The Glass is Half Full
Allison Winn Scotch on Dec 11 2008 | Filed under: Business, REAL WORLD
So, as I’m sure you’ve all read (see Kath’s post yesterday), the sky is falling in the publishing industry! Editors are getting fired, no one is acquiring, book stores are in a free fall. Just like the rest of the economy, the book world is tanking with a capital T. Or is it?
I have news for you, I don’t think it’s that bad out there. I’m not minimizing the people who have lost their jobs (I know plenty of them) or the dire situations that plague the book stores. There’s no denying that. But I’m also hopeful that out of this whole mess, something positive is going to happen to our industry, and I’m hopeful that deep changes will be made as a result of what’s going on out there.
Now, what I’m about to propose probably isn’t that popular with writers. I know that, and yet, I still think it’s the right thing for the future of publishing. And that’s this (for starters): I think, as houses are starting to do, that fewer books should be published. Why? Why do I advocate that fewer authors get a chance to sell their wares? Not because I don’t believe that writers should be given chances, but rather so, so many books fail because publishers don’t have either the knowledge or the marketing money (or in some cases both) to make these books successful. Publishers throw pitiful advances at a writer, and yes, maybe this writer is achieving a dream come true, but the honest truth of this is (and I understand this so much better having been through the process several times now), is that these books falter: they go nowhere, and often times, an author is left more demoralized than when he or she began. Is he/she published? Well, sure. But to little benefit. And many times, weak sales will result in an even lower second advance…it’s like digging a hole to nowhere.
Why not focus on fewer books with better promotion? I’m not suggesting whittling down the publishing lists so that the public at large doesn’t get a wide variety of reading options, but I simply do. not. see. the. point of putting out a book that the publishers damn well know isn’t going to sell. Or is going to sell very, very few copies. I know that this sounds anti-writer, but it’s not. If anything, this gives writers an opportunity to make a bigger splash because they know that when and if they ARE published, they’ll actually get the marketing support and the attention they need to make their books a success. As it is, books are published and thrown to the wolves…and authors are often left scrambling for promotion all on their own. And if a book isn’t well-promoted, no one knows about it, and if no one knows about it, no one’s buying.
Another option I’m certainly curious about, even though I know many writers oppose it, is the no-advance, big-royalty percentage package. Listen, I’m thrilled that I landed a great advance for my third book, but to be honest, I think the advance-system that the industry currently employs doesn’t make a lot of sense (financially speaking, not personally speaking). It’s no WONDER this industry loses money hand over fist: they estimate what they *think* your sales will be, based on a variety of mostly intangibles, and then they offer you a sum. Most times? Their calculations aren’t exactly correct, and they thus lose money. Now, I know, I know: THEY lose money, the author does not. But in the long-run, we sort of do. If you don’t earn out your advance, you’re getting a lot less for your next book, which translates into even less promotion and marketing, which, need I tell you, translates into a much harder uphill battle for sales. So even though this higher-royalty/lower-advance model offers us less immediate-payout/gratification, I actually think it’s something worth exploring for a long-term career…and I’m not the only one. Several big name authors are switching to this payout model.
Look, the point of this post isn’t that I’m anti-writer. Anyone who reads my blog knows that I am the total opposite of that. Only that I do think it’s time that things are shaken up in publishing, and that also means that authors might have to accept some changes which might not seem positive in the short-term, but might well benefit us in the years to come.
Thoughts? (I’m prepared for some criticism!) :)
Kathleen Bolton
Therese Walsh
Ann Aguirre
Porter Anderson
Brunonia Barry
Carleen Brice
Keith Cronin
Anna Elliott
Jane Friedman
Donald Maass
Juliet Marillier
Sophie Masson
Jael McHenry
Jan O'Hara
Debbie Ohi
Barbara O'Neal
Crystal Patriarche
Ray Rhamey
M.J. Rose
Chuck Sambuchino
John Vorhaus
Yuvi Zalkow
Sharon Bially
Anne Greenwood Brown
Tracy Hahn-Burkett
Suzannah Windsor Freeman
Kristan Hoffman
Jeanne Kisacky
Erika Robuck
Lydia Sharp
Allison on 
Klæmint Vágadal on
I agree with you. Obviously the publishing industry isn’t working in its present state or it would be more successful. It’s going to be a painful transition, but I know things will be better in the end.
Like?
0
You are spot on Allison!
As an aspiring writer and reader I’ve thought for a long time there are too many so-so books out there. It’s so difficult to weed through the crap to find the good. I do think publishers need to publish less and focus more on promoting and marketing what they take on. It’s like publishers have taken on the Wal-Mart mentality of giving their customers more, more, more junk and less quality. But in the end that doesn’t work with books, readers want quality not quantity.
