The issues with Warner and Paramount have as much to do with their insular and arrogant management culture as it does with shifting 21st century media priorities. While publishing companies can be insular and arrogant as well, that depends entirely on their size, since that's true more of the Big Five. In speculative fiction, there are certainly imprints distributed by larger companies, but there is also a vibrant community of independent publishers at work to fill gaps being ignored with the larger companies. The biggest differences is that these independents are often operate on small budgets that prevent them from paying authors advances or anything larger than a royalty split, and so they are not taken as seriously as the artistic organizations they should be seen as....
And let's not forget that most of the artists on Spotify are barely making any money at all, and that their CEO is a delusional idiot.
All fair points, and definitely not here to defend streaming. But I do think publishing has an opportunity to do something imaginative that could really alter the industry, and do it on their own terms.
Certainly- maybe something like a virtual version of the old fashioned "circulating" libraries of the 19th century where you needed to be a subscriber in order to use them- although there are arguably some of those now...
Great post. My husband is a music exec, and I studied streaming services for my MBA program, so I use that knowledge when I write about the book industry. I’ve said for years that publishing needs to study music and other entertainment industries. And yet!
Ever since reading this, I've been considering what could happen. Note, I am no expert in publishing. But I wonder about the model the large publishers use for acquiring new work. It’s a large network that *seems* to be built off of taste, and as a concept, taste is difficult to define. However, peeking under the hood, so to speak, it’s more a business that’s built off sales of titles, which is why when agents consider work, they look at comps and they think about how they can or can’t market the book to the publisher. I think there could be a vulnerability there with AI. Something AI is very good at doing is churning through large data sets. So, if you have a book that’s a best seller, if you can capture the features that made it a best seller, that could be plugged into AI, and the AI could churn through hundreds of thousands of proposals way faster than any agent to find the most likely hits. Why wouldn't a publisher enable that? And please understand, as a writer this is not what I want to happen. I suppose I'm pondering, plausibly could it happen? There would be advantages and disadvantages--especially depending on who you are in the current system. If I’m trying to think like an executive, if technology can give me more high-sales titles with less effort, I’m probably going in that direction (one of many, many reasons I’ll never be a publishing executive). While there’s been a lot said about the potential of AI creating content—and ripping it off existing work—I haven’t found as much about AI aiding in the finding of it. Maybe I’m off here?
Some of the university and small presses are taking risks on the kinds of books they publish, and in the case of most uni presses, the authors don’t need to be agented. I remember reading in the book THE MERCHANTS OF CULTURE that the big publishing houses mostly focused on sales but also wanted the prestige of prize winners (National Book Award, Pulitzer Prize for Literature and so on). That book came out in 2012, and much has changed since then. I'm sure they do care, to some degree, about those awards and their sheer size often means they'll still have titles that win them. Yet, smaller presses are making inroads to those prizes; an example is West Virginia University Press’s success with THE SECRET LIVES OF CHURCH LADIES by Deesha Philyaw, a recent-ish past National Book Award finalist in fiction. That press has a handful of full-time staff. My sense is that these small presses may already have a more boutique readership for most of their titles. But I also wonder how their model might change as technology changes how we find books.
Amazon, in many ways, is the aggregator for books, maybe not exactly like Spotify is for music, but sort of. As soon as I purchase a book, I’m recommended several more based on that book purchase. This points me towards a smaller cluster of titles, and therefore doesn’t encourage a wider range of reading, even if I have wide-ranging tastes and enjoy finding new reads. That discoverability is still on me, the reader, especially as the number of book review venues dwindles (and reviewing becomes a marketing strategy driven by users on sites like Goodreads and on Amazon itself). If one could figure out a big enough community to sustain writers, but small enough that it wasn’t just technology driven, I wonder if that model could work. Just spit balling—the more I read and try to understand the business of writing, the more confusing it gets, and the more divorced from the art of writing. But, this post made me think deeply about it, and I think that’s worthwhile in itself.
You bring up some interesting points, Renee. I do think that AI can play a role, but I'm not sure if there is a formula to bestsellers. I think if there was, publishing had been around long enough to pick them out. There does need to be some use of AI, but I see that more in admin. For example, author advances and royalty payments can take forever and sometimes editors forget timetables. If we implemented an AI system that can disperse royalties and advances at predetermined milestones, I think that would make the system far more efficient. I do agree with your recommendation argument, though. I believe there's room there for some further exploration. And yeah, the more you learn about publishing, the more you realize that writing is just one portion of it. Thanks so much for this thoughtful comment. Very much appreciated.
This is my belief too, Kern: “My suggestion is that publishers get into the business of actually selling books. They need to create their own platforms, brand those platforms and grow their communities and sell books directly to consumers from these platforms.” I’m imagining a branded platform for romance readers, as an example, with brand ambassadors, reader focused resources - connecting readers to books and readers to each other. Then publishers can have their own direct path to voracious readers. This seems like a no brainer to me. Strategy 101. Why aren’t publishers onto this?
It feels like such a no brainer, right? Like why have all that IP and not even control it? But idk, maybe there's something we're missing. Oh, and your idea of a romance branded platform for readers!!!!! I hope a publisher reads this post does it.
