Do we need Publishers For eBooks?

[Whackatagin]

Mr Ploppy, I too have done a far bit of freelance work over the years, it was more the new emerging folk who don't have our years of reputation and referral to get the phone ringing I was talknig about. Moving into an emerging market, which is really still pretty much unknown terratory, isn't easy. Going freelance in a role that already has an established sector/ market can be a daunting enough step at first, but to set out into an evolving industry, such as we are discussing, with a fluid business model and constantly having to adapt your processes, that's a brave step. The difference between crazy & laudible is only measuarable by success or failure.

I don't think we were just that speculative in our approach, or perhaps my broad mind and narrow waist have just switched places over the years. But I'm sure you must also have experienced the quiet periods and hours of head scrathing trying to figure out ways to get new business to keep you busy mon-fri 9-5. Perhaps that should be 25hrs-a-day 8 days a week.

"What do you mean, the boy's going to college? He's only nine...isn't he?"

But anyway, I'm going to declare myself...

[swhibs123]

This is a tough question to answer with a yes or no. Publishers vary so much that you almost have to take it on a case-by-case basis. IMO - what you want from a publisher is:
1.history of solid sales
2.History of identifying talent, and producing good products (this and #1 probably go hand and hand)
3.experienced editors. Meaning, editors with industry experience.
4.Distribution into markets not readily available to SP authors.
5.Identifiable marketing (this probably ties into sales too).

That's a lot for the lonely self published author to do on their own, though some have, and with great success.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by swhibs123

This is a tough question to answer with a yes or no. Publishers vary so much that you almost have to take it on a case-by-case basis. IMO - what you want from a publisher is:
1.history of solid sales
2.History of identifying talent, and producing good products (this and #1 probably go hand and hand)
3.experienced editors. Meaning, editors with industry experience.
4.Distribution into markets not readily available to SP authors.
5.Identifiable marketing (this probably ties into sales too).

That's a lot for the lonely self published author to do on their own, though some have, and with great success.

That method would say that no author should work with a startup publisher. (I am biased--I'm currently working with a startup publisher.) Things a new publisher can offer besides proven experience:

1. Innovative/experimental approach to marketing, on a larger scope than an individual can manage: niche markets, new promotional methods
2. More personalized author support
3. Flexible production scheduling
4. Support for & promotion of broader scope of manuscript types/lengths
5. Ethical business practices that fit with the authors' and readers' preferences. (Not that Hatchette is immoral, but they won't be running a company-wide promotion to benefit RAINN.)

And probably a few others I'm not thinking of right now.

The key issue is: authors should figure out what publishers are offering them, because "make a profit from your writing" is no longer enough.

[anamardoll]

My day job is as a software engineer; I code and write user manuals. There are parts of my day job I don't enjoy; I don't love editing my work for errors or beta testing before turning the software in to the next chain in the project, but it's part of my job. I might dream of having the company assign me my own editor or my own personal beta tester, but that's not going to happen.

I feel the same way about writing. I don't love editing my own work, or marketing my novels, but that's part of my job as a writer.

Maybe some publisher would be willing to take all the crappy parts of "writing" in exchange for 70% of my sales. Maybe some other software engineer would be willing to take all the crappy parts of my day job for 70% of my paycheck. In either case, I'm not leaping for the deal.

[sbroome]

It makes perfect sense that the folks who want to spend all their time creating would rather give the marketing and packaging sides of the work to someone else. If I could have someone else do analytics and banner creation I would. The issue is largely a matter of time in the day. I'm not really big on this "the businessmen drink my blood like the kids in art school said they would" approach.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

My opinion has been that publishers offered two things that writers generally can't supply for themselves: Access and Influence. A publisher can get their books on store shelves, thanks to their contracts with the stores. They can call up Oprah, CNN or The Daily Show and get an author an appearance. They can convince syndicated reviewers and columnists to interview an author or run an article on them. Their phone calls go through to publicists.

Most authors' calls get screened.

Fortunately, the traditional marketing methods are changing, and as the public switches from old to new, authors may find that some of the new marketing methods give them an equal footing against the publishers. But at the moment, publishers still get first crack at the consumers, and most consumers are still perfectly okay with that.

[sbroome]

I feel that having so many authors with equal footing is another way of describing noise, which is an entirely new barrier to break through. Not saying it's worse, just that we can't act like the old way being removed doesn't prevent significant new problems.

[Lazybones]

To greatly oversimplify: the old model is one where you have 100 authors who can sell 100,000 copies each. Getting into the pool of authors is hard but once there you're more likely to do well.

The new model is one where you can have 10,000 authors who can sell maybe 1,000 copies each. Getting into the pool of authors is relatively easy, but it's harder to sell a lot of copies.

Same amount of total sales, but the second model has less of a need for big publishing houses, and more of the revenues goes to authors (admittedly, spread out much more thinly because of the larger pool).

I prefer the latter model, but I will certainly stipulate that I might feel differently if I was one of the 100 in the first scenario.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Lazybones

To greatly oversimplify: the old model is one where you have 100 authors who can sell 100,000 copies each. Getting into the pool of authors is hard but once there you're more likely to do well.

The new model is one where you can have 10,000 authors who can sell maybe 1,000 copies each. Getting into the pool of authors is relatively easy, but it's harder to sell a lot of copies.

Except all signs point to the new model being 10,000 authors who can sell 10,000 copies each, and a handful of them can sell 100,000 copies.

Ebook sales aren't showing themselves to be limited to the dollars people used to spend on print. With the convenience of click-and-download purchases, they're easy to justify as an impulse buy. Those authors who sell ebooks for the price of a double latte have discovered that they can indeed sell books in numbers comparable to double lattes. Those who're stuck with prices comparable to a concert t-shirt are discovering that people buy them as often as they buy concert tees: maybe a few times a year, more if they're feeling flush.

[VydorScope]

I think the market is changing and in the LONG TERM we will see a new publishing model, but as of RIGHT NOW, the traditional publishing houses still have many advantages. I do think they will need to adapt or die, but thats true of all business sectors, just look at Kodak.

[Fbone]

An experienced, talented and fearless editor(s) is still required.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Fbone

An experienced, talented and fearless editor(s) is still required.

I have a really lovely one, if anyone wants to use her.