Columns
Author Up or Author Down?
Who should be in control of publishing? The publishers or the authors?
Traditionally, the publishers have been the king dogs of the publishing business. This may seem like a "duh" statement; it's called "publishing," after all. What I find interesting about this arrangement is that without the writers, the publishers have no business, unless they all get into making those kitchy "blank" books that some people use for journals. So really, do the authors need the publishers more than the publishers need the authors? If not, then why are publishers calling all the shots?
Publishers have set themselves up as "gatekeepers," a kind of filtering system that ensures that only the books worth reading make it into print. This is a nice idea, but it obviously doesn't work. How many books has Jerry Springer published? Anyone read Monica's Story? I rest my case.
As much as the big publishers would like you to believe otherwise, they don't really care about publishing books worth reading. They care about publishing whatever they think they can get you to buy. This means a lot of hackneyed, formulaic crap clogs up the shelves of Barnes and Noble while good books with small or niche audiences, or just unproven storylines, never see the light of day.
For authors, this system is frustrating at best and intolerable at worse. Authors "make the cut" based on whether or not some marketing drone thinks they can sell the book, not based on whether the readers that do pick up the book will enjoy it. The right book with the wrong soundbite will sink like a stone, assuming it ever gets printed in the first place.
The publishers have so much power over what gets read and what doesn't that to an outside observer, it looks like the authors work for the publishers, despite the fact that without the authors, the publishers's business is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Does it have to be that way? What if we turned the system upside down? What if publishing was a service, with the publisher working for the writer?
Imagine, if you will, a new kind of publishing company. Instead of the "traditional" way of doing things, this publisher works pretty much like any other service business. The author retains all rights to the work. The author gets the lion's share of profit. What does the publisher get? A commission on sales. Of course, on the other hand, the author gets no nice fat advance up front either. The book has to sell.
That's it, kids. If the book doesn't make money, no one gets paid. The publisher makes money as a direct result of the service they provide. If they publish good books (not just "crap of the moment") and do a good job marketing them a readership starved for good books, they make more money for themselves. Seems fair and equitable to me.
In fact, I see two huge advantages to this system.
One, authors are granting rewards instead of getting them. This may seem like fairly small thing, but it makes an huge difference in the balance of power. Does the current system strike anyone else as odd, when the creator of the work is happy to get 6% of the cover price, when the publisher decides to pay up on time?
Two, an author-driven system of publishing would lead to much higher-quality books. I know that sounds weird. Putting the authors in charge brings to mind "vanity" publishing, itself evocative of poorly-written, self-indulgent crap that wouldn't have seen print any other way. So let me explain.
Publishers would still retain the ability to decide what they'll publish and what they won't. A publisher that jumps at everything that comes over the transom will quickly develop a reputation for "vanity" quality works. I'm not advocating publishers give up all their power, only that they approach publishing as equal partners with the authors, rather than their current role of feudal lords. The authors pick the publishers just as the publishers pick the writers.
Okay, so that explains why this isn't the same as vanity publishing. So why do I think this will lead to better books than the current system? Simple. To quote one of my favorite lines from Babylon 5, "the universe is governed by three things: matter, energy and enlightened self interest."
The current system doesn't work. It doesn't work because there's no accountability, no feedback. Publishers don't really know what works and what doesn't, so their best guesses about what works in the future aren't very good. The best they can do is notice when something does remarkably well, and they try to do more of that.
This may work with product marketing-- find a car people like and make your cars more like that one-- but it doesn't work with creative endeavors. Books are-- or should be-- unique. Readers can tell if something is a shameless copy of something they already read, and they won't waste their time. While I might love rereading cherished favorites over and over, I'm in the minority. The vast majority of readers say they never reread a book. So why base your whole marketing strategy on trying to trick people into doing something they admit they don't do. Give them something new instead!
That's exactly where an author-driven publishing system would excel. New books, original books, would shop around the system long enough to find a hungry publisher willing to take a chance on them. And since we've turned the economics upside down, there's no huge advance to eat if the book doesn't pan out. You've still got the prep costs and print run to consider, but that's why you (as a publisher) want to find good books, not just more of the same old crap. You want to recoup your investment and start making profits. You won't take that risk on a book you don't believe in.
So what do you think? Is it time for the publishers to put the authors back on top?
