The State of US publishing in 2013

[fjtorres]

New Year's is near, so Dean Wesley Smith has put up a column looking at the state of publishing in the US, with a few looks to the future:
http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=11156

The comments are interesting, too.

A few choice quotes:

And following the trend that started three or four years ago, the big traditional publishers are working to tie down as many writers’ books as possible, and control as many rights. So their contracts in 2013 managed to get even worse and have become completely anti-writer.

Some points look ripe for debate:

Smashwords, the largest distributor of indie work to stores (Amazon is a store), got faster and cleared out a bunch of bugs in 2013 and actually started a revamp of their site. But they still have a horrid accounting system that will eventually drive all but the erotica authors away. But it seems from the outside that Smashwords clearly had a good year. Right near the end of the year they partnered with Scribd, which may or may not turn out to be a disaster. Scribd is known for being a pirate site.

During 2013, indie publishing in many, many ways, both paper and electronic, spread out over the world. Now your indie books get a much wider reach than any traditional publisher can manage, which not too many people have talked about yet, but will in 2014.

Yes, I said that. Your books go to a wider worldwide audience when you indie publish them than if you sold them to a traditional publisher.

It's not just ebooks; POD distribution is going global for indie publishers.
TradPub, of course, still works off the dated regional rights system and georestrictions.

Agents had a horrid year in 2013, just as they did in 2012, and the future does not look bright for an area of publishing that, for the most part, seems to have outlived its value. Many agents, ignoring any hope of pretending to be an actual “agent” under agency law, opened up their own publishing arms to take care of writers too lazy or afraid to do electronic backlist publishing themselves. Many other agents just turned themselves into scams to make a living off of taking writers’ money. But in 2013, many of them learned it wasn’t going to help them.

And with advances and paper sales falling like a stone for even the top bestselling writers, agents entire business model is falling apart around them. We should see some pretty major collapses of agencies in 2014.

The main word I heard the last few years from writers was “freedom.” It seems that suddenly we all feel free to write what we want, not what we think some editor and sales force might like. That’s great fun and really became a clear force in 2013.

We also have the freedom to not take bad contracts from traditional publishers if we don’t want. That’s a fantastic bargaining chip in a negotiation, so smart writers gained power over the last year. And now writers who care about their work have an option. And smart writers go to lawyers now, not agents, for help on contracts of all sorts.

From the comments:

It’s because of money and the fact that the writer, who has the most invested in the book, has no control in traditional publishing at all. And to those folks in those big corporations, your book is a widget to just dump out onto the market, while to you indie, it’s your work that you are proud of.

So one thing in 2013 is the balance of poorly copyedited books has switched to the traditional side. Makes sense, when you look at it, actually.

Lots more at the source.

[Calenorn]

You know, those publishers already have a lot of titles "tied down" that I would gladly pay for, but they're not bringing them out as e-books. I'm talking about the back catalog titles of many authors. And so my money stays in my pocket. That being the case I fail to see why the publishers are so eager to tie down even MORE titles. They certainly will not make any money from a product they never offer for sale.

So am I missing something here? Or are publishers just irrational?

[kennyc]

Interesting! He's always got something interesting to say.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

So am I missing something here? Or are publishers just irrational?

Both.

Trad publishers want to tie down rights, even if they don't exploit them, because they are financial assets that *can* be exploited. If not by them, by others. And they'd rather it not be others.
That is why most current tradpub contracts have non-compete, first-refusal, etc type clauses.
You have noticed they don't like competition, right?

Also, locking down as many rights as possible for as long as possible is their endgame exit strategy. You don't have to publish new books if you can milk the copyright of known-good titles "forever". Come merger time, the value of the company will be defined by the rights they own.

"They may be crazy but they ain't stupid."
The Predatory Presses know exactly what they're doing and despite all their posturing, they're not in the literature business; they're in a financial business.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Interesting! He's always got something interesting to say.

Uh-huh.
KKR, too.
Her most recent column is a particularly good read in a series that is always good.
DWS makes a few points I'd quibble with--I think he underestimates ebook tech's long term prospects--but they both regularly provide insightful clues to where the business is headed.

[tubemonkey]

...and since authors willingly sign these onerous contracts, they share blame too.

...and since the public willingly buys these books, they share blame also.

So there's plenty of blame to go around. It's a viscous circle. Who's gonna break it?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It's a viscous circle. Who's gonna break it?

Author/publishers. By refusing to sign away their assets and prospering.

The authors signing the predatory contracts are focused on validation, not economics. If they're willing to be paid in validation instead of cash, so be it.

But over time the number of authors doing so is going to decline, if nothing else because the corporate publishers are going to be signing up less of them, even when willing. The trends are for less midlist releases with lower advances and many (if not most) of those being ebook only. The bulk of the BPHs' focus is going to go to their established name authord.