Don’t get me started on how fast shelves and displays change at the bookstore…I can’t up keep up on what’s coming out…how it that doing anything good for authors or publishers. What ever happened to keeping something around long enough to create a buzz–slow the damn bandwagon down a little so I could jump on once and a while for goodness sake.
As for the advance vs. big royalty package I’m all for the later.
Great post!
Like?
0
You make good points. Perhaps though instead of forgoing pay completely until the book sells, writers could be paid a flat rate for the work done during the editing process and the promotional touring? It seems a bit unfair to work for free through the whole process.
Like?
0
First let me say that I’m a well published author of nonfiction books (I’m not sure whether or not that’s pertinent).
I agree with you that far too many new books are published each year, and that objectively less would be better. However, I’d like your opinion on the following. Given the insane popularity of writers choosing to self-publish rather than try the traditional route, don’t you think less books published by traditional houses would swell the ranks of self-publication to a point of it being ridiculous and unwieldy for the publishing industry?
I can’t say that I agree with you about advances. After all, as writers we work for months or years to churn out a book and spend all kinds of money on research, etc. In addition, there’s no financial income during the time we spend writing a book. Yes, this is self-inflicted, but if our work is picked up and published by a publisher, they do so because they anticipate a profit from their endeavors. Under such circumstances I think a fair advance is called for. If not, we continue writing our next book and have to wait at least one to two years to start receiving royalties of some sort.
Like?
0
Steven and Annie – Good points. Perhaps there is a better system that is somewhat of a compromise…maybe a fee paid for the writing/research and then a higher royalty rate? I’m not claiming to have the perfect answer, but I don’t think the present system makes sense either. Hmmm.
As far as self-publishing, I don’t think that it has much of an impact on the larger pub houses or the industry too, too much in general. Self-pubbed books sell very few copies and have a tough time with distribution – I don’t think BN buyers (store buyers, not customers), for example, really even consider self-pubbed books. Again, it all gets back to marketing: these books never register on readers’ radars, so they’re not really going to stand in the way of traditionally-published books, IMO. (And again, just IMO.)
Like?
0
I think you make a heck of a lot of sense. And here is something else that would benefit writers: I, myself, would rather have a book a year published and really make that book GOOD than be so flustered with having to get another book out NOW, NOW, NOW that I compromise the writing just to get the book out. Does that make sense? I guess I have read some authors whose first book is just amazing – and then their second and third efforts just don’t meet up to their first book. I think (and I may be wrong) that if they had more time to write and edit and polish, they could keep churning out wonderful books. Now you would know much better than I, but I believe that your first book is really polished and edited by both your agent (if you have one) and your editor because it’s your FIRST ONE. But your second and third efforts may not get the same attention as the first. Am I right on this or completely and totally wrong?
Like?
0
Melissa, I could be wrong here, but I think it depends on who your editor and agent are. Allison will know better!
Great post, Allison, loaded with good ideas.
Like?
0
While a lack of common sense — by so many industries and, yes, individuals — created the mess that we’re facing right now, your ideas offer common sense to publishing. As a reader it’s frustrating and difficult to wade through the books that continually pack the shelves, only to end up on the “Bargain” tables. And how sad.
Btw, the glass can be 3/4 full by adding a few ice cubes of your thoughts.
Like?
0
Allison – I loathe self-publishing (there are some rare exceptions where it makes sense) and when asked about same I consistently rail against writers choosing to do so, for the reasons you mention. But will it die? I don’t think so, especially when we see that the number of books printed (I shy away from saying published) has risen over 500% compared to a year or two ago. Again, I agree that traditional houses should publish less books yearly and spend more time and money on those that they bring to the marketplace. I guess I’m looking for something in-between, although I have no idea what that could be. I just don’t want the self-publishing route to become more attractive by most of its fallacious claims and to those too naive to understand it’s severe limitations.
Like?
0
I’d like to see more effort behind the books that go out definitely. One of the other problems I see is when someone is offered a 6-7 figure advance for a book based on name value alone. A lot of the celebrity books get this and NEVER earn out that advance, not even close. But if they put out another book they often see the same kind of huge advance. For the rest of us if we don’t earn out a small advance we get a smaller one on the next try, not a bigger one! So these big deals pull out funds from the publishing house which would have funded a LOT of smaller projects all gone poof on up and coming star of the moment’s memoirs. So I’d like to see that better balanced.
