Books and Buggy Whips: Publishing in the New World
March 25, 2010 | 8:03 am
By Rich Adin
Levi Montgomery, today’s guest writer, is a novelist and blogger. His books are available at multiple places, including via his website. Levi drew my attention with his comment to my article On Words: Give Me a Brake. After reading his comment, I asked Levi if he would be interested in expanding on his views as a guest writer — the more viewpoints available for discussion, the better the discussion. The result is the article that follows. However, I suggest that you not only read Levi’s words below, but that you also read his original comment, which initiated the invitation.
______________________________
Books and Buggy Whips:
Publishing in the New World
by Levi Montgomery
The publishing industry is dying.
It’s been said so many times by so many people that it’s become one of those things that “everybody knows.” Whether it’s true or not, everybody knows it. Whether it’s helpful or not, everybody knows it. Well, everybody knows that Marie Antoinette said “Let them eat cake,” too. Except she didn’t, and the publishing industry isn’t going anywhere in our lifetimes, either.
Face it, it’s a consumer-driven world. What one person wants badly enough to be willing to pay for, another person will find a way to provide, and we have so many people now sifting the Internet looking for something to read that the entire “content mill” industry has arisen to fulfill that need. As long as some of us write stuff and others of us read it, there will be a publishing industry. But I think that industry is in for some deep (and much-needed) changes.
People are fond of referring to the buggy-whip industry. It serves as a multipurpose metaphor. It was the industry that refused to adapt, and it got run over by the car industry. It was the poor, local workers, driven out by the big bad corporations. It was whatever you need it to be in order to grind whatever edge you have in mind. But I doubt that there ever was a “buggy-whip industry” at all. There was a market.
There were people who tooled around town in their buggies, who needed whips, and there were people with deep enough pockets to set up the machinery needed to meet that demand. When the car came along, no one needed whips any more (well, not very many people, anyway), and those deep-pocketed businesses simply began making other things, things the new buyers in the new age needed. Things like leather car seats and steering wheel covers.
The only reason there is an industry called the “publishing industry” at all is because owning the means of producing and distributing books was such a staggering cost. If I lived in Podunk, Anystate, and I wanted you to read my novel, wherever you are, I had to do one of two things: either buy a printing press and a signature-sewing machine and a binding machine and a truck, and drive it out to you, or find someone who had all of those things already. And because each and every one of us who wrote a book and wanted you to read it had to do make the very same choice, the people who already had all that stuff acquired a vast power, both over what you see in the bookstores, and over what the writers can put in the stores.
What does it mean when a writer is said to be “seeking publication” of a new novel? What does that really mean? Strictly speaking, it should mean nothing more than the author is seeking someone who has all the machinery in place to make a bunch of books and ship them to stores, but in today’s world, it has come to have a disturbing second meaning: The author is, to one extent or another, seen as seeking permission to place that manuscript in the hands of readers.
The ownership of the machinery has placed the publishers in the position of gatekeepers, guardians of the public good, someone to keep the riffraff at bay. The business model of today’s publishers is built on maximizing profit from each book produced, and since the traditional way of doing business is to make a huge stack of books, truck them halfway around the world, pay bookstores to put them in strategic places on the shelves, and only get paid at all for the ones that eventually sell, the need to make a profit turned into the need to create blockbusters. Who cares if it’s well written? Who cares if anyone reads it? Just make a bazillion bucks on it, and you’ll be all right.
Well, the cost of producing books in today’s world is a fraction of what it was, and getting smaller. What cost there is can easily be paid in tiny increments, as a book sells here today, and another couple sell over there tomorrow. If a publisher produced a book in 1985 that only sold four copies, it lost money. A lot of money. Today, a person somewhere loaded a file to Lulu, or to CreateSpace, that will sell four copies. That person might make money, depending on the path they took getting their book on the market, and Lulu or CreateSpace definitely will. The profits in tomorrow’s publishing will lie in the long tail of the popularity chart as much as they do in the fat middle, and the new publishers are the ones who will recognize that fact. They are the ones who will help authors find readers. They’re the ones who will help readers find authors.
Self-published books are no good, because they’re not well edited. They’re no good, because they have terrible, cookie-stomper covers. They’re no good, because they have no distribution and marketing, so you’ll never find them, anyway. Well, maybe. And maybe not. Maybe there’s a self-published book that’s a great read, but it needs to be edited, it needs a better cover, and it needs a better marketing plan. Maybe, in fact, just maybe, there are a whole bunch of them.
