Anthony Horowitz: Do we still need publishers?

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by rhadin

There are those who call themselves editors and there are professional editors, that is, those whose only job is as an editor (among other criteria). The entry bar for editing is quite low; really, it is as low as hanging out a shingle and proclaiming oneself to be an editor. Many self-publishing authors do not hire an editor at all. Of those who do hire an editor, many, if not most, have no idea how to locate a professional editor or how to distinguish a professional editor from a nonprofessional editor.

It's not just the psuedo-editors that are causing problems. I know a proofreader who is in a battle with a self-pub author right now because the author is telling people she had her book edited by the proofreader when that was never the case. She was hired to check for typos and grammar, and that's what she did. The plot was a mess, but beyond recommending that the author have her story edited, she had no further responsibility in that area.

I've seen posts (some here on MR) from authors who are looking for editors, and stating they only want their work checked for typos and usage. Some of them know that this is actually proofreading, but some do equate this with "what editors do".

It's not hard to find a professional editor, if that's what one is actually looking for and willing to pay for. For a first novel, the cost can't always be met. But it would be helpful to both authors and editors if everyone involved was honest about what's actually being done.

[speakingtohe]

Detective Inspector Jones was Henry's immediate superior and had been promoted at the same as he had. He had always got on well with him when they had been in more junior roles. He was a decent guy but perhaps just a bit too nice. He was about as normal a bloke as you could ever meet, one of those people whose descriptions you always hated when you were taking statements from a witness. He was average height and weight, with sensible, short black hair and always wore regular unassuming clothes. He didn't wear glasses or sport any distinguishing scars or facial hair. Even his voice was exactly as you would expect. In fact the only thing not really regulation about DI Jones was that he had what most officers didn't seem to: a proper family life

Sometimes I like books written in this vein. Not the most horrific example of bad writing. I started to read an Anthony Horowitz book once and actually found it to be simplistic drivel especially for a children's book. (My opinion only)

Helen

[fjtorres]

The advanced ebook he suggests might be fun, where the reader has to "earn" the reveal? It exists.
It's called LA NOIRE.
But it's not a book; not even remotely.
It's a video game. Even if it were purely text-based, like the adventure games of old, it would still be a game.

The rest of the article seems about equally confused.

It starts out bad mouthing publishers for being condescending and unresponsive and ends up bad-mouthing self-publishers for poor prose while along the way taking pot-shots at assorted agents, ebook publishers and retailers, all to no coherent end-point. Almost stream of consciousness...

Since the article is an extract from a speech, it may be that something got lost in transcription.

I must say, he does string anecdotes breezily, though.

[Fbone]

I do think a talented and experienced editor is invaluable in producing a well-crafted document. There are probably only a small limited number of truly great "line editors" whose command of the English language is unparalleled.

[poker467]

It is totally possible for even newbies to publish an ebook without any support from publishers (as I'm sure anyone that has used Calibre knows). If you're willing to take on the challenge, it could be very rewording.

[SensualPoet]

With the current distribution models -- ebooks sold through Amazon and elsewhere -- it is possible for a writer to be editor and publisher (and marketer, cover designer, lawyer, accountant, etc). But anyone who thinks this is the optimal model, ought to think again. Publishers fill a critical role in the book creation industry ecosystem.

It's all about division of labour: and it gives the writer time to ... write.

[dadioflex]

Isn't the need for publishers a binary choice? Either we do or we don't.

Also, Amazon is a publisher. Discuss.

[latepaul]

One of the founders of Unbound has responded to Horowitz. His main point seems to be that Unbound (essentially using crowd-sourcing to fund publishing) is not the same as self-publishing.

[Daithi]

Publishers provide several major functions --
1. Printing physical books
2. Distributing physical books
3. Promotion/Marketing services
4. Advances to authors
5. Editing services
6. Cover design
7. Gatekeeper

For these services the publisher typically keep 85% of the revenue. As far as I am concerned, the question isn't whether or not I need a publisher, but is "are publishers worth the costs?" If an author makes more money with a publisher then, yes, they are worth their costs. If an author makes more money without a publisher then, no, publishers aren't needed.

