-
Website
http://Theharperstudio.com/ -
Original page
http://theharperstudio.com/2008/11/tribes-author-seth-godin-discusses-free-content-and-the-publishing-industry/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Seth is always so lucid and insightful. Here's what I translate him as saying:
Books are a small part of publishing in this day and age. Publishers should publish a lot more and be open to the new model of "selling souvenirs" as well. There's a reason authors like Suze Ordman can giveaway their book and still have it be their biggest seller when the hardcover version comes out.
It's also about building community. The drip of the book launch should not overshadow the work and communications that before, during and after launch.
People talk a lot and a launch date is only a small part of the conversation.
Let's look less at pub dates and more to the long runway of marketing a book. This is where our focus should be.
The vast majority of buyers only buy through the big venues instead of through the publisher website so most publishers can't break even if they don't have their books at places like Fictionwise.
I know that for every book I sell through one of my publishers' sites, I sell 100 or more at the big venues.
Here's why books have to be priced more expensively if they are to be sold through the big venues.
FictionWise makes 50% on each ebook sold so even if the publisher prices the book near cost, he would have to increase the price by 50% just to break even. Amazon/Kindle takes 66% of the cover price. The same problem.
What's left is usually divided evenly between the publisher and the writer if it's an epublisher, 15% for the author for major publishers.
And if the publisher doesn't put the book's price high enough, the middleman venues where a majority of ebooks are sold aren't interested in the product because they can't come out even after they do their usual price markdown.
If the publisher wishes to keep his books at the big venues, he can't undersell the books at his own site.
In the best of all possible worlds, the reader would pay a few bucks, but readers want the simplicity of buying at one site, not many, so the prices go up. Sad, but true.
The dinosaurs are doomed to extinction. Too bad, we need the talent that works for the publishing industry more than ever. There are more books, more ideas, and everything is moving faster.
I don't see anyone saying that editors and publishers and printers and e-book designers and booksellers should do it all for free: it seems only writers are supposed to do it for the joy of it. And in the nature of things, there will be some of us who will then no longer be able to afford to write at all, because it's next to impossible to write consistently well, and productively, over the years, while doing a full time job, and that's before you've added children to the equation. This model - which sounds so egalitarian, with its cry of 'May the most desirable writers win' - is actually deeply, poisonously elitist. It restricts creative practice to those who inherit or marry an independent source of income. Guess who won't be able to start and keep writing, if the market refuses to pay them anything at all? All the kinds of writer we need most, if writing is to go on being at the centre of cultural life and change: the new voices from hitherto silenced communities, the odd, the old and wise, the unpredictable, the erudite, the unfashionable, the un-pitchable, the un-sound-bite-able.
Besides, they haven't come up with an e-reader yet that works in the bath or in bright sunlight, so they're not much use in my two favourite reading places.
But the concept that one has to send a book to be reviewed by these few mighty reviewers by a certain date five months before pub date, is a little bit insane. Especially when so many conversations about books happen online, and so many major review sources are irrelevant to most book buyers' buying habits.
The exception would be the reviewers that influence Library purchasing decisions.
Giving things away or practically giving them away just for the sake of it, doesn't put money in writers' pockets.
Of course the Net is brilliant at some of these things, but the cumulative effect works best if they happen fairly close together . So it's not unreasonable for a publisher to try to make that happen while the newness still catches attention. Once a critical mass of interest (apologies for that metaphor) is established then it has its own momentum, which you hope keeps up till the new book comes out, and underpins that one's chances of being noticed in its turn. But if it isn't established at the beginning, it's very, very hard to prevent a book sinking without trace, except for a few bubbles floating up from well-sunk blogs.
I do agree, though, that print publishers have been slow to acknowledge the reach of the big reviewing blogs. It probably doesn't help that whereas circulation figures for print media are circulated and audited, so it's relatively easy to decide which are worth it, it's much, much harder to find these things out for the online sites. It sounds a big too organised and Premier-League and un-Net-ish, but perhaps the heavyweight sites should get together and find someone to audit their figures, to make a case for being taken seriously which publishers would recognise.
