Originally Posted by fjtorres
Exactly.
The reason disintermediation happens in the first place is because those specific players serve no clearly useful *economic* role or because others can fill the same role *better*.
Publishers currently defend their "special" place in the product supply chain in four ways:
1- Gatekeeping, keeping the "slush" out of the market. So far in the ebook era, the market has shown there is no value in keeping content out of the market and that content rejected by the gatekeepers can have substantial value to consumers and producers. (Do we really need to list examples beyond Hocking?)
2- Editorial services - proofing, editing, formatting, covers. All of which are available separately from qualified professionals for lump-sum fees instead of an eternal percentage of income. Clearly this is a personal choice for the content creator but the trade-off between limited up-front cost and persistent charge is, under currently prevalent practices, very hard to justify. At a minimum, rates need to change to favor the creator.
3- Up-front financing - basically, payday loans that trade *potential* future income for a guaranteed up-front lump sum. Again, strictly a personal choice for the creator. And again, the currently prevalent terms are quite punitive to a lot of creators, though a certain portion of the Authors Guild are blessed with special terms. It is pretty clear that creators with a deep enough catalog don't need up-front financing so if the aspiring author can bootstrap themselves through the first few *successful* releases they will no longer need advances. Though a good financial advicer would be hepful.
4- Distribution services - in the pre-internet era, freedom of the press was only for those than owned one. In the pre-ebook era, publishers controlled access to the pbook distribution system and the bookstore shelves. Rarely if ever did an independent title find its way to market without a publisher. That particular barrier to entry is gone, though. Even pbook distribution is opening up to independent content. This still remains but the value is much diminished and for many creators the added income provided by the greater visibility is wiped out by the terms under which the broader reach is provided.
In other words, for three of the four main "services" that traditional publisher provide, viable alternatives exist and they come with greatly reduced financial burden on the creator's project. The fourth one, gatekeeping, has been proven to be valueless to the creator. There is no gate to keep anymore.
Things are not so far gone *yet* where *every* creator can reasonably do without traditional publishing services, but the number of those that *can* is increasing rapidly. And it will continue to increase as long as the traditional publishers maintain their current advance and royalty rate structures.
To ever increasing numbers of authors new and *established*, the traditional services simply are no longer worth the traditional charges.
The traditional publishers are being disintermediated because of the collapse of the barriers to entry to the marketplace, not because of the actions of any single vendor. Technology has changed the market and changed consumer behavior. Past tense. Done deal. The ramifications haven't fully played out but there is no going back to the "ancien regime".
Trying to restore the old balance by force of market power, either by collusion to fix prices or to hold back content from any specific channel is not the answer.
Ultimately the only viable answer is to rebalance Traditional Publishing's value proposition; overhead has to come down, royalty rates have to go up, and delivered value is going to have to be obvious to the author.
Otherwise, disntermediation will continue and accelerate.
|