Do Publishers Need to Offer More Value to Authors?


By

Jane chatting with Kay Steinke at LitFlow

Chatting with Kay Steinke at LitFlow (Berlin), 2012

Last month, I gave a 15-minute presentation in Berlin, Germany, called The Future of the Author-Publisher Relationship, as part of an innovative publishing think-tank event called LitFlow. To accompany my talk, I wrote a 2,500-word article that was posted on LitFlow’s website. You can read it here.

In a nutshell, I suggest that—given the changes happening in the industry—traditional publishers will need to be more author-focused in their operations by offering tools, community, and education to help authors be more successful, to everyone’s greater benefit. If publishers fail to do so, then authors, who have an increasing number of publishing options available to them, will depart for greener pastures. I pointed out that Amazon has a VP of author relations, and views the author like a second customer, but publishers have no such author-relations position or focus on authors as a community to be served. I recommended publishers create their own VPs of author relations and be more strategic in serving authors on a long-term, broad basis rather than on a title-by-title basis.

Unsurprisingly, I’ve seen a lot of public shares and comments about this piece from authors, but very little from those working inside New York publishing. Part of that is natural—I’m known mostly to authors and they follow me. The other part, though, is that my proposal is flawed, even laughable, if you’re part of the Big Six engine. Let me count the ways.

1. Publishers’ most important service to authors is undertaking the financial risk of their creative work.

If you sign a traditional deal with a Big Six house, you’ll receive an advance. But most authors (up to 80%) never see royalties; their books never earn out. That means most publishers pay more to authors than what prevailing royalty rates might indicate, though there are reports that advances are declining.

Still, publishers (and agents) by and large make it possible for authors to focus more on writing than the business. Even if authors don’t earn a living wage, most are not eager to shoulder the risk alone. Now, some might argue that e-publishing and digital distribution has greatly reduced financial risk for creative work—even driven it to zero. But there remains an opportunity cost. You’re not doing something else: you’re not spending time with loved ones, you’re not working another job, you’re not learning a new skill, etc. So, again, I think it’s reasonable to assume that most authors would like to be less exposed to risk.

I participated in a recent conversation where a publisher-insider asserted that Amazon KDP (and similar DIY e-publishing services, pick your favorite) offered nothing to authors, while taking 30-70 percent for offering that nothing. Point being: Amazon doesn’t lift a finger for KDP authors, for the quality of the work, or for the marketing and promotion of that specific work; they don’t do anything a traditional publisher would do. Amazon assumes no risk yet receives a nice cut, while the author is 100% exposed. All KDP authors could fail, but ultimately Amazon loses nothing, having offered nothing. They only gain.

Of course, this “nothing” that Amazon offers has been a pretty attractive nothing for authors rejected by traditional gatekeepers. This nothing provides authors an equal opportunity to play along with the big dogs at the biggest e-retailing storefront in the world. This nothing is earning authors some meaningful money, whereas 5 or 10 years ago, it would have been near impossible for an author to expect any results at all from an e-publishing or self-publishing effort. (Plus there are other ways that this “nothing” can be even better than what a traditional publisher provides, but I’ll leave you to discuss that in the comments.)

Still, it’s a small percentage who turn Amazon’s “nothing” into something—thousands upon thousands of authors go unnoticed—but it’s an opportunity all the same for those with grit and determination. Who does it hurt if most people fail, if they’re happy to have had the freedom to try? (And who determines what constitutes failure vs. success?)

Well, some might argue that allowing people to publish sub-standard material (also known as crap) is not helping anyone. Such an argument might be considered elitist (who’s to say what’s crap?) unless you’re able to demonstrate that these new opportunities are hurting writers in the long run—in a way that these writers would understand and agree with. There might be a way to do that, but that’s for another post.

Getting back to ways my proposal is flawed …

2. Authors have limited interest in spending additional time on marketing, promotion, and platform building.

Most authors would greatly prefer their publisher pay them more money (and they’ll use that money to pay a marketer if needed), rather than be given tools and community to support their livelihoods. While I personally might find this a short-sighted view—one that makes the author more dependent on the publisher than she ought to be—it’s hard to argue with. Authors typically have skills that make them wonderful at writing, but lousy businesspeople, and as much as I believe in finding ways to change authors’ whole mindset, approach, and idea of what it means to be entrepreneurial and empowered on the business side, there’s no arguing against the fact that nearly everyone does better when they can focus on their strengths and minimize the time they spend on everything else.