Who should be in control of publishing? The publishers or the authors?
Traditionally, the publishers have been the king dogs of the publishing business. This may seem like a "duh" statement; it's called "publishing," after all. What I find interesting about this arrangement is that without the writers, the publishers have no business, unless they all get into making those kitchy "blank" books that some people use for journals. So really, do the authors need the publishers more than the publishers need the authors? If not, then why are publishers calling all the shots?
Publishers have set themselves up as "gatekeepers," a kind of filtering system that ensures that only the books worth reading make it into print. This is a nice idea, but it obviously doesn't work. How many books has Jerry Springer published? Anyone read Monica's Story? I rest my case.
As much as the big publishers would like you to believe otherwise, they don't really care about publishing books worth reading. They care about publishing whatever they think they can get you to buy. This means a lot of hackneyed, formulaic crap clogs up the shelves of Barnes and Noble while good books with small or niche audiences, or just unproven storylines, never see the light of day.
For authors, this system is frustrating at best and intolerable at worse. Authors "make the cut" based on whether or not some marketing drone thinks they can sell the book, not based on whether the readers that do pick up the book will enjoy it. The right book with the wrong soundbite will sink like a stone, assuming it ever gets printed in the first place.
The publishers have so much power over what gets read and what doesn't that to an outside observer, it looks like the authors work for the publishers, despite the fact that without the authors, the publishers's business is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Does it have to be that way? What if we turned the system upside down? What if publishing was a service, with the publisher working for the writer?
Imagine, if you will, a new kind of publishing company. Instead of the "traditional" way of doing things, this publisher works pretty much like any other service business. The author retains all rights to the work. The author gets the lion's share of profit. What does the publisher get? A commission on sales. Of course, on the other hand, the author gets no nice fat advance up front either. The book has to sell.
That's it, kids. If the book doesn't make money, no one gets paid. The publisher makes money as a direct result of the service they provide. If they publish good books (not just "crap of the moment") and do a good job marketing them a readership starved for good books, they make more money for themselves. Seems fair and equitable to me.
In fact, I see two huge advantages to this system.
One, authors are granting rewards instead of getting them. This may seem like fairly small thing, but it makes an huge difference in the balance of power. Does the current system strike anyone else as odd, when the creator of the work is happy to get 6% of the cover price, when the publisher decides to pay up on time?
Two, an author-driven system of publishing would lead to much higher-quality books. I know that sounds weird. Putting the authors in charge brings to mind "vanity" publishing, itself evocative of poorly-written, self-indulgent crap that wouldn't have seen print any other way. So let me explain.
Publishers would still retain the ability to decide what they'll publish and what they won't. A publisher that jumps at everything that comes over the transom will quickly develop a reputation for "vanity" quality works. I'm not advocating publishers give up all their power, only that they approach publishing as equal partners with the authors, rather than their current role of feudal lords. The authors pick the publishers just as the publishers pick the writers.
Okay, so that explains why this isn't the same as vanity publishing. So why do I think this will lead to better books than the current system? Simple. To quote one of my favorite lines from Babylon 5, "the universe is governed by three things: matter, energy and enlightened self interest."
The current system doesn't work. It doesn't work because there's no accountability, no feedback. Publishers don't really know what works and what doesn't, so their best guesses about what works in the future aren't very good. The best they can do is notice when something does remarkably well, and they try to do more of that.
This may work with product marketing-- find a car people like and make your cars more like that one-- but it doesn't work with creative endeavors. Books are-- or should be-- unique. Readers can tell if something is a shameless copy of something they already read, and they won't waste their time. While I might love rereading cherished favorites over and over, I'm in the minority. The vast majority of readers say they never reread a book. So why base your whole marketing strategy on trying to trick people into doing something they admit they don't do. Give them something new instead!
That's exactly where an author-driven publishing system would excel. New books, original books, would shop around the system long enough to find a hungry publisher willing to take a chance on them. And since we've turned the economics upside down, there's no huge advance to eat if the book doesn't pan out. You've still got the prep costs and print run to consider, but that's why you (as a publisher) want to find good books, not just more of the same old crap. You want to recoup your investment and start making profits. You won't take that risk on a book you don't believe in.
So what do you think? Is it time for the publishers to put the authors back on top?
<< Home