The way ahead for publishing

[RHWright]

Originally Posted by frankelr

The place of the screening editor can be replaced and bettered by consumer ratings.

I have to disagree. 99% of consumer reviews (both good and bad) I don't trust. They so obviously don't know what they're talking about.

I'm not going to call out particular authors/books. That's not my point. But I have seen glowing consumer reviews for books that have been poorly written, brainlessly plotted, and carelessly edited.

I've seen consumer reviews trash a good book for trivial and frivolous reasons.

Yes, not every book will appeal to every reader; opinions will vary. But I see far too many consumer reviews that are glaringly amateur, and not in the good sense.

I won't say that there aren't any good self-published works or that bad books aren't published by major publishers. My experience is that there are certain publishers/authors that I can generally trust for a good product. I have found some trusty smaller, indie authors as well.

But they are fewer and far between; you have to wade through more slush and consumer reviews for many of these seem to be predominantly FFF: Friends, Family, and Fans.

So, I'm cautious in my approach to self-published works.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by RHWright

I have to disagree. 99% of consumer reviews (both good and bad) I don't trust. They so obviously don't know what they're talking about.

~ exerpt ~

I've seen consumer reviews trash a good book for trivial and frivolous reasons.

In 1977 I watched pretty much the entire professional reviewing industry pan Star Wars. That puts professional reviewing on the exact same footing only with group think and a sense of monetary entitlement.

I will pass on the so called pros.

[Sil_liS]

I usually choose books based on description, and not on reviews. I remember reading a really positive book review written by someone who said that that they got the book for free. As I was reading it I kept thinking that 1) of course you are going to have lower standards to liking something that you got for free and 2) how much of this is because they didn't want to say anything bad about the author that just gave them a book.

[Kumabjorn]

At least some publishers have some clear insight.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

At least some publishers have some clear insight.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

At least some publishers have some clear insight.

It sounds like dropping a shark in a pond full of drunk guppies.

A bit odd that the unnamed guy claims a bestseller is 20k when last year the word was the publishers were dropping everybody that didn't move 30K. Is the drop so fast?

Thing is, there is more to publishing than the bestsellers business. And Amazon isn't the only shark in the pond, much less the ocean just downstream...

I think the industry is suffering too much Amazon on the brain.

[Kumabjorn]

Well, Amazon certainly seems to have them worried. Maybe even to the point of paranoia? The interesting thing, to me at least, is that they do not seem to have a strategy to deal with what they obviously consider a major problem for their future.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Well, Amazon certainly seems to have them worried. Maybe even to the point of paranoia? The interesting thing, to me at least, is that they do not seem to have a strategy to deal with what they obviously consider a major problem for their future.

To the point of paranoia and random dart-throwing.
To a large extent Amazon is a creation of the BPHs. They made Amazon as certainly as they Made (and unmade) Borders and B&N. Live by the volume discount, die by the volume discount.
And to the extent that Amazon is making inroads upstream, it is due mostly to those same publishing houses' moves. Cutting back on content acquisition and editorial staff simply makes that contnt and personnel available for others to build business off.

I'm a more than a bit skeptical that *all* the BPHs losses are going to Amazon. A lot is going to the smaller competitors. The BPHs just happen only see what Amazon is doing and paying little attention to the Likes of Carina, Open Road, etc.

We may be seeing a withering of the traditional publishing houses but we're also seeing the rise and growth of other publishing houses, only one of which is named Amazon.

[kennyc]

I hate acronyms that are just thrown around with the expectation that "everyone" knows what it means....what's a BPH?

[Kumabjorn]

Big Publishing House?

[fjtorres]

Big publishing Houses.
Not everybody in publishing lives in a glass house tower and a lot of publishers really do a decent-to-good job for their authors and readers. No sense tar-brushing them along with the Price Fix Six and the other lesser sinners.

[kennyc]

Thanks...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

We may be seeing a withering of the traditional publishing houses ...

What makes you believe that? The BPHs are all reporting extremely healthy profits, AFAIK. I see no sign of "withering". Did you have anything specific in mind?

[Blue Tyson]

They are certainly whining a lot then, about what mean and nasty people are doing to them for a lot making big healthy profits!

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What makes you believe that? The BPHs are all reporting extremely healthy profits, AFAIK. I see no sign of "withering". Did you have anything specific in mind?

Sorry if I wasn't clear:

The linked article (from the "woe is us" school of publishing insiders) claims that big-publishing's cash cow is slowly dying. Being squeezed to death by Amazon. (Bestseller, these days, being anything that can muster 20,000 sales?) His claim, not mine. I just summed it up as "withering".

Note that I said *may* be withering, because I'm skeptical myself but I see no reason or need to dispute the industry "insider" assertion as, true or not, it is still proof the industry has Amazon on the brain and all the angst over Amazon's disruptive retailing moves willfully neglects the other, more significant, disruptive moves from other sources.

In my book *if* traditional publishing dies, it won't be Amazon that kills it.
To me, the biggest threat to traditional publishers isn't Amazon; it's Konrath.
We have a reasonably successful mid-list author who was *dumped* by his traditional publisher because of declining print sales (at a time of general print sales decline) who went self-pub and is now regularly trumpetting his success as proof the *established* mid-list authors don't need a publisher and can drastically boost their income by going self-pub. His most recent report of raking in over US$3000 daily--an annualized rate of over $1 million--is bound to rattle some cages. (The best revenge is outliving them?)

Similarly, I see the moves by Open Road and Mysterious Publishing with backlist content as more significant than Amazon amassing a few dozen prominent titles for their inhouse imprints. Amazon is just bringing new content to market that would have otherwise gone to another house; no real difference than if it had gone to some other start-up publisher.

Open Road and the other backlist-focused ventures are instead bringing new *money* to established authors through their backlist.

One could argue Amazon is playing by traditional rules, just adjusting royalties, while the new houses are attacking the core idea that up-front money/sales is what matters. Once word gets out that even mid-list back-catalog titles can bring in six and seven figure revenue, the traditional publishers are *really* going to see a royalty-rate revolt.

That is why I said that whether or not the traditional publishers are withering or not doesn't matter; their dated business model is already being replaced by a new one by smaller, leaner publishers that accept that the future is e-book first, e-book always.

And instead of doing something rational, most (though not all: Carina comes to mind) of the traditional houses are obsessed with supporting their short-term revenue with price-fixing, e-rights shennanigans, and dated royalty rates. Plus lots of posturing (Hachette memo) and angsting (the above-quoted "insider" tale of woe.

I don't doubt the BPHs are reporting good revenue on a quarterly basis any more than I doubt the "insider" report. Both are quite compatible given corporate bean-counters' ability to move money around on a short-term basis.

The real question is how long they can keep the game going with the same old business model. At some point, they'll have to pay the piper. Or face their own Konraths...