You’re Gonna Have to Serve Somebody (Sorry, Bob)
Peter McCarthy–a keen and experienced digital marketing expert–recently quoted a friend who once told him:
The only two constants in the publishing value chain are authors and readers. Authors create, readers consume. Everyone else in the middle serves merely to make that exchange as efficient, scaled, and pleasurable as it can be.
Whether you agree or not is likely to turn how the word merely strikes you. I expect it would cause many literary agents, editors, publishers, marketers, and publicists to scoff. The arbiters and gatekeepers of what counts as worthy of publication naturally feel that their role is crucial. It is. I’d say the function they provide is more essential to the vitality of the author-reader relationship than ever before, but it’s migrating away from the domain of traditional publishers in myriad different directions and taken up by:
- millions of self-published authors;
- scores of editorial and production service providers;
- community crowd-sourcing publishing/reading platforms (Wattpad.com is onremarkable example); and
- new, inventive, and agile social marketing platforms.
And the driver of all this? It’s what a friend once called the “relentless tsunami of shit”–the profound increase in available digital and print content. Now, more quality content is being created than ever before, but it’s unfiltered, un-curated, and very hard to find by anyone or anything. Even Google is struggling to keep up, to provide relevant search results to support their advertising.
The “two constants” strikes me as such an important and clear-eyed way of framing the fundamental dynamic facing the book business. Publishers are going to have to decide who they are going to serve: authors (who want to be read, and preferably get paid for it) or readers (who more than ever need tools to discover content that will be worth reading, and even paying for).
Do publishers really have to choose? Why not serve both authors and readers? Well, I could be wrong, but with so many players stepping in between authors and readers–and coming from every possible direction–now is time to pick whom you will serve. And, too, authors and readers represent markets of increasingly different dependencies and opportunity costs. To try to serve both authors and readers–and do both well–publishers will require pockets as deep as Amazon’s, and a corporate culture as agile and energized as Google’s, and a sense of user-experience as subtle as Apple’s.
It seems to me that now is the time for publishers–and anyone else working in “our industry”–to apply resources with focus and do what they do best.
Comments RSS You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
15 Responses to “You’re Gonna Have to Serve Somebody (Sorry, Bob)”
Leave a Reply
Copyright Ampersand Marketing & Publishing Solutions. All Rights Reserved.
Me oh my.
I could be mistaken, but don’t agents and publishers, even if they are not especially good at it, base their judgements on what should be published on what will make money, rather than what, in some larger sense, is “worthy of publication.”
Is an assumed congruency between the profitable and the culturally valuable actually warranted?
Douglas Penick
Thanks, Douglas, for your comment. I certainly didn’t intend to suggest the traditional publishing process was altruistic. “Worthy of publication” certainly includes “will it make money?” or can. Though it’s not something a lot of university presses or not-for-profit pubs consider closely.
Peter Turner
I didn’t mean to take you to task here.
Rather, it’s an attitude/argument (the gatekeeper and guarantors of quality) that one hears from publishers and agents where the conflation of profitability and “quality” is a blithe assumption. What is really being assumed however is that a certain scale of profitablity = quality. Or to put it another way, an author whose work will support the superstructure of publishers and agents and their way of life = quality.
Within this outlook and the ever evolving world of jargon notwithstanding, publishers and agents seem often to view e-books as sub-paperbacks and think the internet is a super-sophisticated version of a loud speaker.
Changing direction slightly: I agree with Richard Nash that the publishing world will not “settle down” or reach a new definitive form. It’s more like the cel phone and will require continuous adaptation to the possibilities that an evolving communication technology affords.
Within that, there do seem to be a number of generalizations that can be made about some of those possibilities right now:
1) An author can write, produce and distribute a book world wide for almost no cash outlay.
2)An author may make a return on their books that is, if not very grand, still not unmeaningful.
3)Authors can themselves, with some effort, find an audience to accomplish 2. (This possibility is the one that is evolving most rapidly right now.)
4)A publisher would not consider publishing such books because the audience and return is too small to support its overhead.