(I do have to put a big asterisk on this, however: I’m speaking primarily of creative writers and storytellers, not non-narrative nonfiction writers. Non-narrative and non-creative writers really need a whole other discussion, and likely pose the biggest flight risk from the Big Six. See: Tim Ferriss, though he’s reportedly not too happy right now with his Amazon deal and lack of print sales.)

Thought of another way, if you believe the government should fund arts and artist grants—in part because the arts can’t and shouldn’t be run entirely like a business and deserves societal support because its value and strength gives even more back to society as a result—then you’re probably sympathetic to authors also being supported by publisher-patronage, and not burdening themselves with the business of their art. Workaday concerns are a distraction, and writing great things requires focus and huge amounts of uninterrupted time.

Also, when publishers support a project, they generally are able to provide more skills, strengths and resources than a single author can manage working alone. (That is certainly debatable, though, and depends greatly on the author.)

3. The Big Six will never have sufficient motivation to do more for authors than they already do. 

Only an unfailing idealist like myself would think a Big Six publisher would expend resources on author relations and support. As long as the publisher can offer a reasonable deal, or lend the stamp of approval that authors crave, or provide quality editorial support, that is likely more than enough to prevent the author from moving to another arrangement if they’re not entrepreneurially minded to begin with.

Or: It boils down to three desirables that publishers offer.

  1. Money
  2. Service
  3. Status

The publishers are getting increasingly challenged on the first (money), and they’re now having to prove they provide the second (service). My presentation too rests on the theory that authors may choose alternate paths that bring more money (and in some cases, more service) since so many are dissatisfied with Big Six service (including—but not limited to—editing, marketing/promotion, and publicity).

That leaves us with status. I’ve long extolled the virtues of tools and technology that empower the author, give them more insight into their readership—and power to grow and mobilize it—and democratize the publishing landscape. However, I can’t ignore human nature, which pushes us to seek validation and gives us status anxiety when we lack the traditional signifiers of approval. (Here enters the old self-publishing argument that readers decide what is “good” rather than traditional gatekeepers. This argument is very convenient and necessary for the author without traditional signifiers of approval.)

While plenty of authors successfully publish and gain a following without first gaining approval or permission, most are rightfully susceptible to the honor and prestige that comes with being anointed or accepted by a particular house, editor, agent, prize, review … choose whatever status symbol you like. Furthermore, even if your book utterly fails (on a commercial level) with a traditional publishing house, being able to claim you’re published by Penguin, Random House, or HarperCollins is a kind of currency in itself. That can open doors and lead to other types of paychecks.

The shrewdest authors—those who are primarily interested in their long-term business success and could not care less about acceptability on New York’s terms—will be the fastest to find other paths, and that’s exactly what’s happening. What are these other paths? Well, Amazon KDP, Smashwords, and numerous other DIY services are only part of the picture. Services such as Rogue Reader, Brightline, and various author collectives are emerging as competitive partners to shoulder the risk—and these are just the early days of such models. Given industry change, a start-up can reasonably challenge publishers on at least 2 if not all 3 of the desirables mentioned above.

Still, for my idealistic vision to be taken seriously, the Big Six (maybe soon to become the Big Five), would have to lose valuable authors. They’d have to suffer. So far, the loss has been minimal, and most self-publishing authors who strike it rich are only too happy to sign with a big player and see their sales skyrocket into the millions from the hundreds of thousands. A lot more has to change in the industry to convince publishers to be more service-oriented toward their authors. But if and when it does change, will it be too late to convince authors who offers the best partnership?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on my presentation—and this post, serving as an anti-presentation!—in the comments.

Opt In Image
Writing + Money + Life

If you enjoyed this article, then I think you'll love Scratch, a new digital magazine that I founded to help writers learn more about the business side of publishing. It explores how a writing life can be sustained—and even thrive—in the digital age, and writers share thought-provoking stories about the role money plays in their personal lives and careers. Browse the free preview issue here.

