Who will fill the gap if B&N collapses

[Barty]

I do like to go to B&N for children's books, to be able to pick them up and get a feel for them. Clicking through an image gallery isn't quite the same. Ditto art books and coffee table books.

And yes, darryl is right. Amazon will jump in to fill the showroom vacuum for those kinds of books, toys, electronics, etc.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

No one really knows how much they need to worry about being punished for destroying competitors, low pay, opposition to union organizing, or taking tax benefits from hard-pressed states and municipalities. So far, it hasn't hurt them. But, as the mutual funds are forced to disclose, past performance doesn't guarantee future results. And often it isn't at all predictive. So the Amazonians can't make those kind of decisions rationally. Deciding how much emphasis to put, in making usiness decisions, on ethical precepts, can't be done with a spreadsheet.

I think your ADS is starting to show a little, Steve. Do you seriously expect a large successful company like Amazon to to save compaetitors from their own poor decisions, pay higher wages than market for no benefit, encourage Unionisation of their workforce and refuse incentives from states and municipalities trying to give their residents jobs and attract much needed money to their communities. Amazon is not perfect but it is in business, not charity. Your above criticisms read like a good plan for bankruptcy. Amazon is not alone. Most bookshops of any type pay minimum wage etc. And the behaviour of the large publishing houses can only be described as predatory.

Personally I doubt Amazon will have serious anti-trust issues, though I am not of course a US lawyer. Amazon benefits consumers by keeping prices low. If it continues to do so post-B&N I think it will be a case of plenty of smoke but no fire. If Amazon believes they are on firm ground legally I can't see the inevitable whinging putting them off. The main question for them is whether they have other things to hide which increased scrutiny may bring to life. They have nothing to be ashamed of with anything you have listed.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If you want to look at the effect of bad decisions, read more about the New Republic, one of whose articles you linked in #7. Every big publisher I know of has been far more successful at keeping their headline writers from bolting than has that sadly diminished former national treasure.

The New Republic is a good example of an organization that had the vision to go all out for digital while alienating long-time key writers. I no longer subscribe. Since I am just one person, this means nothing. But they've lost so many other subscribers, while going from weekly, to biweekly, to, now, ten times a year, that I can't even find them owning up to their current circulation figures.

I did not say that B&N have a monopoly on making bad decisions.

[toddhicks209]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Is there really a vacuum? If I want popular books, I can go to Walmart or the grocery store. If I want specialty books, I can go to the specialty store.
If I lived in certain areas, half price books or books a million for the heavy reader.
For the voracious reader, thrift stores and libraries.

Sam's Club also sells books.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

I think your ADS is starting to show a little, Steve.

ADS? What's that?

ADD I'll own to. It's reflected in almost every post no matter how many times I proofread

Originally Posted by darryl

Do you seriously expect a large successful company like Amazon to to save competitors from their own poor decisions, pay higher wages than market for no benefit, encourage Unionisation of their workforce and refuse incentives from states and municipalities trying to give their residents jobs and attract much needed money to their communities.

Nope. I expect it from Toyota, or Volkswagen, or COSTCO, or Southwest Airlines, or Vaughan-Bassett Furniture, or A & P before they went on the cost-cutting, lost-leader road that led to decades of decline and eventual disappearance.

And just as nobody is perfect, no company is pro-social in every respect. Life is a matter of degree.

Also, companies should, IMHO, neither discourage unionization, nor push it. Volkswagen has seen the latter fail.

Originally Posted by darryl

And the behaviour of the large publishing houses can only be described as predatory.

Then why have none of the authors, whose books I enjoy and admire, switched from these alleged predators to indie/Amazon publishing? I mostly read non-fiction, but even the series genre fiction writers whose new titles I always read (Archer Mayor, Faye Kellerman, Julia Keller) haven't switched. They can't all be idiots.

Random House was in the news for trying to break internal staff unions. I don't suppose that's what you mean by predatory, but it is wrong. Union busting amounts to a management fad; there's no proof it helps companies in the long run.

