Random House Explains What Publishers Do

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Bad luck?

No, of course not. A finished book that is traditionally published is nearly always the result of cooperation between an author and an editor. And the authors nearly always agree with the proposed changes to the book and think that the editors input made it a better book.

[crossi]

It isn't that publishers don't provide a service it's their arrogance that sets my teeth on edge. If I hired a contracter to improve my house by adding a porch the contractor wouldn't be entitled to dictate how the porch should be and certainly it wouldn't own my house and be able to dictate if I could sell it, when and for how much.

In the current set up because the publishers have so much power to prevent one's book from reaching the market they can force on authors terms that essentially gives the publisher ownership of your book and from which they toss the authors a few crumbs.

If I had a book I would want to say forget an advance instead I'll pay upfront for the services I want to buy. And I might not buy all the services I want from the same publisher. I might buy editing from one and promotion from another promoting competion for my business. In any case the proper relationship is that of any other paid for service provider. Like the guy who fixes your plumbing or adds a porch to your house.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Looks to be long on self serving propaganda, and really effing short on thoroughness and honesty. A bit of fluff to draw in the marks.

Did you expect anything different?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

They seem to minimize the author's role in creating a book.

Of course they do. That lets them justify minimizing the author's cut as well.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Publishers do a hell of a lot more than just take someone's manuscript and print it.

That justifies keeping 90% of the revenue? Do you value the actual artists so little?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by crossi

If I had a book I would want to say forget an advance instead I'll pay upfront for the services I want to buy. And I might not buy all the services I want from the same publisher. I might buy editing from one and promotion from another promoting competion for my business. In any case the proper relationship is that of any other paid for service provider. Like the guy who fixes your plumbing or adds a porch to your house.

Most people could not afford to pay that kind of money. What people always seems to forget is that publishing is a gamble. If you knew before publishing how much a book would sell of course things would work differently. So in principle somebody have to take the risk. And if you as the author would like to take the whole economical risk then I would be very surprised if you could not buy all the services.

[JeremyR]

I'm not sure it is a gamble though - the big publishers have their own media hype machine, no different than the music industry.

They pick authors, who then get reviewed and promoted in the right press. No different than the music industry in how it makes teen idols.

Self-publishing disrupts that model.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

I'm not sure it is a gamble though - the big publishers have their own media hype machine, no different than the music industry.

They pick authors, who then get reviewed and promoted in the right press. No different than the music industry in how it makes teen idols.

Self-publishing disrupts that model.

Really? Do you have any examples?

And do they buy the reviews or what do you mean?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by crossi

It isn't that publishers don't provide a service it's their arrogance that sets my teeth on edge. If I hired a contracter to improve my house by adding a porch the contractor wouldn't be entitled to dictate how the porch should be and certainly it wouldn't own my house and be able to dictate if I could sell it, when and for how much.

In the current set up because the publishers have so much power to prevent one's book from reaching the market they can force on authors terms that essentially gives the publisher ownership of your book and from which they toss the authors a few crumbs.

If I had a book I would want to say forget an advance instead I'll pay upfront for the services I want to buy. And I might not buy all the services I want from the same publisher. I might buy editing from one and promotion from another promoting competion for my business. In any case the proper relationship is that of any other paid for service provider. Like the guy who fixes your plumbing or adds a porch to your house.

If you want to "hire" a publisher, go to a vanity press.

Or buy the services you think you need and want, and self-publish. Is someone stopping you from doing this, since you think of publishing in the same way you think of home repair.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Catlady

If you want to "hire" a publisher, go to a vanity press.

Or buy the services you think you need and want, and self-publish. Is someone stopping you from doing this, since you think of publishing in the same way you think of home repair.

Ditto this. The cynicism for publishers here is astounding. The counter-cynical view might well be that the writer isn't hiring them so much as they are hiring the writer.

Maybe the publishing houses really are something like dinosaurs but that doesn't mean the services they provide are not needed. Maybe some of these services will be moved out-of-house; others will move in.

[kennyc]

oops.... bad post

[Edward M. Grant]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Maybe the publishing houses really are something like dinosaurs but that doesn't mean the services they provide are not needed. Maybe some of these services will be moved out-of-house; others will move in.

Publishers have already outsourced most of their services. Agents now read the slush pile and tell writers to hire editors to edit their work before submission. Copy-editors, cover designers and the like are probably freelance, hired book by book. Most writers are expected to do their own publicity.

For most writers, trade publishing is a losing proposition. They do get books into book stores, but generally the only time it's worth the costs is when your book becomes a best-seller, because no self-published author has reached the Stephen King/JK Rowling level yet. But you're only slightly more likely to get rich from selling hundreds of millions of books than from winning the lottery.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, of course not. A finished book that is traditionally published is nearly always the result of cooperation between an author and an editor. And the authors nearly always agree with the proposed changes to the book and think that the editors input made it a better book.

But there were comments on MR that most books traditionally published today don't get the benefit of editing anymore because of budget cuts.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Of course they do. That lets them justify minimizing the author's cut as well.

I don't see why the authors put up with it.

[stonetools]

For most writers, trade publishing is a losing proposition. They do get books into book stores, but generally the only time it's worth the costs is when your book becomes a best-seller, because no self-published author has reached the Stephen King/JK Rowling level yet. But you're only slightly more likely to get rich from selling hundreds of millions of books than from winning the lottery.

Most prospective authors disagree with you, and generally try to work with a publisher if they can.

Random House has published a promotional video. Is it propoganda? Maybe- but then no more than are the offerings of the Konrathologists.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Random House has published a promotional video. Is it propoganda? Maybe- but then no more than are the offerings of the Konrathologists.

I though that all promotional videos are propaganda.