The market I’m describing generally has worked better for ‘how to books’ than for fiction. But then romance novels have found a way to do surprisingly well, perhaps because the many subsets of interest within this genre and the many blogs, review sites, etc that support them. What seems crucial is the existence of groups who have already identified themselves as having a certain interest (or need) and communicate online about it. (This too is evolving rapidly)
Douglas Penick
I didn’t take offence at all. No worries.
I can’t and don’t defend agents’ and publishers’ decision-making process. When I was an editor and then publisher, I could barely defend my own publishing decisions. I used to operate under the principle of “deniable plausibility,” that is, I would have a clear and coherent rational for whether a book was of merit and should be invested in. I would then revise that justification at will. Worked okay.
On the changing publishing landscape more generally, I tend to agree with the point-of-view you shared from Richard Nash. I would say, thought, that since the beast that is publishing acts less a technology and more and ecosystem it will not “settle down” but evolve in fits and starts.
The 4 possibilities you described strike me as interesting but not really fleshed out.
1) Yes, anyone can be an author and it sometimes seems like everyon is, and little investment is necessary. I would want to highlight the distinction between “distribute” (the word you used) and “publish” (the word self-publishers use). Distribution doesn’t imply anyone engages with what is distributed. Publishing does, (“to make public”).
2) Authors “may” make a return on their efforts but most actually don’t or make so little that it isn’t meaningful.
3) Yes, authors “can themselves, with some effort, find an audience” but it’s becoming increasingly difficult. Why? In 1998, there were roughly 900,000 active titles listed in Books in Print. And today there are 32 million. And this is only for books that have ISBNs. Millions more don’t register their publication in this way. (For more on this see Ether.)
4) While it’s true that “A publisher would not consider publishing such books because the audience and return is too small to support its overhead,” another way of saying this is that books that will likely not sell sufficiently or at all are hard to justify the investment. That said, many, many books are published by not-for-profit publishers that are never expected to sell enough to cover costs–hence the existence of 99% of poetry books.
Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash
Peter Turner
Peter, I really enjoyed this, and especially your thoughts there at the end. I read this as one who stands on the author side of the equation and thinks of publishers somewhat dismissively, I must admit. Publishers are too busy trying to find ways to monetize their relationships with authors, and who can blame them? They’re used to raking it in, and they’re struggling to stay in that position as they adapt. It’s a natural progression.
On the author’s side though, we’re finding that the services publishers have to offer can be had elsewhere and, even with my meager research to date, on better terms than were had with the traditional route.
I confess to being too naive for my own good really, but there’s more than a kernel of truth in Amanda Palmer’s statement that “we are the media.” But I’m going into the future with my novice’s eyes wide open. If a traditional publisher can do something I need done and do it well, then I’ll likely be asking for their help. But if I can get what I need without the hassle of pitching to agent after agent after agent, then all the better.
AJ Sikes
Thank you, AJ, for your comment. I agree that publishers are very focused on how to wring more from less.
On thing I didn’t say in the post, something I believe strongly though it’s intuitive as much as anything, is that the only way publishers (or anyone) can truly serve authors and readers in the still emerging landscape is to find a way to effectively market books of quality that readers will pay for. The players with the most effective marketing platforms will own publishing because they’ll own the one thing both authors and readers need.
Peter
Peter Turner
Absolutely agree. What I’m unsure of is whether or not we’ll see players in those positions. The juggernaut that is crowdfunding is less and less something that publishers can ignore. Artists have been advised to ignore crowdfunding at their own peril, and publishers are learning, if they haven’t already, that the rule applies to them as well.
AJ Sikes
Interesting Thoughts: or a full accounting of the brief yet pithy conversation in 140 characters or less between Peter Turner and Kristen McLean on this, the 13th day of August, 2012.
________________________________________________________
BKGKristen (9:17am) “Do publishers really have to choose?” GREAT post by @PeterTurner: You’re Gonna Have to Serve Somebody (Sorry, Bob) – goo.gl/8H8E2
PeterTurner (9:24am) @BKGKristen: What do you think? Are publishers going to have to serve somebody? goo.gl/8H8E2
BKGKristen (10:10am) @PeterTurner: Yes, I do. I think there’s more to be gained by serving the author. They are the start of the value chain. No authors, no biz.