Trade publishing doesn't work on a model where all, or even most, authors get a set fair hourly wage and health benefits. But it can work on a model where the CEO doesn't get paid hundreds of times more than the average book manufacturing employee -- I think they are already not so bad on executive compensation compared to an Amazon. And it can work on a model where they don't ask for bids to move out of London or New York. Is even one publisher trying that? If so, I'll be glad to use my bully pulpit to tell them to stop

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Then why have none of the authors, whose books I enjoy and admire, switched from these alleged predators to indie/Amazon publishing? I mostly read non-fiction, but even the series genre fiction writers whose new titles I always read (Archer Mayor, Faye Kellerman, Julia Keller) haven't switched. They can't all be idiots.

Maybe because authors switching publishers isn't the sole indicator of predatory practices that you seem to want to make it. Whether they're idiots or not also probably has nothing to do with it.

How long are the fiction writers whose books you enjoy and admire currently under contract for?

How much would they have to sacrifice to get out of their contract early?

Would the fiction writers whose books you enjoy and admire do things the same way if they had it to do all over?

Why do people quite often stay in abusive relationships (even when they're not idiots)?

I'm not saying I agree that trad pub IS, in fact, predatory. I'm saying that a lack of authors (whose work I luvs and adores) bolting is not at all a smoking gun that they're NOT predatory. It merely implies that they're very good at keeping their stable of authors under contract.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Philippe D.

It's not a purely French thing. I was in Scotland last summer, and in a Waterstone's (probably not a huge brand, but still a name you'll find all across UK) some of the books came with written recommendations from the store employees on the shelves - signed, so if you bought a book on one's recommendation and liked it, you could try others recommended by the same person.

Waterstones are a huge brand in the UK - they completely dominate the B&M book market here. And yes, they do the personal recommendation thing a lot.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by toddhicks209

Sam's Club also sells books.

I haven't had a Sam's card in years. It just didn't pay for itself.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

ADS? What's that?

ADD I'll own to. It's reflected in almost every post no matter how many times I proofread

Sorry. I should have specified. Amazon Derangement Syndrome.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Maybe because authors switching publishers isn't the sole indicator of predatory practices . . .

How long are the fiction writers whose books you enjoy and admire currently under contract for?

I don't know. Do you? In absence of this knowledge, it sounds like a multi-book deal, generally speaking, would transfer risk from the author to the publisher, and thus be the opposite of predatory. If your definition of predatory is different, we could discuss.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

How much would they have to sacrifice to get out of their contract early?

I'm guess that this depends on the contract terms. To be able to break a multi-book deal, I'm thinking the author would have had to, back when making the deal, trade relative financial security for upside benefit in the unlikely event a title sells better than expected, or has a long backlist life. Given that being a writer is, financially, a supremely risky occupation, it seems nice that at a few of them can trade away the upside to reduce risk. Of course, even with a multi-book deal, they still are in a risky publish or perish environment. Just less risky that if they were without a deal including advances.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Would the fiction writers whose books you enjoy and admire do things the same way if they had it to do all over?

Since they don't generally write acknowledgements explaining their publisher's editorial contributions, as non-fiction authors I read tend to, I don't know. If you have specific inside information (even with author's name having to be withheld), please consider sharing it here.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why do people quite often stay in abusive relationships (even when they're not idiots)?

Are you claiming abuse in an artistic sense, with editors ruining the books?* Or are you talking about financial abuse where the publisher assumes no risk should the book fail? Or something else?

And is the abuse general, or the case with authors I mentioned? Regarding the latter, I recall either reading, or hearing at a public appearance, Archer Mayor expressing satisfaction that he is one of the few who can, decade after decade, make a living being an author. So if his relationship with Macmillan is abusive, I guess that explains it. A living wage. But, then, it also sounded like they don't damage him from an artistic standpoint, since Mayor said that, as he became more experienced**, they started accepting what he sent them with few changes.