  • Pingback: Do Publishers Need to Offer More Value to Authors? | Jane Friedman | Authors-Publishers relationship | Scoop.it

  • http://twitter.com/KayePublicity Kaye Publicity

    The core difference between the Big Six taking a large cut and DIY services like Amazon and PubIt taking a smaller one is what that cut is for. Big Six advances signify a partnership. They are (ideally) investing in the book. DIY services are being paid to provide a service. They have no vested interest in the book’s success.

    However, I believe that investment or partnership between an author and a Big Six publisher is too often lost. Everything is tied up in corporate policies and procedures. Certain authors are deemed less important than others, In-house editors and publicists are over-worked and under-paid, and publishers are too big to catch up to the changing market. But I think if the Big Six would take a step back and see each book as individual investments, and if somehow they’re able to break away from the “standard procedures,” I think authors would be a lot better off sticking with the Big Six.

  • Scott Waxman

    Jane, thank you for the great post. At Diversion Books we are working with dozens of agents and their authors to provide much of what you’re talking about in terms of service as well as status as we are selective in the books we take on. We also take on the financial risk of the editorial, design and marketing of our titles. As more and more mid list authors are looking for a valuable publishing partner we are happy to be that alternative.

  • Pingback: Do Publishers Need to Offer More Value to Authors? | Jane Friedman | Bookmarket | Scoop.it

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1424899622 Kathleen Matthews Schmidt

    Jane, I could not have said any of this better myself.

  • http://twitter.com/FionaRobyn Fiona Ingram

    I think the industry is in the midst of turmoil, but with some good results. Readers are reading more than ever and although it’s sad there are many sub-standard books out there, the fact that people are reading outweighs this. Hopefully, as people read more they will demand higher standards. Literacy and reading is no longer the prerogative of an elite. New genres have arisen that people like! Mash-ups of genres have arisen that people love. Publishers have to adapt to a new millenium. Everyone and anyone can now read books on mobile devices or the internet. The old methods of print-and-buy don’t work. However, one cannot turn the Titanic on a penny, so changes will take time. Unfortunately, I think the trad publishers are largely to blame for the outpourings of DIY publishing, POD, author collectives et al where authors can make more money quicker, but (very important) can get published much quicker than banging futilely on closed doors. Agents (apologies here to the nice ones) are, historically, the gatekeepers and have done an excellent job of keeping those gates firmly closed to many a talented author. Publishers have also sat too long on their laurels with established older writers who do not appeal to a younger generation, and whose writing, themes, and work might be tired, outdated, no longer relevant. I think it’s fantastic that an established author like Margaret Atwood is putting her poetry on Wattpad, as well as collaborating on a serial novel involving Zombies. Strange…but true. Yet publishers are still sitting on their hands, bleating about the state of publishing when they should be shaking things up in the board rooms, getting straight into all the new and innovative ways of getting books to readers.

  • http://twitter.com/ClaudiaC ClaudiaC

    Recently, I had a conversation with a Big5 (now that Penguin is merging with Random House) editor. We went over what she could do for me vs. what my little pubs house could do. End result? They offer better distribution into bookstores. <–that's all.

    I make more money via royalties than they can offer in an advance. They offer no better services than I have already, plus expect the copy/line edit services and marketing services to be done. (They offer content editing.) And I haven't ever cared about status. If I had I would have married the rich guy my mom was so excited about.

  • http://www.facebook.com/philippa.rees Philippa Rees

    An excellent analysis Jane. As an author who was seriously considered by three (none of them big six) publishers and turned down after the marketing departments had had their say, and having received some very positive endorsements from Editors in the field about which I write, the essence is the judgement call on markets. Publishers are into safe investments, writers into communication. It seems to me that the gulf lies in that gap. All the emphasis now is on providing advice and tools to authors to bridge that gap, and find their own market, platforms blogs etc Your suggestions of a new kind of partnership in difficult times (as it’s called) could be provided by publishers and authors sharing initial investment ( which otherwise goes into DIY services) and sharing the communication too..ie believing in the value of sometimes unorthodox, cross genre works and applying both belief and a publisher’s imprimatur to it.
    The temptation is always the quick easy or safe buck and those ‘assisted publishing houses’ end up with templates, and uniformity which quickly devalues belief in any volume obscured by them. The small independent publisher may yet find his niche in something along these lines.