[mcrow]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

You know, those publishers already have a lot of titles "tied down" that I would gladly pay for, but they're not bringing them out as e-books. I'm talking about the back catalog titles of many authors. And so my money stays in my pocket. That being the case I fail to see why the publishers are so eager to tie down even MORE titles. They certainly will not make any money from a product they never offer for sale.

So am I missing something here? Or are publishers just irrational?

From talking with a few people I know who work in trad publishing the reason they are going this direction is sort of as an investment.

They will try to lock up more books from authors they sign but at much lower costs. So, where they might have bought 3 books from a promising author they will now try to buy maybe 5-6 but at lower price than if they had to buy them after a sucessful trilogy.

So where a first time author sells a very good trilogy for maybe $10-$15k in advance and gets 15% of HC sales and 7% of paperback sales they might only pay a $2-$5K advances for each book after that and maybe at reduced royalty rates.

The idea is that with some of these authors they might become popular and they have them under contract at terribly low costs. The author is legally bound to provide those books at the rates agreed to so the publisher is likely to get the books. So, even if the publisher holds the books and doesn't publish them they have the rights to them that they can sell or that they can hold on to and publish later.

Suppose the writer writes the 5 books contacted for and moves on to another publisher because of the poor contract. They move on and become even more popular. Now the original publisher can publish and release these books or the back catalog during the height of their popularity.

In any case it is the publishers trying to lock in potentially top selling authors at low rates.

[mcrow]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Author/publishers. By refusing to sign away their assets and prospering.

The authors signing the predatory contracts are focused on validation, not economics. If they're willing to be paid in validation instead of cash, so be it.

But over time the number of authors doing so is going to decline, if nothing else because the corporate publishers are going to be signing up less of them, even when willing. The trends are for less midlist releases with lower advances and many (if not most) of those being ebook only. The bulk of the BPHs' focus is going to go to their established name authord.

The problem is that authors are starting change their minds about traditional publishing, that it doesn't really valid date much any more.

So many authors have had success with self publishing or going through small publishers that many are going that route for the freedom that they get as a result.

Don't get me wrong, I think traditional publishing will be around for a while but soon it will be only the top sellers. There will be no mid list authors in traditional publishing in not too long.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by mcrow

The problem is that authors are starting change their minds about traditional publishing,

They'd better.

But, as they say: "You never know..."

[kennyc]

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It worked for Howey.

Schultz was a clear visionary.
(Watch out for beagles in flying doghouses...)

[frahse]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Both.

Trad publishers want to tie down rights, even if they don't exploit them, because they are financial assets that *can* be exploited. If not by them, by others. And they'd rather it not be others.
That is why most current tradpub contracts have non-compete, first-refusal, etc type clauses.
You have noticed they don't like competition, right?

Also, locking down as many rights as possible for as long as possible is their endgame exit strategy. You don't have to publish new books if you can milk the copyright of known-good titles "forever". Come merger time, the value of the company will be defined by the rights they own.

"They may be crazy but they ain't stupid."
The Predatory Presses know exactly what they're doing and despite all their posturing, they're not in the literature business; they're in a financial business.

It has been a while since I have brought out a new story, and even longer since I have brought out a whole new title.

My "day job" is demanding and the payoff is immediate and very rewarding.
Still I know people that write and people that publish and I have to agree with the theme of this thread. Things are getting worse for all but the most successful authors. Sure there are ways around the roadblocks, but there shouldn't be roadblocks. It not only depresses the little guys, it depresses the whole industry.

When I was young, I also dabbled in music and I remember some stories about when the big Country Studios decided to do everything "in house." If you were on the outside you didn't have access to the main conduits of publishing a song. Unless the songwriter was well established and connected with a big name, they worked for "the man." The music industry decreased for several years before they started letting the free lance song writers in again from "out of the cold."

Everyone looks forward to retiring and doing what they love. I would like to travel less on jobs, and write more at home. If I travel, it should be for a vacation or to visit the grandchildren. The important things.

Maybe this depressing cycle will be over when "my time" comes again.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Why don't you just come and get it?

...before I send it to Amazon


ps: is it Seattle v Denver for the Super Bowl?

[Lemurion]

There's no such thing as a "traditional publisher," that's a term invented by a rip-off house in Frederick, Maryland. The proper term is "commercial publisher."

The other thing to remember is that even though the system is grievously flawed, it still does a better job of transferring money from readers to writers than any other system, overall. Commercial publishers pay in advance, and get books into bookstores. For most writers, that translates into more money.

Yes, an independent hit makes the writer far more money; the catch is that it's exponentially more difficult to get that hit.

The authors who really benefit most from independent publishing are those who built up a name with the commercial publishers, then went indie with their backlist. They have the name recognition, which builds demand, so when they do go indie they already have the audience.

Truthfully, there's plenty of room for both approaches and there's no reason to say that one is universally better than the other for all writers.