The issues with Warner and Paramount have as much to do with their insular and arrogant management culture as it does with shifting 21st century media priorities. While publishing companies can be insular and arrogant as well, that depends entirely on their size, since that's true more of the Big Five. In speculative fiction, there are certainly imprints distributed by larger companies, but there is also a vibrant community of independent publishers at work to fill gaps being ignored with the larger companies. The biggest differences is that these independents are often operate on small budgets that prevent them from paying authors advances or anything larger than a royalty split, and so they are not taken as seriously as the artistic organizations they should be seen as....
And let's not forget that most of the artists on Spotify are barely making any money at all, and that their CEO is a delusional idiot.
All fair points, and definitely not here to defend streaming. But I do think publishing has an opportunity to do something imaginative that could really alter the industry, and do it on their own terms.
Certainly- maybe something like a virtual version of the old fashioned "circulating" libraries of the 19th century where you needed to be a subscriber in order to use them- although there are arguably some of those now...
Great post. My husband is a music exec, and I studied streaming services for my MBA program, so I use that knowledge when I write about the book industry. I’ve said for years that publishing needs to study music and other entertainment industries. And yet!
Haha "and yet" indeed. Loved your post as well. So informative, as usual.
Ever since reading this, I've been considering what could happen. Note, I am no expert in publishing. But I wonder about the model the large publishers use for acquiring new work. It’s a large network that *seems* to be built off of taste, and as a concept, taste is difficult to define. However, peeking under the hood, so to speak, it’s more a business that’s built off sales of titles, which is why when agents consider work, they look at comps and they think about how they can or can’t market the book to the publisher. I think there could be a vulnerability there with AI. Something AI is very good at doing is churning through large data sets. So, if you have a book that’s a best seller, if you can capture the features that made it a best seller, that could be plugged into AI, and the AI could churn through hundreds of thousands of proposals way faster than any agent to find the most likely hits. Why wouldn't a publisher enable that? And please understand, as a writer this is not what I want to happen. I suppose I'm pondering, plausibly could it happen? There would be advantages and disadvantages--especially depending on who you are in the current system. If I’m trying to think like an executive, if technology can give me more high-sales titles with less effort, I’m probably going in that direction (one of many, many reasons I’ll never be a publishing executive). While there’s been a lot said about the potential of AI creating content—and ripping it off existing work—I haven’t found as much about AI aiding in the finding of it. Maybe I’m off here?
Some of the university and small presses are taking risks on the kinds of books they publish, and in the case of most uni presses, the authors don’t need to be agented. I remember reading in the book THE MERCHANTS OF CULTURE that the big publishing houses mostly focused on sales but also wanted the prestige of prize winners (National Book Award, Pulitzer Prize for Literature and so on). That book came out in 2012, and much has changed since then. I'm sure they do care, to some degree, about those awards and their sheer size often means they'll still have titles that win them. Yet, smaller presses are making inroads to those prizes; an example is West Virginia University Press’s success with THE SECRET LIVES OF CHURCH LADIES by Deesha Philyaw, a recent-ish past National Book Award finalist in fiction. That press has a handful of full-time staff. My sense is that these small presses may already have a more boutique readership for most of their titles. But I also wonder how their model might change as technology changes how we find books.
Amazon, in many ways, is the aggregator for books, maybe not exactly like Spotify is for music, but sort of. As soon as I purchase a book, I’m recommended several more based on that book purchase. This points me towards a smaller cluster of titles, and therefore doesn’t encourage a wider range of reading, even if I have wide-ranging tastes and enjoy finding new reads. That discoverability is still on me, the reader, especially as the number of book review venues dwindles (and reviewing becomes a marketing strategy driven by users on sites like Goodreads and on Amazon itself). If one could figure out a big enough community to sustain writers, but small enough that it wasn’t just technology driven, I wonder if that model could work. Just spit balling—the more I read and try to understand the business of writing, the more confusing it gets, and the more divorced from the art of writing. But, this post made me think deeply about it, and I think that’s worthwhile in itself.
You bring up some interesting points, Renee. I do think that AI can play a role, but I'm not sure if there is a formula to bestsellers. I think if there was, publishing had been around long enough to pick them out. There does need to be some use of AI, but I see that more in admin. For example, author advances and royalty payments can take forever and sometimes editors forget timetables. If we implemented an AI system that can disperse royalties and advances at predetermined milestones, I think that would make the system far more efficient. I do agree with your recommendation argument, though. I believe there's room there for some further exploration. And yeah, the more you learn about publishing, the more you realize that writing is just one portion of it. Thanks so much for this thoughtful comment. Very much appreciated.
celebrity book clubs are powerful too .
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a61473205/celebrity-book-clubs/?source=nl&date=070824&GID=95cb1779fbedb6f9569d840e37cf47aac04a80a73c45033989cff811f3b383f7
They can be.
This is my belief too, Kern: “My suggestion is that publishers get into the business of actually selling books. They need to create their own platforms, brand those platforms and grow their communities and sell books directly to consumers from these platforms.” I’m imagining a branded platform for romance readers, as an example, with brand ambassadors, reader focused resources - connecting readers to books and readers to each other. Then publishers can have their own direct path to voracious readers. This seems like a no brainer to me. Strategy 101. Why aren’t publishers onto this?
It feels like such a no brainer, right? Like why have all that IP and not even control it? But idk, maybe there's something we're missing. Oh, and your idea of a romance branded platform for readers!!!!! I hope a publisher reads this post does it.
This is a great post. As a new Author it opened my eyes!
So glad! There's a lot of information you'll need to splice as a new author. Hope this gives you some insight.
If I had the energy, I’d create it myself. But I need to focus on my writing!