  • http://twitter.com/SRWelch00 Stephen R. Welch

    Good points all. In the short term, yes, Amazon assumes no risk. However, as the already mind-numbingly large cohort of KDP writers continues to expand and there is no useful means of sifting the wheat from the chaff, the exuberance over KDP could very well fade. If that where to happen and writers (and buyers) become more circumspect (read: jaded) over KDP’s value as a provider of opportunity or quality content, Amazon’s brand value, at least in the self-publishing sphere, could suffer.

    I suppose, though, as long as Amazon continues to make a boatload of money and they have no real competition, they have no reason to care. And the 100% risk that authors are taking is of course the risk we take, regardless … the risk of failure and wasted time. It’s the hope that keeps us going. That’s what Amazon is selling us for that 30-70%, right now.

  • Bob Mayer

    I’ve been listening to editors and agents at NINC in the roundtables and they make me wonder what part of publishing I missed in the last 20 years with 42 titles at 4 of the Big 6. The way they describe treating authors was not the way I was treated. Even when I sold over a million mass markets for one house, hit bestsellers lists for another, etc. I always felt like a replaceable cog in a large machine.

    The concept of advances is nice, but a dying one. Profit sharing is key.

    In my opinion, NY is relying on basically holding top authors hostage by controlling the rights to their backlist. A big name could jump ship and make more money on their own, but there is an implied threat that the backlist might get strangled by the publisher from which they jump.

    You mentioned some of the new initiatives. Cool Gus has been around three years and I feel like the entire playing field is re-inventing itself. Except if you went through the first iteration you have a base of knowledge and expertise that gives you an edge. We just launched an app with Dynamics where people earn free eBooks when they use their debit or credit cards. We had the fourth most used of 26 apps in beta testing, which is interesting.

    A phrase I hear discouragingly often is: “I don’t want to make a mistake.” It’s a real fear because signing a book contract now is a very dangerous move given how fast the industry is changing. One thing we are offering a select few authors is a handshake deal where we publish them, but leave them the option to move to a better option if it appears. Many would think it’s a flawed business model but since we believe the author creates the product, the reader consumes the product and everyone in between must provide value; we are counting on providing value. A piece of that value is freedom.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Great insight, Dana. Really appreciate you sharing it.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Thanks, Scott. I very much admire what you’re doing with Diversion. A bold endeavor that’s a much needed alternative for authors.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Very kind of you! Thanks so much for reading & commenting.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Thanks for the comment, Fiona. I’d go a step further and say that publishing is no longer the prerogative of the elite—which I think is exactly what you’re saying. The Power Law of Participation is one of my favorite talking points when showing authors what the future is like: http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/power_law_of_pa.html

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Yes, one wonders what will happen when bookstore distribution is no longer a reliable carrot for the Big 5/6 to offer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/KASemenova Karen Adams

    As far as #3 — publishers “will never have sufficient motivation…” I would have to disagree. They might. It depends on what the market tells them.I agree with your assumption that change comes at the point of pain, and apparently they’re not feeling it. Which means the market (that is, readers) aren’t signaling them to change. While I understand the limits of a blog post and that you’re addressing the author/publisher relationship, still, there’s no mention of arguably the most important party here. The point of a book is to satisfy readers. And as long as publishers are satisfying readers, why should they change? There is not of course an unlimited supply of writers, but it does seem to be growing by the day. :) For me, it always comes back to quality. When self-pubbers can compete at the level of trad pub in terms of quality product, things will change. I freely admit my “crap” bias, though I’d like to point out that I’ve taken deliberate pains the last few months to be more open-minded. I’ve been downloading the occasional self-pub. I tried one last night. I so wanted to love it. It was a cozy mystery — just what I was in the mood for — and yet, I couldn’t take it. I abandoned it at about 10%, utterly maddeningly distracted by grammar and syntax errors and other poor editing. We are how many years into this revolution now(?) and I still have never gotten more than a chapter or two into a self-pubbed book. (Many authors see this kind of thinking as elitism. Okay. Then I’m also elitist about the pizza and jeans I buy. It’s my disposable income and I spend it on items that meet my standard of quality. And cheesiness and good crust!) The author/publisher relationship will change when publishers suffer in the market, when readers are abandoning them. That will only happen when self-pub is a true market competitor. Then the Bix Six will have to compete (in terms of author services) to snag good writers, to maintain market share. So it might happen, but it hasn’t happened yet.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Yes, I agree there is a niche to be filled—and we’re seeing some innovators emerge!