I'm confident that Faye Kellerman is paid a lot more than Mayor, so that should be the answer there too. She makes too much money for the abuse narrative to make sense.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not saying I agree that trad pub IS, in fact, predatory.

OK, you aren't saying it, but you were suggesting it earlier in your post. I'm responding to the suggestion.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm saying that a lack of authors (whose work I luvs and adores) bolting is not at all a smoking gun that they're NOT predatory. It merely implies that they're very good at keeping their stable of authors under contract.

In the short run, I agree. But, before long, new, less predatory, publishers, willing to assume more risk and/or improve the books from an artistic standpoint, would supplant the big five. Where are they?

____________
* By the way, I do think they damage a lot of book titles. I have read too many books with the phrase "that changed America" in the title, and don't blame authors.

** Mayor said he, over time, developed a group of friends who read his books, telling him the slow spots. He then fixes problems before sending the manuscript for professional editing.

[Panchax]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Am I the only one who doesn't miss the family owned small bookstore in the slightest? When I was a kid and the first Barnes and Noble opened up in Bellevue WA, it was practically a religious experience to go inside and browse. Forget the mom and pop shop with 100 SF & Fantasy books in a back corner, I was thrilled to go to a store with every title in a series available all at once instead of just the latest one.

Oddly, I feel the opposite about used book stores. I live just north of Portland, and Powell's Books has driven almost all of the small used book stores out of business. The problem with Powell's is that you very rarely encounter a "find" - it's so populated and picked over that you just see zillions of copies of the most popular stuff. (Again, this is mainly the SF&F area.... )

Not me, I'm too young to remember them

[crane3]

B&N had already collapsed for me when they decided not to allow customers to download their bought books. I had an instant panic when the book I "bought" for a class could not be downloaded; but was able to do so with advise from someone here.

I "fled" to Amazon. Have found recently even Google Books have a problem when I wasn't able to download my book on the history of global architecture; did a "return" within an hour of purchase & bought the book from Amazon.

Some prefer having their books in the "cloud", but I don't think they tried to read or continue to read a book in the cloud during an area power outage.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I don't know. Do you? In absence of this knowledge, it sounds like a multi-book deal, generally speaking, would transfer risk from the author to the publisher, and thus be the opposite of predatory. If your definition of predatory is different, we could discuss.

I'm guess that this depends on the contract terms. To be able to break a multi-book deal, I'm thinking the author would have had to, back when making the deal, trade relative financial security for upside benefit in the unlikely event a title sells better than expected, or has a long backlist life. Given that being a writer is, financially, a supremely risky occupation, it seems nice that at a few of them can trade away the upside to reduce risk. Of course, even with a multi-book deal, they still are in a risky publish or perish environment. Just less risky that if they were without a deal including advances.

Since they don't generally write acknowledgements explaining their publisher's editorial contributions, as non-fiction authors I read tend to, I don't know. If you have specific inside information (even with author's name having to be withheld), please consider sharing it here.



Are you claiming abuse in an artistic sense, with editors ruining the books?* Or are you talking about financial abuse where the publisher assumes no risk should the book fail? Or something else?

And is the abuse general, or the case with authors I mentioned? Regarding the latter, I recall either reading, or hearing at a public appearance, Archer Mayor expressing satisfaction that he is one of the few who can, decade after decade, make a living being an author. So if his relationship with Macmillan is abusive, I guess that explains it. A living wage. But, then, it also sounded like they don't damage him from an artistic standpoint, since Mayor said that, as he became more experienced**, they started accepting what he sent them with few changes.

I'm confident that Faye Kellerman is paid a lot more than Mayor, so that should be the answer there too. She makes too much money for the abuse narrative to make sense.

OK, you aren't saying it, but you were suggesting it earlier in your post. I'm responding to the suggestion.



In the short run, I agree. But, before long, new, less predatory, publishers, willing to assume more risk and/or improve the books from an artistic standpoint, would supplant the big five. Where are they?

____________
* By the way, I do think they damage a lot of book titles. I have read too many books with the phrase "that changed America" in the title, and don't blame authors.