I also agree that digitalisation will enable more creativity, and more power to authors, not less. People in big corporations will make less money, but the people who create the content will have more opportunity to reap the rewards.
Few readers purchase more than 50 or 100 books a year. There's just not enough time! And many fine books require hours and hours; you just aren't going to zip through your textbook on quantum thermodynamics, whether it costs $1 or $100.
The print publisher focus on pub day arose from the dynamics of booksellers and their unique requirements. It's silly to complain to a publisher about this focus; they can't control it. The focus on pub day will erode as internet booksellers gain even more traction, and perhaps as POD gets an effective retail channel.
In advising an industry, it's really important to consider the specific needs of the industry. The book trade and the music business have vast differences in their economics, their products, their audience, their channels past and present; you can't ignore this.
I'm not saying that publishers have become obsolete, but I am saying that the music industry hurt from its own stubbornness to a great extent because musicians worked around them entirely. Seth isn't really correct when he says there's more music now. It's just that we (consumers) *know about* more music now because instead of it sitting in discarded demo tapes, it's circulating (sometimes widely) because musicians decided to publish it themselves. Similarly, I disagree with Warren. There aren't more ideas now, it's just that we're able to read more of them because more thinkers are able to publish.
Something that writers have that musicians don't is the means to inexpensively produce our work. We don't need expensive software, even, let alone instruments, microphones, or, for the most ambitious of us, recording studios.
Perhaps soon writers will do what musicians started doing, which is to ask the following:
What can a publisher provide me that I can't provide for myself? What can a publisher do better? How much money is that worth?
Commercial book publishing has never been particularly profitable, unlike the music industry: publishers have always had low profit margins, books are relatively expensive to produce (unlike CDs), and as far as I know it is the only business whose sellers can return all unsold stock back to their suppliers for a refund. I'm not familiar with price-fixing scandals in book publishing either, unlike what occurred in the music business in the 90s. So we're not talking about a business that has ever been in the business of rapaciously screwing consumers, like, say, the music business was.
One way they are similar, I guess, is that both businesses require extensive and expensive marketing and publicity efforts to promote their products, and this is one reason that "pub dates"--a concept which seems so strange to people here--are important. It's a crowded marketplace out there, with lots of competition for peoples' attentions. One reason why this "why don't people just publish books on their own" idea won't work is because, a) publishing houses employ professional editors who--and I know people don't believe this anymore, but it's true--actually edit books and make them better; perhaps more importantly, they have professional art departments and marketing and publicity departments who have relationships with media outlets--radio shows, televisions shows, newspaper and magazine reviewing sections--that can place those books so that they get the attention of readers; and they can do these things in a coordinated way so that there is a resonance--however brief--with the book-buying public.
There's obviously a place for ebooks in the business, and I believe most publishers are charging less for ebooks than they do for trade paperback versions of those books, so I'm not sure what the complaint is--if it's that a book--which took an author years to write and the combined efforts of many people at a publishing house a year to edit, publicize and sell--isn't priced at $.99, then I think that's a ridiculous idea. And every author I know would agree. Trading ideas is nice, and perhaps many writers would go on doing what they're doing for free anyway, but I for one, am happy that some can make a living at doing it.
Something that musicians have that writers don't is an easy way to make money from their art that is independent of the evolution of recording technology --- concerts. A band could give away all its recordings for free and people would still pay to see them perform. A writer gives away all his work for free and people will still pay to see --- what, exactly? There are, to be sure, writers gifted with rich, melodious speaking voices and a ready wit --- but they're pretty damn far from the rule, since being a good writer and being an entertaining public speaker are entirely different skills. Perhaps a business writer who has supplementary products related to their book to sell --- seminars, videos, etc --- can afford to give away their books. But for most writers, any value they're generating is there on the page. If technology evolves to the point where the page becomes free it is difficult to see how writers can make a living, unless they become the subjects of patronage, charity, and advertising.
First, many of the comments reflect the key insight/misunderstanding/hubris: The market doesn't care if you can't make money from this new model.
Sorry to say it, but it's true.