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    It will be very interesting to see if readers start to avoid KDP titles. And then VERY interesting to see how Amazon responds.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Thanks so much for the insightful comment, Bob. That last paragraph ought to be in lights and framed.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    All excellent points. Thanks, Karen.

    If and when readers abandon the Big 6, I’m not sure they’ll know they’re doing it. Readers rarely know the names of the publishers behind the books they buy. They typically buy based on author. So if more authors leave the Big 6, I’m assuming more readers will leave the Big 6 as well, unless the Big 6 are able to launch some kind of initiative that gives them a valuable consumer brand. (Some publishers have that kind of name recognition, e.g., Harlequin or Tor, but that’s the exception rather than the rule.)

    There’s a well-known book in the business world called THE INNOVATOR’S DILEMMA, which basically says that companies can put too much emphasis on customer need and fail to evolve to meet future or *unstated* needs.

    It will be interesting to see how the dilemma this plays out in the publishing industry—both in terms of serving readers’ needs and authors’ needs.

  • Patricia V. Davis

    Hi, Jane,

    This post was of particular interest to me because I recently became the president of a small start up publishing indie. I would really love to comment on what we’re doing differently that is so in line with your perspective, but I really don’t want to hijack your thread t toot our own horn. May I send you a private message with my comments leaving you to decide if they should be published here?

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Feel free to describe the highlights of you’re doing here in the comments—and perhaps add a link to the full story?

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    I’m not offended! This is fascinating. Thank you so much for offering the insight.

  • http://www.concentricdots.com/ Stephen Bateman

    Jane, this is a truthful and truly insightful post, full of astute observation and comment, which can only come from an expert like you, who has straddled the author/publisher fence for much of your career. Your points tie in neatly with the observations I make in my own publishing workshops and lectures to publishing professionals in Europe.

  • Patricia V. Davis

    Thanks, Jane. What we’ve begun to do is select authors rather than their manuscripts. What are their motivations, goals, strengths? What’s their personality like? Is it engaging? Do they enjoy interacting with readers and other writers? Do they have a thick skin and a reality based assessment of their art and the the industry? Are they comfortable if not prolific with social media? How do they see marketing their work–is it anathema to them or do they find it fun and challenging? Once we’ve got our eye on an author as a potential, it’s only then that we ask to see their work and then it’s their response to our comments and suggestions that determines whether we sign them or not. There is no advance but they receive 20% as opposed to the usual 15% to start. And here are the highlights of what else we do for them which not only helps them but helps us:

    1) Monthly workshops via Skype on everything from planning a book event to approaching the press. Follow up emails. Weekly emails on latest industry news.

    2) A publicist who works with them on press kits, author website evaluation, personal readership and more

    3) Events we hold for all our authors as a group, whether they be book events such as this one:
    http://bit.ly/Pw0OL4

    or conferences such as this one: http://bit.ly/P8Ipml

    4) books released all at once in all formats: hardback, paperback, ebook which includes Nook, Kindle, Sony and iPad, so that they reach their maximum potential of readers immediately. Why wait? I’ve never understood that.

    5) Special opportunities for retail bookshops so that we don’t get shut out because we’re a small publisher.

    There’s a lot more, but those are the highlights. This just makes sense in today’s world. Here is our website: http://www.harperdavis.com

    I’d love to hear your thoughts! : )

  • http://www.facebook.com/kalinda001 Elizabeth Lang

    An insightful post about the changing challenges and needs of the publishing industry from both perspectives.

  • Patt Hollinger Pickett, Ph.D.

    Thanks, everybody, for your excellent analysis and sharing on this topic. I agree with most of what is being said. About four years ago I selected publishers and dedicated 18 months to querying/proposing a self-help title for which I have excellent credentials (and a good platform) to write. Over 100 “no,thank you’s” later, I received the kind feedback that my book was needed but ahead of its time. I decided to set that project aside and totally self-pubbed a chap-book as an experiment. No significant sales,but a huge education for me. I discovered there were so many areas I needed to learn (and did not have time to research) in order to successfully market. I have completed another self-help title and selected a batch of about 50 publishers and agents to query/propose over a two-day blitz.. On the third day, I received interest from a small traditional publisher. Now I have a contract with them and the probable launch date is spring/early summer 2013. I am finding that this press is taking a personal interest in me as a first time author and their investment in helping me develop and learn extends in the directions being suggested here as a service/future template for publishers. Hurray for small publishers!

