The new publishing business model

[riemann42]

The rumors of the demise of the publishing industry are greatly exaggerated.

Unlike newspapers, changing the medium should have no affect on the big publishing houses. Their role: advancing the authors to fund the work, selecting high quality work to fund, editing said work, distributing it, and most importantly marketing will all still be required, whether we read dead trees, digital ink, or by direct download to the brain (this sentence has tended to go a little long, but I hope it serves to make a point that many people, myself included, or rather, myself especially, should never be published). The only role that this eliminates is the printing press itself, which is really only a small, and environmentally devastating, portion of the total cost of the work that publishers do.

As a consumer, If every work was a vanity publication, I don't know what I would do. I am sure a company would quickly emerge that sorted the vanity works, funded ongoing projects that should promise, edited them, distributed them to popular brain-download merchants, and marketed the work to make sure they got their investment back.

[riemann42]

Rewrite of previous post:

Publishers will always be required to pay good authors to write, and tell bad authors to stop.

[neilmarr]

***We can only clean your book up so much, it needs serious work"--then offer to do that work, for a fee***

That, Steve, would put us in the same sub class as 'subsidised' publishing, which is really just a front to sell publishing services, including editorial.

ALL the time we have is dedicated to making good books better, empowering the author and satisfying the reader. Editors working for a specific house cannot afford the time to work on a sub-standard manuscript that isn't even ready for edit.

And if a house adjusts its policy on the lines you suggest to the extent that it becomes what amounts to vanity press, what does the reader get? You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Publishers working this model would soon find that it wasn't worth working pro bono on even good books. It would all become a matter of who pays gets published

If an author wants to pay for services, OK, let him/her go to a company or freelance whose job it is to do that. The net's bursting with 'em. Most authors will not spend the money, though, and want the free professional services of a publishing house with an experience and expert staff and that covers everything and all costs.

You'd be as amazed as I am disappointed to see terrible manuscripts I've declined popping up as self published at places like Lulu, word for word in their awful original form -- complete with bad grammar and spelling mistakes as well as wobbly story lines, carboard characters, wooden dialogue -- the whole catalogue of incompentence.

I must repeat, Steve, that not all self-publishers (some of whom turn to the system not because of rejection but because they cling to their independence) turn out unreadable nonsense. There are rare gems. But it's tough to find them in the free and cheap section which is to all intents and purposes a public slush pile.

My policy, though, is that the client is the reader and NOT the author. An author should pay NOTHING toward publication of his book. Not a red cent. I see that as a form of bribery and am profoundly hurt by the not infrequent offers I get from 'authors' to pay BeWrite Books to achieve publication with us.

For paperbacks, we use a print on demand (non-inventory) system, but POD -- once an innocent term for a new print technology -- has become confued with PUBLISH on Demand, which is a business model.

Best wishes.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

This actually might be interesting because it would allow for authors who might be rejected get discovered. I'm sure there are books that have been rejected by several publishers only to go on later to be big hits.

Which, of course, is the whole point to this thread.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

So, Steve... I'm wondering, if this is such a good idea and business plan... why don't you become the "new century" publishing company?

Because I'm one guy, not an editor or proofer, not a CEO, and with no capital. I simply don't have the financial resources or wherewithal to do the job. I could work for such a company, in the packaging department (prepping works for digital formats, creating covers, etc). But that would be about it for me.

The idea was to suggest new directions for existing publishers, those trying to figure out their future business model, to try. I'm not surprised by the resistance to the idea, of course, because it is very radical compared to the existing model. It has its good points and bad points. But that's why it deserves to be discussed.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that all publishers would have to adopt this model, nor would all authors be required to follow it (which, I suspect, some here have wrongfully assumed)... present and future authors could continue to do what they do now, assuming what they do is working for them. But this would provide a new avenue for other authors, particularly those whose work has languished in the slush pile but deserves to be seen.

And again, I oppose the idea that publishers should tell consumers what is and is not worth reading. I know how that sounds, too... but consider this: I have read plenty of books, books that I enjoyed greatly, that never won an award or ended up on the NYT Bestseller list. I've got a houseful of 'em. In boxes next to comic books. When I turn on the TV, I don't need Masterpiece Theatre to entertain me... I am thoroughly amused watching Chuck. In short, what I read may not be the award-winning best, but it is still entertaining to me... and that's good enough for me.

Now, consider: A publisher gets 50,000 submissions, they accept 10 "Masterpiece Theatre"-level works to publish, and the rest never leave the slush pile. I go to my bookstore, I look at all 10 books, and none of them interest me. But maybe some of those 49,990 others would have been enjoyed by me. So what service has that publisher done for me? Nothing.

