[darryl]

Originally Posted by haydnfan

That is a false representation of the original article. They listed the following faults:

(a) self-published ebooks
(b) screen fatigue
(c) multiple forms of entertainment competing for attention

And out of the three they identified the last one as the primary cause for diminishing sales not the second one.

Referring to the Shelf Awareness article you could take that view.

Reidy described the battle for the consumer's attention and time as the "main thing," the "number one challenge" facing publishers, and one that has gotten only more critical since the advent of things like social media and especially video streaming services.

However:

Reidy proposed that while nothing "went wrong" with e-books to cause the leveling-off of their popularity, consumers most likely simply "got tired of screens.

The first quote was addressing the general environment, whilst the latter was addressing the particular issue of the alleged falling sales of ebooks generally (whilst of course it is actually only the sales of overpriced agency ebooks which are falling).

And, remarkably, on Indie publishing:

Dervieux, meanwhile, said that he did not think self-publishing was a competitor, but may actually be "the exact opposite of what we are doing."

Not a competitor? Wishful thinking and denial at its finest. And if by exact opposite he is referring to curatorship, it seems that there are a large number of people who don't want it and won't pay for it.

And Riedy?

But while self-publishing may cause some consumers and authors to turn away from the traditional system, it also affords publishers an opportunity to "make the case of what it is we provide," which Reidy described as everything from "the editorial and marketing to legal representation and copy-editing."

I have not come across anyone who denies that publishers do bundle valuable services. It is simply that some of these services are less valuable than they once were, for example, marketing and promotion, at least for the vast majority of their authors. But also, the services they provide represent dismal value for money, requiring an author to give away their rights forever, if not legally then for all practical purposes. They could do this when they were the only game in town. Not now. Even thoroughly stockholmed authors are starting to realise this, if gradually.

These people are so steeped in hypocrisy and denial it is almost frightening.