  • Word Beeps

    I’d love to hear the joke Joe Konrath might make of this comparison and what the big publishers do to writers.

  • Word Beeps

    It’s great to read a post by Jane Friedman on Jane Friedman’s blog. I have missed that. I do like the way you can rebut your own position by putting yourself in the shoes of the other. I like that.

  • Barbara McDowell Whitt

    “The difficult work lies in getting attention in a world of cognitive surplus.” Well said.

  • Pingback: Great Stuff on the Writers’ Blogs, October 25-27, 2012 « cochisewriters

  • jswwrites

    I decided to self publish without even trying the traditional route thanks to Joe Konrath’s blog. Not that he convinced me, he just showed an alternative I didn’t realize existed and that works for my personality. I grew up in a self-employed family; my husband and I have owned a business for 20 years, and I started a non-profit 3 years ago. I like being in control of my books, and I realize that, as with any business, it takes investment, work and time. (ie in our business, we started with 1 contract of $180/mo. It took 15 years to get to $5m a year, and a lot of hard work. I get it.)

    To defend Amazon a bit – that percentage isn’t “for nothing”. They have developed an extremely easy interface for ebook and print books (via CreateSpace). They list your book, allow you to have an author page, and incur costs on a lot of levels like any business: bricks and mortar facilities, staff, programming/IT, hosting/server/bandwidth, advertising, insurance, you name it. While they aren’t necessarily actively marketing your work (and sometimes they do, via emails to members, etc), it’s not “free” to them. That’s like saying that, just because you don’t have a copay, your healthcare is free. It may be free to you, but it’s not free.

    Anymore, just because a book is published by a traditional publisher doesn’t guarantee you a quality product. Books, esp ebooks, increasingly have typo and grammatical errors galore. Indie authors may not have “paid” editing but the ones I know are very intentional about their work. And what indie authors have over most traiditonally published ones is that we’re not confined by the traditional genre categories and word counts. I think this is an area the Big 6 can and should change. Just because a book isn’t easily categorized doesn’t make it bad – in fact, it can make it especially good.

  • http://twitter.com/PeterTurner Peter Turner

    “Do Publishers Need to Offer More Value to Authors?”–yes, indeed, but I might frame the answer a little differently. My guess is that the thing writers value most–today as always–is the ability to maximize the likelihood of their work being read, followed second by being compensated for their efforts. With the declining relevance of the print supply chain to physical retailers combined with the advent of the eBook, the ability to deliver this “value” is at the heart of what’s being disrupted. If this is what writers value most, I think most publishers are less and less, with each passing day, able to deliver it. My feeling is It’s not really a question of what publishers “need to do” than what they can do.

  • Pingback: Do Publishers Need to Offer More Value to Authors? | Jane Friedman | book publishing | Scoop.it

  • FrancisHamit

    I was originally a business major (along with Drama) in college, so that part of it is not so hard for me. It does take some effort and some deep thinking. Currently I am launching one novel, re-launching another with e-book and audiobook editions, and working on two film projects based on my work. I don’t do it all myself. You can’t. You need a team. But I do control the entire process and take responsibility for the final result. I get great reviews, so I must be doing something right, but this is an evolving business model. I don;t say I won;t work with a traditional publisher. I have mass market paperback and foreign language rights for sale. And I use an agent to handle that last.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.leroy.735 David LeRoy

    In general, I would agree that many authors are not good business people, however the past two years has seen a new type of author emerge on the scene. Self-Published, Indie authors are self-starting and highly motivated individuals. All too often, the traditional publishing world projects out there this idea that authors are incapable of business decisions and are people lost in thought, completely dependent upon an agent, such as the character in the book The Winter Sea. However, the new authors are very independent and self-sufficent people, and not all are on the make just to make a quick buck.

