Guest Column : The New Give-to-Get Publishing Economy: Edith D. Wilson, R.I.P.
Traditionally reclusive publishers need to change to thrive in today's social economy.
May 2009 By Carolyn PittisFast-forward two decades and we are in a vastly different book publishing landscape, one that is being impacted by a convergence of both long-predicted and recent “Black Swan” events. Search engines have, for some, displaced book retailers as the starting place for book selection. Self-publishing has moved from the margins to the mainstream; what were once considered vanity houses are now powerful content creation and distribution platforms. Social networks and no-cost marketing platforms like Facebook and Twitter have exploded, empowering consumers as buyers and opinion leaders in new ways.
This is occurring while traditional vehicles for driving book awareness—print-based book reviews and ads—are declining. The list of things that are different now than they were in Edith’s day is pages long. Most importantly, however, in this marketplace, anyone choosing reclusivity or anonymity over engagement chooses irrelevance.
So, how do book publishers add visible value for their authors and consumers in new ways? What needs to change, and perhaps more importantly, what needs to stay the same? As both a publishing “insider” and a frequent reader of publishing’s critics, I am often struck by how the public discussion of these questions is fundamentally different than private ones, how the focus of those inside publishing houses is different from those in the blogosphere. Beyond publishers’ walls, the tremendous value editors and their publishing colleagues provide in helping an author create a publishable work is often unknown. Yet, the vast majority of publishing time and energy go into just this activity—the core of what publishers do.
In the blogosphere, some opine about how hidebound and irrelevant publishers now are, how slow to change and resistant to risks. It makes good copy sometimes—I know I always bite on the most critical headlines first! Rare are the critics, however, who have concrete, insightful, specific suggestions of how to evolve publishing without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Black-and-white thinking and talk of violent revolution distract many from the natural evolution that is both occurring and will likely be more sustaining for the “book” economy in the long run.
Companies Mentioned:
 |
|
Great article, although, as a publisher who tries to be very open in our blog, I can testify that it can be a little scary.
Pittis is right that a huge amount of publishing value added lies in editorial, but, by mutual agreement, the degree of this value is discretely hidden, especially where the publisher's support was most helpful. What author wants the public to know what a mess his or her initial submission was?
On the other side are the authors (see e.g. Taleb Nassim, as described in his book The Black Swan, which Pittis references) who feel the editorial process has negative value. It's tricky how much of this can be made public.
Add to this the fear that the emperor is wearing no clothes. That, as ebooks come to dominate the marketplace (which may never happen, I know), publisher's traditional value added - distribution and trade marketing - becomes less important than on-line marketing and brand building, something publishers are notoriously bad at. Maybe being too open will make these weaknesses more apparent than is desirable.
This is a simple, smart idea, nicely articulated. I'm not convinced most publishing houses are on board with losing control of messaging by having editors writing directly to the blogosphere, but I commend the concept. As someone who tries to find a balance between preservation and evolution in publishing, it's nice to see a thoughtful response to the discussions happening inside and outside publishing houses.
As a non-anonymous blogger I couldn't agree more. It's sad how people discount the fabulous work editors and publishers do to make a book happen and that's a whole lot more then printing it on paper and putting it in stores. Sure, there's no doubt that do-it-yourself publishing is getting a lot of attention, but to assume editors aren't necessary is insanity.
I think one of the biggest reasons editors remain quiet is that at the end of the day they work for corporate America and those who have voiced knowingly have gotten into more then a little trouble.
--Jessica Faust
Literary Agent, BookEnds
HI. I saw this on twitter today. I read it, and along with another article created a blog post, "Behind the scenes of the publishing world". Great article.
I LOVE to read. On one of my blogs I write about this love, and review books. Thanks for the insider's info.
I so loved reading this article. It's about time someone recognized the HUGE role editors play in a book's creation. My editor at Thomas Nelson, Ami McConnell, and my freelance editor, Erin Healy, are fabulous. I'm always excited when I get their ideas for strengthening my book. Ami has insight to character that is incredible. Everyone needs a good editor. For example, when I talk about my favorite novel of all time, The Stand by Stephen King, I tell friends to read the 1st one that came out--the EDITED version. Even King needs an editor!
Editors are worth every penny they're paid. And more.
Having recently read "The Business of Books" i was interested to see how this is in some ways a continuation of his ideas about publishing. He's more trad oriented as to format, but his ideas about how publishing has become inaccessible are along the same lines.
I think there will always be a place for experienced, knowledgeable people in the world of information, but new tech is definitely blowing a cyclone through the neighborhoods of form, so to speak. Thanks for this thought-provoking post.