As far as advance structure I’d like to see a happy medium. Some kind of initial advance sure helps with keeping a roof over your head while you write, we all know how slow royalty checks come, but I could easily get behind making those advances smaller with a bigger royalty package on the end since you’d earn out faster.
I do think there is a lot of glass half full stuff out there if you care to look for it. Pessimism and fear in this economic time is NOT helpful for anyone. It’s part of the downward spiral that makes things worse. I’m not doing the Pollyanna Glad Game, but I do think a lot of the changes and self examination this is all causing are good and in the end many businesses will be meaner leaner machines. Publishing could certainly use it.
~Jana
Like?
0
I agree as well. As a yet-to-be published writer, I am not scared in the least. I know that quality material will always be in demand no matter what the economy looks like. If you look back at some of the greatest American literary works, a lot of them were published durring or around the time of The Great Depression. Im not saying that I am some kind of Faulkner incarnate, but I am confident enough in my work to believe that it will be published…by someone.
Like?
0
The question is, what percentage of books do you think are published when the publisher knows they aren’t going to sell well? A minority, I would think. After all, they do want a profit, and the reason getting published is so hard is specifically because aspiring authors have to make something marketable first.
Books have the same problems movies, TV shows, and other forms of entertainment have: their worth to the general public is subjective. A publishing company can spend millions buying and promoting one book they expect to sell, and have it tank, while some book that received no publicity becomes a bestseller through word of mouth.
If publishers were more ‘picky’ about what they sold, it probably wouldn’t improve the ratio of ‘good’ to ‘crap’ books. Instead, it would improve the ratio of ‘safe’ to ‘experimental’ books. Publishers would follow current trends, known authors, celebrity stories, and other things that are certain to sell, and we readers would be left with nothing unique. The only way aspiring writers would break into the industry would be to copy these safe trends, because otherwise publishers would see them as too much of a risk. That’s not exactly the world I want to write OR read in.
Like?
0
Chro – you make some good points, but I’ll disagree with a few. Publishers buy plenty of books that they know aren’t going to sell many copies. Anything with a small advance – under 5k (and probably under 10k) (and there are so, so, so many fiction deals made for this tiny amount, you might be surprised)…I agree with your point that it would limit diversity, but it also might help make other books stand out, if publishers didn’t have to devote resources to these books which are going to sell very, very few copies.
And yes, you’re right that they can pour tons of money into a book and still have it tank. I can think of PLENTY of books off the top of my head in which that’s happened. But unfortunately, the reverse is rarely true – it *does* happen, sure. Word of mouth inevitably helps a book. A lot. But in order for word of mouth to be generated, people need to be aware of the book (and have access to it in stores, ie, it needs to have a decent-sized print run), and if a book is given a pitiful advance, neither of these things will happen. (IMO.) Those books that you can cite for which it did happen? Very, very unique.
Melissa – I’m not so sure, to be honest. I think it’s what Teri said: it all depends. My second book certainly received just as much attn from in-house folks as my first, and now that I’ve made them some real $$, I expect my third will as well. I think the problem comes when the *authors* feel the pressure to write, write, write, so they turn in something that is less than their best, and since the pub houses know that this author is a commodity, they put it out anyway…because, let’s be honest, readers still buy the books.
Like?
0
WHOA, mad comments on this post.
I, for one, have to second pretty much everything Jenna said, minus the crack at Walmart. I don’t love Walmart, but they’ve actually done a lot of GOOD things that they don’t get credit for, so I don’t hate it either.
ANYWAY, back to books. Yay for better quality books being published. Hopefully that will include mine in the near future… ;)
Like?
0
I would be interested in seeing statistics going back to the 80′s of how many titles were picked up by publishers vs. now. My gut feeling is that it is still more than it was then, even with the downturn in the economy and the changes taking place within the industry itself.
I know for myself that I am keeping busier than I was last year and almost double the work load of two years ago. The work is there, it just takes more hustle than it used to.
I read on Mediabistro that one of the major houses has created their own iPhone app and another is exploring options for getting into the smart phone market. I personally think this medium will eventually open the doors for higher revenues for all forms of print – news, periodicals and books. People carry their smart phones with them everywhere, and having a new push venue for both content and advertising could be a huge asset to the industry and to writers.
Just my two cents…
Like?
0
I’m definitely a glass half-full kind of person so I’m still optimistic about the future of book publishing. I don’t begrudge the celebrity books and their big advances though, as I suspect they’re more of a ‘sure thing’ than most book deals. From what I’ve seen advances aren’t made lightly, and it’s less risky to give a big advance to a celeb who comes with a solid platform, than to an unknown. Plus news of the advance is marketing of its own.