The old publishers are the ones who set up to meet the needs of the authors of their day, the need to have all that machinery in place in order to get a book to market. That need no longer exists. I’ve put six books on the market without ever leaving the desk where I sit now. Well, the first one was done from the kitchen table, but we’ll ignore that. The needs I had weren’t editing needs, either. What I needed (and couldn’t find) were cover design services and marketing services that got paid on the same model on which the old publishers got paid for their machines: by selling books. My early covers suffered for it, and all of my books still suffer from a lack of marketing, but I still hold out hope, because where there’s a need, where there’s a market, people will step forward to make money off that need. I would gladly pay a percentage of a book’s income to a cover designer who was willing to work the way I did, by putting the work out in the belief that it would sell.
The publishing industry is going to change. There is no doubt at all about that. The changes will be as fundamental as any change in any industry ever is, but the industry isn’t going away. The new publishers will act as service providers to authors as much as goods providers to readers. The new publishers will offer cover design services, editing services, marketing and sales plans, distribution of review copies and so forth, not on a paid-up-front scheme (read “scam”), but in the hope of making money off the sales. The new publishers will recognize that they no longer hold the power of refusal to the market, and they will act accordingly. Gone are the days when a book will come out with a cover the author hates, because the publisher knows that the author can simply go to Lulu. No more spoilers on the back cover, because the author will have veto power over the back-cover copy. If you want to publish my book, if you don’t want me to go to CreateSpace and do it myself, if you want to make money off my book, you will need to recognize that gray looks ugly with an A in the middle, that Dr and Mr and Mrs look terrible with periods, and nobody gets to override me on hyphens. It’s my book. Do it my way, because I know someone who will.
The new publishers will see writers as their customers. They will sift through the products of the various free services, and they will woo authors they think they can make money from. And when they come to the table, they’ll come with something in their hands besides a grasping greed. Better design, better editing, better back-cover copy, better marketing, better sales, better distribution; all paid for by a percentage of sales income, these will be the hallmarks of the new publishing industry.
Readers will be able to go online to authors’ websites, to the free services, to online bookstores, and take a chance on an unknown book self-published by an unknown author, and no one will say either that they do not have that right, or that authors do not have the right to self-publish, but the less adventuresome majority of readers will feel more comfortable buying from the new publishers, because they’ll be able to feel more certain of their choice. Because every book in this brave new world is either an ebook of some sort, or is printed on demand, there will be far less upfront cost to recover. Those costs, of course, will vary from book to book, and the publisher will choose what books to pick up based at least partly on how much editing, cover design, etc, needs to be done, but the profits in the long tail of tomorrow’s publishing world will be as important as the profits in the middle of the graph.
I don’t think the readers of the world are going to stand for the ankle-deep sludge that seems to be washing over our thresholds now. I think they are going to demand that someone sort through all that sewage and find the books worth reading. The buggy-whip makers who survived the automobile revolution were the ones who took their leather-working skills and put them to work making car seats, and the publishers who will survive this revolution are the ones who will take their production and marketing skills and use them to create services that bring together readers who demand merit in what they read and authors who demand it in what they create.
______________________________
I find Levi’s article thought-provoking (and it has given me several ideas for future commentary), although I disagree with his views in several aspects. I think, however, that Levi has thrown down a gauntlet that needs to be picked up. His challenge to the publishing industry is in sync with the challenges presented by ebooks and ebookers to the nascent ebook market. What do you think?
Editor’s Note: Rich Adin is an editor and owner of Freelance Editorial Services, a provider of editorial and production services to publishers and authors. This is reprinted, with permission, from his An American Editor blog. PB



Previous

SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
I think Levi has a good idea of the future of publishers: A transition from an entity that profits off of book sales, into an entity that profits off of authors. Given the realities of digital distribution, their print-based gatekeeper model is eroding. It’s time to discard it. They need to reshape themselves as service bureaus, helping authors to package and market the best product by selling whatever a la carte services the author needs, and let the author worry about how much money they make off of digital products.
And like the “buggy-whip” analogy, the best part is that the transition involves utilizing the best of when publishers already do, but discards the physical distribution services that are dying off… in other words, they are retooling, but still doing the same type of work.
I think he’s spot on. If there’s one consistent thread in various market disruptions spurred by digital media and the Internet, it’s the elimination of market gatekeepers and their replacement by value-added customer-oriented services.
I think that established publishers will gain in importance for the very reason that there will be a flood of self-published books:
the gate-keeping function will become even more important.
Now the structure of the publishing industry will change with for example fewer people — no printers and shippers and inventory people — but the gate-keeping function will tell people that among all these thousand upon thousands of titles, these books are “legitimate” and well-crafted and professional and “certified.”
I am not saying that with any joy but simply that I think that people want “taste-leaders” and publishers are among that group.
