit, selling even at Wal-Mart. Guess what? It’s the small publisher that’s getting it out there, not some monstrosity in New York.
Two things to remember/consider:
1. Big Publishers produce “expertise” and “experience” and “judgment” (debatable) in their editorial process that increases a book’s chance of success.
2. Big Publishers, like the movie industry, have the pockets to produce a large print run and therefore give the illusion of legitimacy to a book.
Sincerely,
The Devil’s Advocate
Good. Let the small publishers have their day; and I hope it’s a very looooonnnng day indeed.
Yet, even if the business trends in the industry do change, I’d probably still feel a bit overwhelmed by the amount of competition in the field. With the rise of small presses, that competition will probably grow too, making it harder to sell books by new authors.
Ty – I know that large publishers have for years been used as the ‘loss leaders’ of their respective owners. With closed books and an entrenched and antiquated system of counting, revealing, and paying royalties, they’ve long been able to claim whatever they wish to. Talk about practices that merit investigation by Congress – unless someone comes up with a way to link steriod use to these institutes, apparently they aren’t worthy of such oversight. As for long-term relationships between small presses and their authors? I’d love it, but in all honesty only see it happening if it’s more than barely in the author’s favor. Authors have to make a living too, and as long as they don’t harm their long-term potential earnings I think more and more will stay with the small press (who won’t really be ‘small’ any longer at that point). However, if a particular small press isn’t doing, or capable of doing, all it can on behalf of those authors, it probably will not exist long. Personally, I’d love to have a publicity-oriented person working on RBE’s behalf. Everyday I learn of more things to do, more places to be seen/heard, more avenues available for promotion – I simply can’t keep up.
Jeff – point 1 can be matched, even bettered, by medium and small presses – if they consciously choose to or are able to. Point 2 is no longer necessary with POD. Such thinking is simply perpetuated by its beneficiaries: the corporations and their employees who print, ship, store, stock, sell, and return books. POD is their enemey, as POD can eliminate several and severely curtail the necessity of the remainder.
And Michael, you are absolutely correct. The competition is overwhelming at times. With the progress such as is now available within publishing came the universality of it all – the open access without the “expertise” and “experience” and “judgment” Jeff mentioned. Sure, time will tell who survives and who delivers, but in the meantime, we’re all fighting for attention, recognition, and appreciation. Nail those, and you’ll have lifetime customers. Screw any of those up, well . . . if you listen, you can hear the big publisher’s death songs.
Wow! It seems this subject could go on and on. And needs to!
Thank you, von Darkmoor, for your nice words about my mini rant! It does seem to have touched some raw nerves, just as Rich’s article did for me. By the way, I’m researching the rumor that Palin has been offered $11 million for a book. Now that’s what’s wrong with the industry. It’s all about bottom line, not art or author. Except, of course where executive luxury (and greed) come into the picture. Then it’s about spending, spending, spending.
Best,
Carolyn Howard-Johnson
Author of This Is the Place, about gender issues set in Utah in the 1950s
http://www.carolynhoward-johnson.com
Re: Response to Point 1- I agree. Now is the time for small presses to prove that. They can zero in on a niche (like, I don’t know, heroic fantasy) and bring those fans what they’ve been waiting for.
Re: Response to Point 2- I agree. But there are some awfully deep pockets associated with those perpetuating beneficiaries.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Devil’s Advocate
Thanks for the visit, Carolyn.
$11 million, huh? Somebody out there really thinks that’s a viable way to jump start their 2009-10 sales year? Sounds to me like the early tolling of a death knell for whichever publisher picks that up. Right now, the only author I can think of possibly worthy of that payout (and regardless of one’s thoughts of her) would be JK Rowling – if she announced an 8th HP title.
King might get $11 million for a sequel to The Stand, or maybe another Gunslinger-related series (the whole series, not just one book).
Dumas could get $11 million for another Musketeers sequel. But I mean, come one, it’d cost that much just to raise him from the dead.
I’d contribute to that last one
Hey J-Person,
Just wanted to drop a comment here tonight…I know you are doing GRRRreat at your presentation! What a cool thing, an honor, to have been selected. I hope everyone is attentive and you are having fun. Been thinking about you
I don’t understand why Pallin needs $11 million to sell what is surely going to be a money maker. The same goes for Jerry Seinfeld getting $7 mil and any other silly advance like that for a celeb. These people aren’t hurting for cash, and an advance that big does nothing for them. Cut their advances back, and keep the cash flow for daily business expenditures. When their books sell, these authors will collect royalties sooner from the sales if they’ve been given smaller advances.
Why tie up all your capital for a book that is sure to be a hit and a person who doesn’t need a 7-digit advance?
If the industry was smart, they would work with the government on an advertising program to encourage reading at all ages. Everyone benefits from that.
NGD
Woohoo. Thread killer strikes again. *Bow*
Nah, just arrived too late, it seems. You’re right, too. Why should any publisher put itself in the hole like that – if they’re so sure they can recoop that, why not ease the financial burden up front and simply share the royalties at a higher rate, sooner, and more often?
As for government-supported/sponsored reading habits, that’s been sought for quite a while now. Reading needs the Ah-rnold figure-head physical fitness had under Reagan. Won’t happen, however. A well-read population is too intelligent – the government of this county can’t afford that to happen. Which is why they pushed off this digital television conversion – since we’re all too poor in this economy to buy the equipment they’re trying to force us to buy so we can continue to watch the thousands of hours of mindless drivel they prefer we watch rather than doing other more productive things with our time, they have realized that they cannot risk us simply not purchasing the right hardware and connections and they cannot risk us getting up off our fat asses and walking, talking, reading, learning, doing anything! Shoot, I’m willing to say that 75+% of the public gets ALL of its knowledge – of life, current affairs national and international, money, society, everything! – from tv. Imagine what could happen in America if even half of them started learning things for themselves?
I don’t have cable and I don’t watch a single news channel and I’m prepared to stop watching all of tv if my reception is gone. Are you? I’ll just use my new ‘viewing boxes’ as NetFlix movie viewers. Until then, I’m going back to the couch to watch “Boston Legal” – oh, yeah. They took that away, too.
You probably loved the Alec Baldwin Super Bowl commercial for hulu.com.
Jason, this is a late comment but you’re going to want to see this article on the three stupid things publishers do (according to independent booksellers) and the three stupid things independent booksellers do (according to publishers.)
http://theharperstudio.com/2009/02/the-top-three-stupid-things-publishers-do-according-to-an-independent-bookseller/
Interesting article, thanks for linking it, Jeff. I’m going to reread the comments and think upon things, but I’ll probably add another thought or two here.