The proposed plan would get more good books out there... maybe not more "Masterpiece Theatre"-level works, but at least more "Chuck"-level works. The P2P sites and portals would be reviewing them all, and separating the wheat from the chaff. Consumers will find the books they want by going to their trusted portals.

Maggie, I don't know how existing bookstores would fit into this model, unless they A) allow visitors to access book portals online for browsing and searches of books that are not necessarily at the store, and B) find a way to sell e-books at the storefront level. Otherwise, this alternative publishing process would be going on parallel to the bookstores continuing to sell books provided by traditional publishing houses, maintaining the schism between pub houses and vanity press, or between pub houses and self-published e-books.

[ficbot]

It's funny you mention bookstores, I was talking with my father about this the other day and he said he never goes into a bookstore specifically to buy a certain book. He goes in because he enjoys the experience of the bookstore and while he is there he will buy something if it interests him. I think a lot of people don't care much about the publisher or the supplier. They just want to browse the books and find something interesting.

I think publishers will use the time and resources they are not spending on the mechanics of printing to issue more books and they will try to build volume with things like ebooks and print on demand. And I think the bigger of the self-publishing sites will wind up self-regulating, with user ratings and reviews propelling the better books to the top of the list so people will find them.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I'm not surprised by the resistance to the idea, of course, because it is very radical compared to the existing model.

I'm not "resistant"-- I just do not see how burying everyone in a mountain of feces helps anyone.

I've never worked in a publishing house sifting through slush piles, but I've seen enough self-published and fan-fiction to see how the vast majority of it is utter garbage (including the self-published fiction that I've looked at here that gets high praise feedbacks, but of course I won't name names.)

I think you are underestimating just how bad bad writing can be. (Any chance you have some books sitting on slushpiles?)

When I turn on the TV, I don't need Masterpiece Theatre to entertain me... I am thoroughly amused watching Chuck.

But Chuck is a very funny, well written show. A better analogy would be, you don't mind watching hours of home videos shot on a shaky camcorder by your neighbor's cousin Bob featuring his two middle-school children acting out scenes from Harry Potter, a film which his elderly Aunt Doris tells him is as good as the work of Cecil B. Demille.

[neilmarr]

***The proposed plan would get more good books out there***

The proposed plan, Steve, would also get more bad books out there. We're back at square one and searching for needles in giant haystacks. Filtering systems scouts/agents/editors/publishers/retailers (yes, they're also part of the subjective selection process) are like the spam filter in your email programme: they save you having to wade through a load of junk, but the odd genuine message does get thrown out with the bathwater.

And when you talk about the resources you don't have to give publishing a go yourself, maybe consider what I did: I came out of a lucrative writing life because of health hiccups that prevented me from getting about and spent every red cent I had and ten years of my life without a penny of income to get BeWrite Books to where it is today, which ain't far.

With the help of three (now two) experienced and previously well paid professional fiction editors who agreed to work with me on a small royalties basis and a technical and admin side who did the same on an even smaller royalty, we've now made it work to the extent that only these past few months we've started to turn the corner. Gosh will our authors see a difference in their royalties cheques.

There's neuteral ground where we can meet, Steve, and where we might even discover some happy medium. We must all keep open minds right now.

'Fraid, though, I've got to bow out of this debate for a wee while. I've got a couple of weeks in hospital as of Tuesday. Maybe we can pick up on this later. It's an imortant topic and it does need to be thrashed out. I thank you for jumping in with both feet, even though I don't immediately agree with you on any point.

Also, Steve, you have my email adress I think if you want to go into more depth. My PC died on me yesterday, but I can tap my mail through this wee netbook here. The direct address, by the way, is netbookATbewrite.net. Imaginative, eh? (Oh -- use the @ sign of course.)

Best of luck everyone. Look forward to your company again when I'm back in the Land of the Living. Hoots. Neil

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

That, Steve, would put us in the same sub class as 'subsidised' publishing, which is really just a front to sell publishing services, including editorial.

Yes. And possibly, in order to avoid brand confusion, a publishing house that did this would need a different line-name for those books.

ALL the time we have is dedicated to making good books better, empowering the author and satisfying the reader. Editors working for a specific house cannot afford the time to work on a sub-standard manuscript that isn't even ready for edit.

They can if the author is paying for it. And in order to keep some level of quality, they can demand the right to approve the final book before release if the author's going to use their name on it--otherwise, the author can pay them for editorial advice, accept or reject any amount of it, and release the book through lulu or smashwords or whatever.

And if a house adjusts its policy on the lines you suggest to the extent that it becomes what amounts to vanity press, what does the reader get?