Gate-keeping should not be important… quality-judging should be. The existing publishers should give up that end of the business, as they have always gamed it before with arranged celebrity reviews and endorsements. In short, no one’s ever really believed their endorsements, because they were arranged within the system.
That’s why publishers should become service bureaus, and leave the reviews and endorsements to fully impartial third parties… as it should always have been.
Steve Jordan,
There are lots of “shoulds” in the graveyards of history.
@David–
I think you’re missing what’s replaced gatekeepers in other industries, particularly music. Today, it’s all about community-led rating, whether managed by a company (e.g., Apple and iTunes) or not. In effect, the gatekeeper is replaced by a kind of crowd-sourced reputation system.
Publishers can create and manage these services, and thus adapt to the new conditions, or they can be left behind as they’re created in public fora.
I would side with Mr Jordan: the proper function of a well-run *modern* publisher isn’t to keep product *out* of the market (which is what a gatekeeper does) but to cherry-pick the best content they can identify and *add value* to it so that it finds a market conmensurate to its intrinsic worth.
It’s about *adding* quality product to the market, not subtracting.
The problem is that for the past 30-plus years the BPHs have been reducing their value-add and it is no longer one of their core competencies.
The core competencies of the modern publisher are pretty obvious:
1- Identify quality content and acquire its rights *before* a competitor does so
2- Identify the type and size of the content’s natural market
3- Proof, edit, enhance *and* promote the content to capture as much as that natural market as possible
A case can be made that current BPH management has no interest or capability to do any of the last two functions as they have steadily reduced or eliminated the editorial staff capable of carrying those things out. They have also outsourced to Agents most (if not all) the capability to carry out the first function. What remains is management well-versed in backroom deal-making, financial management, and inventory control. Small wonder that their knee-jerk reaction to an exploding new channel for added sales outside their cozy little network should be a price hike/price-fixing scheme. A gentleman’s deal to sell all content into the new channel at the same price to prevent the landscape from changing before their options vest and they can golden-parachute out before the inevitable wreck.
As pointed out, in today’s hyper-connected online world there is no gatekeeping. Can’t be done. The internet sees gatekeeping as censorship and, like physical damage, routes around it. Bypasses it. Disintermediates it.
Betting your firm on gatekeeping the internet is tying an anchor to your leg and jumping off a deep pier.
The BPHs need to understand that they *need* to flip their business model around 180 degrees; instead of schmoozing agents for million-dollar bonus babies, they should be reviving the slush pile, (maybe using a variant of Amazon’s Turk service); they should be firing money managers and inventory control specialists and hiring editors, proofers, artists, and marketters. Not all at once or in hordes, but gradually and steadily. They should be doing brand-building exercises, running alternate-reality promotions for their genre brands as Hollywood studios are learning to do. They should doing what other content marketters are doing and have been doing for decades.
Above all, they need to understand their assets are the authors they have under contract, not their warehouses and printing plants; those are their liabilities. (Just ask Blockbusters about the value of physical product in a digitally connected age.)
Above all, they need to stop thinking about print books as the product and realize the product is the content in the print, the information, the story, the ideas, the personalities, the worlds… And none of those need dead tree pulp to sell.
To be honest, recent events suggest BPH management is incaple of recognizing the sea-change that has already started. They are incapable of adapting to a world of mobile communications and electronic storefronts. The gap is too big.
It is going to take *newer*, younger, managers to (at best) restructure the BPH empires or (at worst) liquidate them.
A lot of disruption is coming, all of it avoidable.
Except it won’t be avoided.
For all our discussions here and elsewhere, no amount of warning is going to get through to those guys before until the train derails.
Lots and lots of “shoulds” in those remarks.
From my view a publisher that sets the price of an author’s book without his input or permission, changes that price at will and insists on editing that rubs the author the wrong way (like changing “these data” to “this data” for example) is just going to lose that author. I would not sign a multi-book contract, nor would I allow the publisher to control the digital version. Publishers need to wake up to the realization that the author is his bread and butter. No input = no output.
While some publishers are just plain old snobs, I think the majority intends to and does usually provide a useful function — some semblance of quality control. “Gate-keeping” is not just “keeping-out.” It also means “allowing quality in.”
We may disagree from time to time (most of us do) that publishers can make huge mistakes about quality, it’s a necessary social function. But even as a self-publisher (successfully — 20 thousand copies sold) I agree that the vast majority of authors do not have the ability, interest (or maybe even sense of need) to hire line and copy editors, graphics artists, book designers, printers, lawyers, distributors etc etc. Someone — a “publisher” — needs to help the author put the product together, whether it is p-book or e-book.