    I could be wrong, but it appears the horse has left the barn completely, and is running full gallop down the freeway. It is very unlikely this horse is returning to the “barn” of traditional publishing in the future. This means that many new authors, going forward, will never submit a book to the slush pile, but instead invest in the editing, and self-publish the work, building their own platform. That is a whole lot of missed future market share.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Congrats on finding a small-press partner!

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Thanks so much, Stephen. Appreciate you reading.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    :)

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    I’ll always remember a talk by an author who had a background in business. She said that it was more difficult for a very talented author with average marketing skill to get published than a kind-of talented author with excellent marketing skill.

    Agree with your defense of Amazon; saying that they offer “nothing” is demonstrably false, and any knowledgeable business person making that case is being extremely disingenuous.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Interesting questions you pose!

    In the more “literary” writing community, I’d say the writers and their agents value the money (and prestige/status of print publication with a known press) far more than they do the size of the audience.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    This —> “I do control the entire process and take responsibility for the final result.” I think some authors are afraid of that control and responsibility—or don’t want to be burdened with it. Much easier to blame someone else when things don’t go well.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Yes, a new type of author has emerged, and I applaud them. My only worry is that for those authors who don’t fit the new model—but produce great art—what will happen to them? I do have a soft spot for the eccentric artists …

  • Pingback: WRITING ON THE ETHER: Seeking Sanctuary | Jane Friedman

  • http://twitter.com/HWeissauthor Holly Weiss

    An excellent discussion from both sides of the fence. You see authors clearly and demonstrate a great understanding of what we go through. I appreciated your second point about authors having limited interested in…marketing and promotion. I hesitate to say I agree with you. I spent eighteen months marketing my book, (and did a great job of it, say others) becoming so burned out I found it difficult to get creative gears in motion to continue writing. Thank you for writing about this dilemma.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    You’re brave to admit it! It’s not fashionable to do so these days. :-)

  • Pingback: We Grow Media » How to REALLY Support the Work of Someone You Respect

  • rivergirl

    Jane, this is very interesting indeed, but I fear it merely supports my growing conviction that authors are no better of now with the increased accessibility to publishing than they were before under the strictures of the big six. You either self publish and burn out in the self promotion marketing flames, or you find a publisher whose expectations of your efforts also fry you. Like one of your readers here, I struggled to promote my own books, then found a publisher to give me the ‘stamp of approval’ and support, but it hasn’t really helped…yet, and I still seem to work just as hard on promotion without seeing any of the benefits. When I was self published, at least I saw and benefited from what I sold, hard work and little as it was. These days, I have be seen to be supporting the marketing effort, but I have no idea what is happening to my books, and I have seen no rewards at all. It seems to me to be a no-win situation unless you strike it lucky with a book and become a best seller!

  • rivergirl

    Sorry, that was meant to be ‘are no better off’ now. And something I forgot to add is that yes, I agree, all this self promotion takes time from what I’d much rather be doine – writing!

  • Amy

    Didn’t publishers use to offer another value for readers and writers, that of curating their lists? I’m phrasing this as a question because I’m referring to an era before I was born (and I’d love a recommendation for a book on the history of book publishing). But it is striking to me that brand names mean little outside of the insular world of authors, agents, and publishers. I recently had a book party with a game where guests tried to match publishers with their colophons, and no one could do it. Now, I’m not generally one who thinks branding is a good thing. But it does strike me as a lost opportunity for publishers to work with authors in shaping their careers and to define their literary values to potential readers. If they have any.

  • http://jjfoxe.com/ JJ Foxe

    Great comment Laurie!

    Personally I loathe everything the Porn Industry stands for…

    BUT.

    The Porn Industry is always at the cutting edge of technology, and use of technology.

    Betamax lost out to VHS due to the Porn industry.
    Paypal/safe online payments originated due to the Porn Industry.
    Online membership sites with continuity income were first used in the Porn Industry.

    And so on.

    Anyone doing any kind online business can learn a shed load from how the porn industry does it….the main problem is how sleazy the research is.

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    Definitely, this curation goes by many names: gatekeeping, stamp of approval, status. But you’ve pinpointed a rather important reality: Despite the value of what publishers do, the consumer (reader) doesn’t buy based on the publisher’s brand, except in a few rare instances.