Ohgeeze, better than we're getting *now* from a lot of self-published ebooks.

I wouldn't expect this to make for a lot of excellent books. I'd hope it would improve the quality of some of the mediocre books--and in a rare handful of cases, be exactly the nudge an author needs to make her work professionally sale-able. But mostly not; it'd mostly be a way to encourage bad authors with a few decent story ideas to get spellchecked and grammar-edited and have the worst of their story contradictions fixed.

If an author wants to pay for services, OK, let him/her go to a company or freelance whose job it is to do that. The net's bursting with 'em.

It's not. Or rather, they're scattered and hard to find, and most don't have the ability to say honestly, "I know what it would take to make your story mainstream-publishable."

Most authors will not spend the money, though, and want the free professional services of a publishing house with an experience and expert staff and that covers everything and all costs.

And for those, you limit the offer to those works that are already of a certain quality level.

You'd be as amazed as I am disappointed to see terrible manuscripts I've declined popping up as self published at places like Lulu, word for word in their awful original form -- complete with bad grammar and spelling mistakes as well as wobbly story lines, carboard characters, wooden dialogue -- the whole catalogue of incompentence.

You left out "purple script fonts."

The worst of those would never consider paying for editing services, so they're not the authors being discussed here.

I must repeat, Steve, that not all self-publishers (some of whom turn to the system not because of rejection but because they cling to their independence) turn out unreadable nonsense.

Some are just writing on topics so esoteric they can't find a mainstream niche to publish in. And some of those would be greatly enhanced by editing, and still not mainstream-publishable.

My policy, though, is that the client is the reader and NOT the author. An author should pay NOTHING toward publication of his book. Not a red cent. I see that as a form of bribery and am profoundly hurt by the not infrequent offers I get from 'authors' to pay BeWrite Books to achieve publication with us.

And that's a professional decision, an ethical choice--having nothing to do with market forces or business opportunities.

You could, hypothetically, create a line called "BeTouched," and sell access to your editors and publishing advice, without offering inclusion in the BeWrite line. (I'm not suggesting it, just suggesting an example of how it could work in conjunction with current publishing practices.) Authors who paid for editing would have the option of including "beta'd by BeTouched" in their sales pitch, which might convince more people to buy their books.

I suppose, on further consideration, I'm not sure what kind of rates would apply. $50-100 seems like very little for professional editing services, even fairly cursory ones, and much more than that would block most would-be self-published authors. OTOH, $50-100 for spellcheck, *basic* grammar/punctuation check (the kind that proofreading people get twitchy when they're not allowed to make), and simple formatting might be reasonable, and would greatly improve the quality of some self-published ebooks.

[Jack Tingle]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

OTOH, $50-100 for spellcheck, *basic* grammar/punctuation check (the kind that proofreading people get twitchy when they're not allowed to make), and simple formatting might be reasonable, and would greatly improve the quality of some self-published ebooks.

And some professionally published ones as well. (rimshot)

It's an interesting model. If you can package it right, market it broadly enough, and keep hold of high quality standards in the services you offer, it might make some money without becoming a scam. There are a lot of author wannabees out there with some money in their pocket.

A reviewing company to separate the wheat from the chaff might also make money if this comes to pass.

Regards,
Jack Tingle

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Get better soon, Neil!

Originally Posted by neilmarr

The proposed plan, Steve, would also get more bad books out there.

Yup. As I said, I just want to put the filtering process in the hands of third parties, and out of the hands of publishers. But this way, the publishers get more work, take less risk, the market does the filtering work, and a few more good books get out.

Originally Posted by neilmarr

There's neuteral ground where we can meet, Steve, and where we might even discover some happy medium. We must all keep open minds right now.

Agreed. So let's keep discussing alternatives.

Originally Posted by ardeegee

I'm not "resistant"-- I just do not see how burying everyone in a mountain of feces helps anyone... (Any chance you have some books sitting on slushpiles?)

Nope. In my case, my preliminary letters to publishers all resulted in the same notice: "We are no longer considering outside and un-agented works." In other words, dismissed without even a look. And some of those were the books I sell on my website right now, and seem to be entertaining a few people.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

complete with bad grammar and spelling mistakes as well as wobbly story lines, carboard characters, wooden dialogue -- the whole catalogue of incompentence.

funny... many people attribute books of Dan Brown and other "best sellers" with the above attributes. Books which certainly have gone through the editing process with a publisher.

BTW: You spelled "cardboard" and "incompetence" incorrectly above. I'll give you "catalog" because you used the British spelling so I assume that is where are you from.