In making that investment, a “publisher” provides a useful function of creating value — a readable book and available to the public.
Do they do a perfect job? Of course not. And e-books will and should change the business — but there will be publishers.
David -
I don’t worry that publishers will or won’t be around. They will. What they need to do is focus on those services and talents described within your second paragraph – the editing, proofreading, art design, marketing, distribution, etc. – and do less gate-keeping.
Since foisting the slush pile off on a small pool of agents, agents have gained a ridiculous amount of sway over what fiction sees the print market. Kirsten Nelson’s agency received 38,000 queries last year alone. They requested 55 fulls and took on 6 new clients.
6 stories survived … out of 38,000.
You will never be able to convince me that there weren’t at least 50 other good novels in there somewhere, a few of whom probably never made it to a full manuscript reading. There ARE people out there who are just not good at auditioning for a role who can actually perform well at the curtain.
Whoops – I meant KRISTIN Nelson. I have my friend’s name on the brain.
Think of the missed opportunity publishers are losing in the present system… and it’s in those slush piles. Instead of “cherry-picking” the pieces worth their time to sell through their current process, they could be taking them all on… providing service to the authors to improve and package their work, and make money from the author… then let the author worry about selling the book on the market.
Imagine making money off of those 38,000 books, instead of just 6. And it would be guaranteed income, up front, from the authors. Much of the risk involved with current publishing would be gone… the only trick would be promoting their services to authors to keep business coming in.
Taking the present risk of the market, handing that risk to authors, and getting direct up-front payments for their work from a vastly larger number of clients, instead of the fickle public. What publisher wouldn’t want to do something so sensible?
Just the ones who ignore “should”s, I guess…
Perspehone, I don’t I disagree with much you say. Hey I know the stupidity of agents and publishers: I was kept out.
All I am saying is that one way or another, right or wrong, or whatever, there will be some sort of taste leaders. Big existing publishers will have huge momentum and will attract big existing authors.
But there will be many other new publishers simply because the cost of entering the business will be so much lower. But it will not be free — let’s estimate $5000 for design, layout, marketing for a very simple book — and will also require a host of skills. There needs to be a $$$ investment and the person that makes that investment, even small, will become a gate-keeper.
People who develop a reputation as having good judgment in the skills of getting ebooks to market — especially if they develop a reputation in a field of expertise — they will become a gate-keeper.
Simpler yes but we’ll still have taste-leaders.
And I think it is inevitable and not undesirable, though I agree that we need many more such gate-keepers — the agencies I have run across are simply taking advantage of a buyer’s market i.e. more authors than readers much less publishers. Just human nature and any cure would be worse than the disease.
Taste-leaders, huh?
That a new way to say “filters”?
Truth is, there already are several mechanisms whereby consumers can find content to their liking that doesn’t rely on some omnipotent censor in a crystal tower.
There are sales reports, review sites, discussion forums. There is even a website dedicated to aggregating reviews from dozens of reviewers into a surprisingly accurate composite score (Metacritic.com).
The same modern communications and computing infrastructure that enables frictionless publishing allows consumers to do their *own* filtering, based on *their* criteria, not some self-appointed taste arbiter. It’s *already* happening in other content industries (audio, video, gaming) and it is happening to books. Today.
After all, why all the fuss about Amazon’s one-star reviews? Or, why do most online online retailers, of dry goods and content, take the trouble to add customer review databases and rankings? Because consumers rely on those crowd-sourced rankings to do their own fitering.
The BPHs and their apologists seem to think that books are “special” and that regular rules of consumer behavior don’t apply to them. That is, of course, sheer delusion.
In this 21st century there is no intrinsic need for content gatekeeping in any shape or form other than consumers voting with their wallets. That is the ultimate form of “taste-leadership” and the only one that will survive the ongoing disruptions.
And yes, once the dust settles, there will still be publishers around; but they will be publishers whose function is to find and serve authors, who add genuine value to the product, who understand they must sing for their supper instead of thinking they are entitled to live high on the hog like olympian gods surrounded by supplicants.
There *will* be publishers around but there is no law of nature that guarantees that tomorrow’s big publishers will be today’s big publishers. Some will survive but some will fade. And it is easy to see which ones are practically begging to be shoved aside; the ones who insist on zigging when the entire market is zagging.
Hey folks!
I am not talking about what “should” be.
I am talking about what “is” and what “will be.”
Established “tastemakers” is part of our society. It is not “flat.” There are leaders. There are people who (sometimes) actually do know more. Their voices are promoted by large institutions
No point in arguing about it — time will tell in a matter of a very few years.