    For a book on the history of publishing, I highly recommend MERCHANTS OF CULTURE: http://amzn.to/U7ew8I

  • http://www.janefriedman.com/ Jane Friedman

    One might argue it’s better for authors to have several different paths to publication rather than just one—the choice is empowering. On the other hand, you could also argue that more choice often leads to more confusion for the author, as well as not-so-great books.

    Regardless, the horse is out of the barn, as the old cliche goes, so I generally look for services, tools, and education that are helpful to authors and minimize the risk, confusion, and wasted energy.

  • Pingback: The Week In Writing And Publishing 4th November 2012 | A Writer's Quest

  • http://www.concentricdots.com/ Stephen Bateman

    Another must-read history of publishing is “The Late Age of Print” by Ted Striphas http://amzn.to/TEVggJ

  • Pingback: No Wasted Ink Writer’s Links « No Wasted Ink

  • http://twitter.com/ClaudiaC ClaudiaC

    You and I will take over the world – of course. :D

  • http://twitter.com/Kris_Bock Kris Bock

    Excellent points. I hope some people will listen, but publishers seem to have an endless supply of excuses. The publisher-insider who “asserted that Amazon KDP offered nothing to authors, while taking 30-70 percent” totally missed the point – Amazon isn’t the publisher, Amazon is the bookseller. Booksellers don’t offer anything to authors either, except visibility. KDP is the equivalent of an author being able to walk into Barnes & Noble, place a book on the shelves without asking permission, and get 70% of the cover price.

    I’ve heard multiple mid-list genre fiction authors say that they are making a living for the first time with self-publishing, after years with traditional publishers. Personally, I have 16 traditionally published books and now six self published ones, in some cases because I couldn’t find a publisher who had a contract I would be willing to sign. I also know plenty of traditionally published authors who completely dismissed and looked down on self-publishing three years ago, but who are now at least considering it as a viable option. It’s hard to believe that publishers don’t see this as a problem, but many of them don’t (yet).

  • http://garridon.wordpress.com/ Linda Adams

    Unfortunately, publishers seem to be caught in the “It’s always worked so why change?” What’s going to happen when the tidal wave forces them to do something? Then they’ll be scrabbling and have nothing in place, and the writers will pay for it.

    Social media is one of those things that leaves me as a writer frustrated. I keep hearing that writers are supposed to be on Twitter and Facebook, have a blog, have this, have that. Meanwhile, I took a social media class for writers. The writers jumped on and started tweeting and blogging. Six months later, they all started dropping off blogging. Why? Because they weren’t writing! Which do publishers want more? I think the expectation that writers will do it leaves the publishers not having to change, when instead, they really need to start.

  • http://twitter.com/MishaMFB Misha Gericke

    I feel exactly the same way. I have hit the bad luck of writing a so-called unplublishable subgenre of fantasy.

    Instead of evaluating the novel on its merits, traditional gatekeepers are now shooting my novel down left right and center.

    Yes, I know my book is a risk, but all investments are. If I’m getting shot down on the basis of 250 words that CAN NEVER do justice to the novel (107k words of political intrigue, conflict, five PoVs all blended to tell the story in its entirety) , I feel like the traditional gatekeepers are looking at the surface and not looking for inherent value.

    Yes, I understand agents have very little time, but the fact remains that the whole traditional way of thinking is creating a vicious circle.

    Publishers are losing traction, so they’re limiting what they’ll take risks on, so agents won’t take risks on their time, so many talented authors end up being missed completely, which means they’ll end up making other plans, adding to the very competition making traditional publishers lose their traction in the first place.

    It’s sad, because I really wanted the prestige of trad publishing ever since I was very young. Be that as it may, my creative mind is endowed with a healthy amount of common sense.

    That sense says: if the traditional publishing model won’t take risks on me now when my writing is risky, then where’s the service they’re delivering when it’s not any more? Where would the large chunk of my royalties be going?

    Access to larger markets? Why can’t I access them myself?

  • Pingback: On self-publishing, community and convergence: An article round-up | Worte + Orte

  • Pingback: The future of bookstores is the key to understanding the future of publishing - The Shatzkin Files

  • Pingback: The future of bookselling: keeping authors happy | The Write Stuff

  • Pingback: O futuro das livrarias e o futuro do mercado editorial | eBook Reader