BKGKristen (10:11am) @PeterTurner: Also, in today’s noisy environment, pubs will never be able to reach out & touch the readers everywhere they are living.
BKGKristen (10:12am) @PeterTurner: Serving authors is a B2B move–ALWAYS easier and more cost effective than B2C when you have to multitask.
PeterTurner (10:22am) @BKGKristen: Could well be, but serving authors will be a very competitive landscape as VCs continue to see explosion of self-pub $.
PeterTurner (10:24am) @BKGKristen: I kind of feel investing in marketing platforms is a better way to go. If you can deliver the customer you’ll get the authors.
PeterTurner (10:26am) @BKGKristen: But maybe it’s toe-mA-toe vs. toe-mah-toe?
BKGKristen (10:26am) @PeterTurner: Yes, but I see it as them taking care of an asset they already have–Up till now, they have largely treated them like milk cows.
BKGKristen (10:27am) @PeterTurner: If an author is being well-served, they don’t need to go to self-publishing. Big pubs just need to maintain the top of the mkt.
PeterTurner (10:28am) @BKGKristen: LOL. Yes, milk cows. But if pubs don’t deliver sales won’t the cows will go out to pasture and not come back.
BKGKristen (10:29am) @PeterTurner: If big pubs just concentrate on the top of the market, they will still have a good business model.
PeterTurner (10:32am) @BKGKristen: I agree completely though I’m doubtful they’ll be able to do it because milk-cow & veiled- disdain mentality is so inbred.
PeterTurner (10:33am) @BKGKristen: [re: serving the top] Could be but CreateSpace and other pub’s with marketing reach may climb quick to the top of the market.
BKGKristen (10:33am) @PeterTurner: Yes, but they do deliver the big books very well. I think we’re talking about a new pyramid where they hold the top.
BKGKristen (10:34am) @PeterTurner: Underneath is small press (niche verticals) and on the bottom crowd-source platforms like Wattpad.
BKGKristen (10:35am) @PeterTurner: [Re: Createspace] That may be so if big pubs don’t get a handle on what their core market position is.
PeterTurner (10:34am) @BKGKristen : Great conversation. Wish it could migrate to the blog so it would be less rat-atat-tat. Thx in any case.
BKGKristen (10:36am) @PeterTurner: Although Twitter’s brevity may be the soul of wit?
PeterTurner 10:39am via Web @BKGKristen: True, true. Like a ruthless red pencil’d editor. (Was one once.) Up to u but here’s the link: bit.ly/NVTa5i
Kristen McLean
Fabulous, Kristen. I might next get this Twitter thread printed via letter press and framed, so we can complete the cycle.
Peter Turner
Ha! That would be totally awesome. Maybe we should add woodcuts?
-K
Kristen McLean
I know just the fellow. He does lovely linoleum block carvings. Only problem. What are the images of? We might spat about that. I don’t know what it’ll look like, but I’d vote for an amazing marketing platform/smart filter that connects quality content to people who want to pay for same.
Peter Turner
Maybe it will look like this: http://www.logictimes.com/Sneetches2.JPG
Kristen McLean
Love it. But, as much as I love the guy with the green, we need to find a way for the money to migrate with the quality and connection. Workin’ it.
Peter Turner
Joking aside, I agree with you, and have some ideas about that, but it’s a whole ‘nother conversation.
Kristen McLean
Great post, Peter. And thanks for the tip of the hat — I appreciate it. I agree with you that the matter is one of some urgency. As the “tsunami of shit” proliferates, any lack of clarity as to what role publishers are playing will serve them poorly. For better or worse, authors are increasingly thinking they don’t need publishers while readers remain as fickle as ever. Clarity following by a committed pursuit of the relationship — be it with authors or with end readers — is what is required. Sooner rather than later, I would say…
Peter McCarthy