Second, the defensiveness in the face of opportunity is sad. The internet is like radio for books. It spreads ideas far and wide (fiction too, just ask MJ Rose). Instead of hiding from it and hoping it will go away, the opportunity is to embrace it. I'll repeat: I think most authors and illustrators care about people reached and money earned, not copies sold. Those are different things.
I have several free ebooks on my site, above, if you want more insight into this...
A Book is one static form of content, nothing more. This static piece of content is used to meet some of the needs of the authors readers/fans. A book is almost never the end all and be all for the reader. The book is one way for the author to develop a relationship with his/her audience.
What's interesting to note is that most publishers are having a hard time making money. Why? Because their model is broken.
If Publishers and authors intend to make money in the future the entire industry should be flipped on its head.
Publishing in the future, to be successful, should take on a venture capital role.
Publishers should stop investing in 1 piece of content (where they have small profit margins and very small margins) and start investing in the "Though Leader" themselves.
Authors typically don't make money from the sale of a book, they make money from what the book does for them and their business personally.
Publishers should be helping "Thought leaders" develop content, build their Though Leadership business and making revenue not just from the sale of the book, but from the other back end products and services they help to generate.
This would require a bigger investment by both Authors and Publishers but, would have a far better net for all parties involved.
Michael R. Drew
Promote A Book Inc.
512-586-6073
I don't think many musicians would agree that it's a piece of cake for them to go throw a concert and make lots of money.
But look at Seth, above, who just pointed us to writing he gives away (alongside the books he sells). Look at Cory Doctorow, whose books he gives away digitally alongside selling the same in print. He's the first to say it was a gamble in the beginning, and the first to say it's a gamble that paid off. Look at John Scalzi who gave away his first novel and proceeded to sell others (and now that first free novel is coming out [or is out] in print).
I gave away my writing for free by blogging, and I edited (for free) other people's work (which they gave away for free), and as a direct result I have five books in print (and many of the people whose work I edited have found paying contracts).
It's dangerous to think that musicians have it easy and writers have the cards stacked against us. Nobody has it easy. We all have the same opportunity to be creative and successful. Not everyone will be (look at all the bands you've never heard of. Oh, wait...).
Publishers will offer e-books and the market will decide to buy them or not. The price will be adjusted accordingly, but as Seth says, it will be somewhere between one dollar and fifteen dollars - it won't be free.
The market may not care if you make money from it (though the market is happy enough to give money to computer manufacturers, e-readers and internet providors) but if no one does it's not a market anymore.
1. There are some really top quality ebooks available online, many of them free but most are very, very hard to find by way of Google search.
2. Some authors offer free ebook versions of their book in order to promote their print version.
3. Some authors offer the first book in a series as a free ebook - effectively giving you a no risk sample in the hope you'll get hooked on the series, buy the rest of the print versions and tell your friends.
4. Those authors that really get internet marketing begin marketing before they begin writing in the hope that by publication time they have built a good readership base.
5. Just about all authors who self-publish ebooks publish them in DRM-free formats.
6. Self-publishing authors who charge for their ebooks set very resonable prices (e.g. $2-$5 for fiction, < $20 for non-fiction).
I agree with Seth on what needs to change - what will be interesting is which players adapt and get it right.
I love the idealism you express here (sounds a lot like Cory Doctorow's continuing refrain about anonymity versus income), but why is it that the examples cited are always the creators who've been doing it for a long time and already have a huge customer/fan base and lots of income coming in? Because those just starting out can't afford to be so altruistic for long enough to develop the following.
Obviously, we may be at an awkward cusp between the current "create something and get paid" economy and the "create something, but don't worry about getting paid, because your needs are provided for anyway" economy. I'd very much enjoy moving into the latter one, but at the moment, I'm too new, and must firmly plant myself in the former.
And as to your specific comment: "Authors don't care about units sold. They care about ideas spread." Again, that's the post-needs future, when we can get from "start" to "enough people know and love us to pay money to hear us speak" or however else we'll make our financial living.
Ian Randal Strock
Author, The Presidential Book of Lists
Editor, SFScope.com