Aside from that though, as much as I’d like to see fewer books and higher quality, one big concern is that it could instead result in less originality and innovation. I think it is still important to put out those small, original voices. Otherwise we run the risk of books that are too ‘safe’ and similar, as publishers instead bank on the big books, and the sure things.
I’d like to see a happy medium.
Regarding advances, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more big names taking more of the risk for a higher percentage. Stephen King has done it already. Especially as the e-market grows, that could be a lucrative niche.
Like?
0
I don’t think publishers take much, if any risk when they give large 6-7 figure advances to celebrities. They know what they are doing. I believe they are well aware that these books by will not in the majority of cases earn out. However, the big, gigantic elephant in the house is that celebrity books bring enormous exposure to the name of the publishing house — exposure that comes from a slew of sources that goes beyond the publicity and merchandising efforts that the particular house does.
Like?
0
Allison,
You make some excellent points, and I agree with you. Out of this current environment, I hope we also see something change in regard to the return practice in publishing. I think that’s where so many authors and publishers get caught in the crossfire. I can’t imagine how publishers can plan for things like what happened in October when booksellers emptied their shelves, to the detriment of the publishers and authors. Thanks for your insight and congrats on your success.
Marie
Like?
0
Hi Allison,
Thanks for posting this. I think what you’ve said about the book industry is very true, albeit hard to swallow.I admire your courage in speaking your mind.
I think what we’re going to see very soon is a shakeup of the dominance of big publishing houses. And the small, boutique houses will rise in prominence, which I think is how it should be.
Like?
0
Interesting insights, Alison. I don’t know that I agree with all of it–especially as a writer who has been living on advances for 20 years!–but some of it does bear examination. Lots to think about.
One of my questions are: who chooses which books are “good” books and which are not? I mean, if it had been up to me, I might not have chosen The Da Vinci Code, and I would have then been an idiot. (Not that I disliked it, particularly. It was fine. I just wouldn’t have realized it was going to sell 20 gazillion copies.) Everyone would like to be able to predict which books are going to be commercial successes and which will not, but it’s largely a crapshoot. Something clicks. All the elements come into alignment. The fashion is right for a particular book–would the Time Traveler’s Wife even have sold 15 years before it was published? Maybe. Maybe not.
As for authors taking lower advances–mmm. No. Better that the practice of selling books to stores on consignment be halted. The shipping costs would be more than enough to cover the (mostly modest) advances of most of a publishers’ authors. The costs are not so much writers as everything else attached to publishing books in an expensive format: heavy hardcovers.
We’re in a period of extreme change. The Internet has changed everything about music and television and movies….it was bound to hit books eventually, too. (Especially because publishing, as a system, has always been the old gentleman.) I can’t presume to know what things will look like in 5 years, but I’m betting it’s going to be quite a different system.
It’s not always BAD when things change. As writers, we just have to be alert to the possibilities that open up to us. Be curious. Be questing. Be open.
Like?
0
Change isn’t always bad (and it isn’t even frequently bad), but it’s always scary. I see a lot of exciting opportunities ahead for books and readers, and this whole idea of “content” is going to explode. The key is in being poised to ride the wave and the winners will be those who can both write AND who are tech savvy. That’s my take…
Of course, I’ve been through an industry that turned upside down seemingly overnight. When I started medical school, the family docs carrying black bags ruled the world. They were all but instinct when I graduated and HMOs ruled the world. Now, the pendulum has settled a bit with the advent of the concierge practice. I worked through the wild and woolly nineties, and I survived (even prospered) though there was a lot I didn’t like.
I could do it again, and I’d be fine, but I like my current life better.
I’m not afraid of change in the publishing industry. We’ve got greater problems for me to worry about. Take global warming, for example…
Like?
0
I think that what hasn’t been considered re: the less books= less variety concern is that while everyone is focused on the big houses, there’s a lot of room and opportunity for the independent and other publishing houses. Granted, the distribution may be more limited, but like the music industry, maybe we should all be paying more attention there? And they should be taking advantage of the opportunities to step up.
I agree with the lower advance/higher ratio of royalties. I also think another factor that could be requested, is that houses and retailers need to start looking at putting less books on the shelves– and go non-returnable. Then, authors may not be putting out as much on a first print run, but they can also require the house not to withhold the percentage of royalties against returns, something which the house should be taking responsibility for, anyway, if you ask me.
Those are some avenues I think should be explored in the new model, at any rate.
And ultimately, as a writer, I think that there is nothing wrong with making this industry more competitive for those book contracts– rather than making them go for formulaic, sure things, it’s just as likely to make the quality of what’s being published increase as everyone tries to make their work better than their competitors’.
Like?
0