|
Publishers provide several major functions --
1. Printing physical books
2. Distributing physical books
3. Promotion/Marketing services
4. Advances to authors
5. Editing services
6. Cover design
7. Gatekeeper
For these services the publisher typically keep 85% of the revenue. As far as I am concerned, the question isn't whether or not I need a publisher, but is "are publishers worth the costs?" If an author makes more money with a publisher then, yes, they are worth their costs. If an author makes more money without a publisher then, no, publishers aren't needed.
If your market was limited to just ebooks then I don't think publishers are worth it. I can print my book -- i.e. get it into ebook formats -- myself. I don't need a publisher to distribute it. Editing and cover design are things I can do myself or pay someone else to do but not 85%. Most authors don't quit their day jobs, and those that do have already made it big, so I don't really need the advance. A gatekeeper benefits the public not the author (other than keeping down competition).
Promotion/Marketing is where the publishers have an edge. It's not traditional advertising on TV, radio, or flyers in the mail. It's not even the books displayed in prominent locations. It is the relationship the publisher has with the book stores. Even with a mid-list author that is straight to paperback, a Big-6 publisher just says to its various book stores, "We have a new release that should sell pretty well, and we recommend you stock x number of copies." A publisher can sell 50,000 copies of a book before the books are available to the public. Of course, none of this applies to ebooks.
So, unless I was a blockbuster author like, say, J.K. Rowling then I don't think publishers are worth the costs. If I was one of the blockbuster authors then I'd have the clout to tell the publisher that I retain all ebook rights.
|