** Mayor said he, over time, developed a group of friends who read his books, telling him the slow spots. He then fixes problems before sending the manuscript for professional editing.

One of the more interesting trends is the number of indie writers who sign on with a publisher. While I know that it's gospel among some groups that publishers are a bunch of predators who provide nothing, publishers provide a lot of services for a quality author.

IMPO, the current publishing arrangement (the big 5) is more of an artifact of a combination of tax laws, the current financial market and the dominance of the big book stores like B&N. I think that eventually we will see publishing fragment again, much like we saw with the music industry. I do think that there will always be a place for publishers. Frankly, few authors want to do it all themselves. They just want to write and not do the chores. (back in the late 90's, the famous efficiency expert, Peter Drucker, wrote an essay on knowledge workers and productivity. His point was to make a knowledge worker productive, you keep them focused on their main expertise and have someone else do the chore work)

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I do think that there will always be a place for publishers. Frankly, few authors want to do it all themselves. They just want to write and not do the chores. (back in the late 90's, the famous efficiency expert, Peter Drucker, wrote an essay on knowledge workers and productivity. His point was to make a knowledge worker productive, you keep them focused on their main expertise and have someone else do the chore work)

I agree with you on this. There will always be a place for publishers, but not as we have known them. Some of the more innovative publishers now are leading the way. I don't know all of the characteristics that they will have. However, some do seem to be apparent. They will pay authors much higher royalties. Small advances if any will be the norm. They will probably gain new authors mainly from the ranks of the successful self-published, and will need to offer sufficiently attractive terms. Many such authors may well find it attractive to be able to concentrate on their writing and work with well established professional teams, and be prepared to sacrifice some of the 70% royalty rate they could receive from Amazon for this. Bookouture for instance was paying I think something like 50% rate before it was taken over by from memory Harper Collins. I'm not sure what has happened since but am not optimistic Others will no doubt resist such offers and prefer to pay a flat or hourly fee to professional service providers such as proofreaders, editors, cover designers etc. and keep self publishing. RIghts grabs for every conceivable format and life of copyright licenses or assignments will not be common. Most publishers will likely remain relatively small, though Amazon will remain a big player and I expect Baen to survive and prosper.

It has never been the case that the big publishers offered no value. But the price for those bundled services was the authors loss of their work for the whole of their life plus 70 years or thereabouts, and their surrender of control. But before self publishing took off there was little alternative. The large publishers largely do not seem to have adapted and they are running out of time if indeed they have not already. It is amazing to me that they have responded by raising their prices, dumping their midlist and making their terms for those surviving and new authors even more draconian.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by darryl

It has never been the case that the big publishers offered no value. But the price for those bundled services was the authors loss of their work for the whole of their life plus 70 years or thereabouts, and their surrender of control. But before self publishing took off there was little alternative.

This has always been my viewpoint, as well. It makes sense that the cost of the services that traditional publishing provided was one-size-fits-all when there was no viable alternative (even if it was never really "fair"). An author couldn't do any meaningful self-marketing; there was no possible way they could self-generate hundreds of sales--let alone the thousands, or hundreds of thousands they'd need to be successful. There wasn't even an easy/quick way for a motivated author to get a copy of their novel to 10 beta-readers back in the day.

But now that those things have changed (for those authors who want to take that sort of work on themselves), it makes no sense that the same one-size-fits-all, costs-you-all-control-forever, boiler-plate deals for dwindling (not disappearing, not gone, but dwindling) services is still the main deal being offered/accepted.

There will always be a place for publishers in this digital age. But the ones that are still kicking decades from now will be the ones that recognized the need to offer hybrid and/or ala carte deals/services that better suit the changing landscape.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by darryl

It has never been the case that the big publishers offered no value. But the price for those bundled services was the authors loss of their work for the whole of their life plus 70 years or thereabouts, and their surrender of control.

I don't disagree with your general point, but I would note that the publisher does not (normally, at least) own the copyright in the work, and the length of the publishing contract has nothing to do with the term of copyright protection.