If your market was limited to just ebooks then I don't think publishers are worth it. I can print my book -- i.e. get it into ebook formats -- myself. I don't need a publisher to distribute it. Editing and cover design are things I can do myself or pay someone else to do but not 85%. Most authors don't quit their day jobs, and those that do have already made it big, so I don't really need the advance. A gatekeeper benefits the public not the author (other than keeping down competition).

Promotion/Marketing is where the publishers have an edge. It's not traditional advertising on TV, radio, or flyers in the mail. It's not even the books displayed in prominent locations. It is the relationship the publisher has with the book stores. Even with a mid-list author that is straight to paperback, a Big-6 publisher just says to its various book stores, "We have a new release that should sell pretty well, and we recommend you stock x number of copies." A publisher can sell 50,000 copies of a book before the books are available to the public. Of course, none of this applies to ebooks.

So, unless I was a blockbuster author like, say, J.K. Rowling then I don't think publishers are worth the costs. If I was one of the blockbuster authors then I'd have the clout to tell the publisher that I retain all ebook rights.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Publishers provide several major functions --
1. Printing physical books
2. Distributing physical books
3. Promotion/Marketing services
4. Advances to authors
5. Editing services
6. Cover design
7. Gatekeeper

For these services the publisher typically keep 85% of the revenue.

You left out the retailer...

As far as I am concerned, the question isn't whether or not I need a publisher, but is "are publishers worth the costs?" If an author makes more money with a publisher then, yes, they are worth their costs. If an author makes more money without a publisher then, no, publishers aren't needed.

Hard to disagree with this analysis. (Although it is hard to know how this will come out beforehand).

If your market was limited to just ebooks then I don't think publishers are worth it. I can print my book -- i.e. get it into ebook formats -- myself. I don't need a publisher to distribute it. Editing and cover design are things I can do myself or pay someone else to do but not 85%.

Not 85% - but, yeah, you can contract these out.

Most authors don't quit their day jobs, and those that do have already made it big, so I don't really need the advance. A gatekeeper benefits the public not the author (other than keeping down competition).

And advance is nice, though.

Promotion/Marketing is where the publishers have an edge. It's not traditional advertising on TV, radio, or flyers in the mail. It's not even the books displayed in prominent locations. It is the relationship the publisher has with the book stores. Even with a mid-list author that is straight to paperback, a Big-6 publisher just says to its various book stores, "We have a new release that should sell pretty well, and we recommend you stock x number of copies." A publisher can sell 50,000 copies of a book before the books are available to the public. Of course, none of this applies to ebooks.

So, unless I was a blockbuster author like, say, J.K. Rowling then I don't think publishers are worth the costs. If I was one of the blockbuster authors then I'd have the clout to tell the publisher that I retain all ebook rights.

[howyoudoin]

IMO, the biggest reason publishers are still a necessity is because of their networking and promotions and pull with the bookstores. All other aspects of bringing out a book can be outsourced by the author on his own, but it's the visibility that the established publisher provides that's hard to replace.

[Justin Nemo]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Maybe we should get rid of publishers and the editor (or editor collective) should serve as the imprint. They would still serve as a filter and quality control, but their diminished role compared to publishing houses would allow the autor to retain a fair share from their labours. Authors who forego editing would still exist, aa true indies.

It is hard to see a role for publishers in the electronic era though because publicity, duplication, and distribution are largely being picked up by the retailer. That leaves filtering and editing. Quite frankly, the autor can contract that out rather than being the contractee themselves.

Won't they all just become e-publishers like goodreads, ivanovella and librarything etc?

[Penforhire]

LibraryThing is an e-publisher? I'm a life-member and I think of it as a place where we just gather to discuss books and track our collections.

[WillAdams]

He wouldn't feel that way if he'd ever had to handle submissions at a vanity press.