BOb

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

When I say the authors should be paying the publishers, I am not assuming the cost will be the same as what publishers pay to produce a book, including the entire print-based process, support of transportation, warehousing, etc, etc. The publishers basically would charge for editing and packaging services, period. We're talking about a few hundred dollars to a thousand, not much more. And it would be completely optional... if you don't think your work needs their services, don't use 'em. Or maybe just pay for proofing services, or just packaging. It's the author's choice, and it won't impact their ability to release their books... it will just make them better books. The idea would be for the author to make enough in sales to pay for the editing costs, or to accept them as operating losses.

The problem is that the publishers will be unable to compete price-wise with freelancers who currently provide the services to the publishers. Consequently, publishers will disappear and become freelancers themselves. Authors will have difficulty in determining freelancer skills, just as they do now. Additionally, you assume that authors are willing to absorb all these costs. My experience is that most authors are unwilling to absorb any editorial or production costs, preferring to ask their neighbor to give it a once over and to sell their best effort no matter how poor an effort it is.

Steve, the biggest problems I see with your plan are (a) getting authors to spend their own money on these services, (b) authors getting sufficient competitive distribution, and (c) authors devoting sufficient time and effort to self-promotion to recoup any of the costs they have prepaid (which leads us back to (a)).

As for the idea of authors accepting operating losses, if they don't do that now, why do you think they will do it in the future?

Yes, there are some authors who are willing to do (and currently do) just what you suggest and there are some authors who are quite capable of doing everything themselves and doing so successfully. But such authors are in the very small minority.

I also think there is one other aspect that hasn't been fully explored: the commercial value of carrying the, for example, Random House imprint on your book. Under your plan, it is likely that authors will be unable to sell any book for more than a dollar or two. This is a money-losing proposition if the author has all of the marketing, editorial, and production costs to front and absorb. The imprint of an established publisher helps create a market value for a book, something that is missing in your scheme.

I wish your plan was more viable; as a freelance editor and typesetter of 25 years' experience, it would likely increase my business. Unfortunately, I do not see it being viable but for a handful of authors.

[Kali Yuga]

Steve... I take it you never spent much time on MP3.com.

Self-publishers already have the option to hire freelance editors and a whole range of services to get their books out there. This has been the case for years. What's different now is that everyone and their mother believes they can be an author (and/or that writing a book is a goldmine), and the slush pile has grown to epic proportions.

In fact, it's gotten so bad that most big publishers will no longer look at unsolicited manuscripts. They well know there's a chance they will miss the next Philip Roth, but the reality is that there is too much dreck, and it's too expensive just to wade through it in the first place.


Tell you what, spend 40 hours wading through Smashwords and/or Scribd, only reading books that were not previously published.

Assuming you find any, call up a freelance editor and ask how much they charge to polish up a 300 page manuscript. Then call a professional illustrator or photographer and ask them the cost for cover art; while you're at it, ask them if they know a professional graphic designer who can put it all together for you. Of course you'll need a publicist and a national ad budget. It probably wouldn't hurt to hire someone to properly convert it into at least ePub, AZW and PDF.

Now, add up all those costs; my guess is it'll be around $20k not including marketing. I doubt many writers can afford this -- and if they can, why not just do it, list your book on Amazon DTP, and get 70% back per book?

And if someone's book really does take off that way, the publisher can sidle up to them, offer a nice advance, professional editors, national marketing, and other resources, and nab rights to the self-published books as well. It'll almost certainly cost less to cherry-pick the handful of winners from Smashwords than to sully their reputation by turning into a massive slush pile producer like Smashwords.

Got another business plan handy?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

$50-100 for spellcheck, *basic* grammar/punctuation check (the kind that proofreading people get twitchy when they're not allowed to make), and simple formatting might be reasonable, and would greatly improve the quality of some self-published ebooks.

$50 for an entire book? That seems way, way too low to me, I'm afraid. $50 per hour may be reasonable (although even that's on the low side), but how many hours would it take to do even a basic check of a typical novel? I'd say it would be several hours at a minimum.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

You can's just land readers with nonsense or expect serious professional editors to virtually re-write the not-so-good work of sub-standard authors. Life is literally too short for an editor to take the also-rans to publication. You would need editorial teams the size of armies.

Having experience editing such books, I can tell you that the editorial process costs many thousands of dollars for the not-so-good books of substandard authors. The last time I worked on one as a developmental editor, the client -- against my advice -- insisted on spending his money to get what he believed was a great book into publication shape and paid well over $15,000 for the editorial work. He was happy until he discovered that readers weren't interested in his book.

Publishing is an expensive crapshoot.