The Author Uprising Against Big Publishing

[gb18]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-coker/author-uprising-publishing_b_831030.html

[compulsiveread…]

Thanks for posting that. It reinforces my own perceptions about indie authors and "published" authors. The agency model has done a lot for readers and self published authors in my opinion. I've noticed that there are many indie authors who are BETTER than 80% of the "published" authors. Eh..some aren't so good, but there are a lot of gems out there too. Better than that? Their prices are so reasonable that I find I'm not really tempted by the agency ebooks very often. The ebook had better be darn good and something I HAVE to read before I'll spend that kind of money on it.

The whole "I don't want to waste my time on a smashwords title because it will probably not be worth my time" is just not valid anymore. At least imho. It's not hard to find those gems either. If you see 300 ratings and the rating is still 4 stars...chances are, it's worth reading. I've noticed a lot of my favorite authors who are published in the agency model, tend to average ratings at around 3 stars. I don't know how much of that is the perception  that is isn't a 4 or 5 star read or that for $10-20, it had better be that much of a better read than the 2.99 4 star ebook I just read this week. And sometimes it isn't. I find just as many typos in a printed book as I do in most of the indie ebooks.

There are still agency authors that are on my "to read" list and that have been favorites for years. But they are losing the battle for my dollar when I am finding so many very good indie authors, now also on my favorites list, who give just as good a read for a fraction of the cost.

I'm not a writer, but I'm an artist. The world has changed. It's so much easier to find a market, self promote and sell these days. The feedback is fairly immediate, great or bad so you don't struggle for years before you find out you're not good enough, if that is the case.

You aren't waiting for months for royalty checks, or to even see a sale from your efforts. I think there is still a place for the traditional publishers, but I think they also need to adapt to the times and adjust to the new marketplace and needs of authors. And maybe see that they aren't quite as vital to an artist/authors success as they' think they are.

[patgolfneb]

The very thing that  could jusify publishers continued power they seem to run away from; Identifying and sheparding talented but inexperienced authors. They are the ones who benefit the most from publishers experienced editors, connections and marketing muscle.

By becomming increasingly risk adverse, tying their fortunes to a small number of mega authors, their long term success is I believe at greater risk. If only a few of these mega authors bomb a whole company could fail.

[keriflur]

---

patgolfneb wrote:

The very thing that  could jusify publishers continued power they seem to run away from; Identifying and sheparding talented but inexperienced authors. They are the ones who benefit the most from publishers experienced editors, connections and marketing muscle.

By becomming increasingly risk adverse, tying their fortunes to a small number of mega authors, their long term success is I believe at greater risk. If only a few of these mega authors bomb a whole company could fail.

---

There are a lot of midlist authors who would argue that pubs are too quick to drop them for the new, inexperienced author who might be the next best thing.  They feel that the industry is too focused on new authors.

The unfortunate truth is that most authors do not earn out their advance, or they break even or close to it.  The financial boon that pubs see from mega-authors is what allows them to take chances on debut authors or to keep midlist authors in business  This is why so many pubs will pounce on a sure thing - a celeb that can't write but people will buy the books anyway, a proven performer from the self-pub world, a fan fiction writer with a big following.  The cash these people bring in helps the pub to take risks on authors that show literary promise or the potential to change the market.

[compulsiveread…]

---

keriflur wrote:

---

patgolfneb wrote:

The very thing that  could jusify publishers continued power they seem to run away from; Identifying and sheparding talented but inexperienced authors. They are the ones who benefit the most from publishers experienced editors, connections and marketing muscle.

By becomming increasingly risk adverse, tying their fortunes to a small number of mega authors, their long term success is I believe at greater risk. If only a few of these mega authors bomb a whole company could fail.

---

There are a lot of midlist authors who would argue that pubs are too quick to drop them for the new, inexperienced author who might be the next best thing.  They feel that the industry is too focused on new authors.

The unfortunate truth is that most authors do not earn out their advance, or they break even or close to it.  The financial boon that pubs see from mega-authors is what allows them to take chances on debut authors or to keep midlist authors in business  This is why so many pubs will pounce on a sure thing - a celeb that can't write but people will buy the books anyway, a proven performer from the self-pub world, a fan fiction writer with a big following.  The cash these people bring in helps the pub to take risks on authors that show literary promise or the potential to change the market.

---

Nice point of view, I hadn't thought of. Hard to say how it will all turn out, but I hope the publishers learn to accept the fact that the digital world is here and that changes everything. To stay around, they are going to have to explore how to adapt and accept the neccessity of adapting. Hopefully in a way that everyone wins.

[patgolfneb]

I think Keriflur's information just adds support to the scenario I raised. If publishers are unable to identify, develop, promote authors profitably, and rely on a few proven top sellers, additional questions are suggested.

If mid list authors are not profitable are systemic costs bloated?

Are pulblishers truly adding the value they claim if only a few authors are profitable?

Are publishers really very good at what they do?

