Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
You *have* heard the stories of authors dumped because one book "underperforms", right?
I have no personal experience, not being one, but the stories and names abound. Even around here.
The word is that today the BPHs have been ditching mid-list authors left and right and raising the bar on what they consider successful. (Authors with books selling 30,000 a year are no longer worth keeping, for example.)
In a one-strike-and-you're-out environment like that there is no loyalty given or expected, regardless of what BPH apologists think. It is strictly business at the BPHs, these days.
Which makes *this* recent piece relevant, I suppose:
http://kriswrites.com/2012/06/13/the...hurry-up-wait/
Quote:
It is primarily about the difference in processes and attitudes for traditional and self-publishing but in passing it does explicitly describe the state of traditional publishing and what a mid-lister can expect. The comments are interesting, too.
Again, I've seen nothing as to why Goodkind is venturing into self pub but I'm not surprised; he is neither the first nor will he be the last. In the modern publishing business (BPH style) there is no room for loyalty on either side, if there ever was. |
I agree entirely. I think it's the BPH who are likely to get bitten worst. They have no compunction dropping authors who don't make them enough money. The authors who can make enough money from their own reputation have no reason not to drop the BPH, and I think many more of them may once their contracts are up. There goes the BPH bread and butter.
So what does that leave the "Traditional publishers, with their high overhead"? I think they're going to have a few problems funding that high overhead. Expecting loyalty from, or giving loyalty to, a corporation is naive, but in this case the corporations may suffer more than the individuals. Biter bit.