[Omnigeek]

Gee, I so surprised that article is written by the founder of Smashwords and published by Huffington Post. It pretty much bolsters the point of going to publishers with proven quality control (not always the Big 6) since the article itself is big on revolutionary rhetoric, pretty weak on actually providing statistics or any data other than anecdotal stories. Of course, I could have saved precious minutes of my life by noting it was a HuffPo article and just ignoring it completely. Having said all that, the Big 6 are like any big organization and certainly have inefficiencies and make mistakes but Keriflur makes some very good points. Some authors have found some success with self-publishing, many other published authors have found the self-publishing game really isn't all it's cracked up to be unless they achieve a Stephen King or J.K. Rowling-like stature and ability to fund their own staff. I think technology will definitely make it easier but wouldn't rule the Big Houses out either because the real question is whether the individual author in question needs the help in editing, marketing, distribution, etc. Some do no matter how big they get as writers.

[keriflur]

Literary agent Jenny Bent said (at a conference I attended last month) that she has clients that self-pub and clients that trad pub, and her self-pub clients are killing themselves with all the extra work that they have to do because they are self-pubbing.

So yeah, having a publisher adds value for those who want a publisher.  When I'm ready to publish my work, I'll be going the traditional route, mainly because while I like talking about my work, I don't want to spend every living second doing all the things a publisher will do for me - I really just want to write.  BUT, that's me.  Some people want to self publish, and to have all the control, even when they could trad pub.  If a writer wants the services the publishers offer, then the pubs add value.  If they don't want those services, then they don't.

[patgolfneb]

Keriflur, adding value is more an issue of delivering a product that sells profitably, than author convenience. If publishers are really adding value through editing, marketing, identifying books with an audience then more books should be profitable. Choice is not the issue. Again even though authors benefit from publisher services that does not mean they are a good value. The cost of those services may well be over priced. You consistently support publishers. I just don't agree that they are doing a good job and I feel the time for major changes is coming.

[bobwa]

In the end, the people purchasing books will decide whether publishers have a useful role.  It is likely that the market will support a variety of distribution strategies.  What will change is that the publishers will no longer have a stranglehold on the distribution process.  Authors will choose the strategy that is most successful at selling their books and consumers will opt to buy books at a price that represents value to them.  Publishers will continue to exist in their present form only if they deliver value for the author and consumer.  At this point, instead of finding ways to be more efficient and responsive, publishers seem to be doing everything they can to stonewall change -- which is inevitable.  There are countless examples in economic history where such an approach has not worked.  In how many of those instances did those representing the old order argue that their industry was unique?  Publishers perform many useful functions but we are all learning that those functions, at least in relation to ebooks, can be perfomed more efficiently and at less cost, by others.  It will take awhile, but in the end, the entire system for choosing, producing and distributing books will be transformed.  Given their response so far, the big six publishers may not be a part of the new order.  

[keriflur]

---

patgolfneb wrote:

Keriflur, adding value is more an issue of delivering a product that sells profitably, than author convenience.

---

There are two primary ways to sell a product profitably - through marketing or through word of mouth.  Either of these can be done via trad publishing or self-publishing.  Neither guarantees a quality product.  If you're expecting a publisher to provide you with a "better" product, because you are viewing them as a gatekeeper, then IMO, the world already has changed and you haven't realized it.

The bottom line is this - a good book needs a good writer with good critiquers and a good editor.  To sell that book, the book needs a good marketer, and maybe a cover artist, and, ideally, a network to help market it.  If a writer has all of this or can hire it, then there's a decent chance the book will sell profitably.  It doesn't necessarily matter if they have all of this because they're doing it themselves, hired assistance, or had a publisher do it.

Publishers provide a service to authors, not readers.  Traditional publishing is no longer required, it is an option that an author can choose.  As to whether or not it's a good value - isn't that up to the author, not the reader?

You're right, I support publishers, but you miss that I support self-publishers just as much as I support trad publishers, just as much as I support indie publishers.  Don't you?  I mean, if no one published, what would we all read?

What I don't support is crap writing, and unethical publishers that prey on writers that don't know better.  A lot of vanity pubs do this, but they're not alone.  Just google Publish America (vanity) or Undead Press (some other sort of nightmare).  I don't support the idea that publishing is democratic and that everyone who ever thought they had a good idea should do it, because that leaves readers to wade through a mess.  I can't imagine you support any of this either, right?  I suspect that you want to see good books out there as much as I do.  I'm not sure that declaring war on trad publishing is the solution to making that happen.  IMO the way to make that happen is to educate writers on good options, regardless of the path they choose.

[patgolfneb]

Keriflur, if publishers exist to provide author support?  A position I can't refute, although I see it more like a big time college which recruits athletes (chasing a dream) to keep its money making sport team supplied with talent on the cheap. A few make it big cashing in, but the steady money makers are the coaches and other employees.

Isn't another model possible, especially with ebooks, where basic editing, proofing services are provided? Then a royalty rate  is agreed to based on how much marketing support is desired? Right now the limitations and requirements of selling paper books are being transfered to ebooks. Ebooks offer an opprotunity for a system in which the authors get a bigger part of the pie. I think an outsider, writers cooperative, or other source is more likely to develop an improved model than current publishers.