“Do you have a book in you” was a great read and the points of challenge in trade publishing made in your letter very much on-target. Some of these challenges, of course, are inherent—especially the promotion, marketing, and sales of books—but other challenges are still relatively new, such as the digital publishing technologies and the resistance of senior editorial workers regarding this technology. I spent much of my career focused on this latter challenge, having moved from book publishing as an acquisition and developmental editor to editorial positions in trade periodicals focused on digital publishing technologies and business processes. I was especially interested in the editorial interface in digital publishing, but even today, the technology piece of the process is too often handed off to the technologist-as-shaman, with the editorial worker thinking of the technology as a “black box,” and so the potential value contribution of editors is diminished.
On the other hand, these days self-publishing has taken over much of book publishing, at least in terms of sheer numbers; in science fiction, for example, an Amazon search for “science fiction books” modified by “released in the last 30 days” numbers over 10,000 titles. The vast majority of these are self-published. As your letter and some of the comments have pointed out, the editorial services (e.g., line editing, copy-editing, proofreading) from trade publishers have been disappearing, and the situation is even worse for the self-published, and the struggle to promote and market a book has not gotten easier, even as the this falls to the author more these days with traditional publishers and certainly even more so for the self-published. One of the ironies is that the digital form of books should make discoverability easier, but the same technology contributes to such huge numbers of books that finding new titles is made difficult due to the “signal-to-noise” problem of more needles in more haystacks. The meta-data work—the most valuable of which being editorial in nature—should make finding titles more efficient and accurate, but the associative and taxonomy meta-data is left to algorithms and not subject and category experts because that is cheaper.
And then there is the challenge of book publishing being a low-margin business, and editors are considered too much an expense.
Looking for committed, qualified staff at the entry level? Try recruiting retired academics. Most of us have an interest in publishing, some experience with publishers, and time to focus on projects. Perhaps turn publishing into a guild-like enterprise, with teams recruited to bring specific book proposals to fruition from the acquisition stage to flogging the finished project. I know many people who, if approached to work on a project that interested them, would do so for minimal pay.
Bravo, Karen. In the past five years, my experience with a major textbook publisher ran downhill from exhilaration to anger and gloom. My late friend and the great Islamicist Charles Beckingham once told me he was sure that the top executives of a London publisher he dealt with, a publisher still in the game, held regular meetings to devise new ways to avoid selling books. And that was twenty-five years ago. I wish you the best in this endeavor. Authors will flock to you. Probably me.
Hi, Karen. I have long enjoyed your posts for their clarity and humanity. As a longstanding self-published author (since 2000, with 7 editions), I can say that maintaining longevity demands that I have a market that I can feed easily and regularly. My book, Research Strategies: Finding your Way through the Information Fog, has generated about $200,000 in royalties since 2000. This is not because it is a natural hot seller. It's in a niche market. But my niche knows me through listserv posts, other academic publications in my field, and what I call "marketing by service" (being open to offer advice and encouragement to the many librarians who e-mail me).
I am now being deluged by agents and marketers offering to help me get my book published in the mainstream. I've turned them all down. Why? First, because I want the flexibility to control my marketing and bring out new editions whenever I see the need. Second, I have my niche market in hand, and there simply is no other market. Believe me, I've tried. Third, I want to control the price ($21 and no more). Though I have published several books in the mainstream, the real action is in my self-published title.
If you are hoping to do a trade line, I would focus on authors who know (and can be in touch with) their readers. I would keep prices low. Beyond that, I really don't have much advice.
This is quite interesting and it is good to think about publishing and how some of its elements might be shifted or gotten around. However, it is also disappointing that gender biased speech is back or revived, and particularly at the beginning of such a piece in would should be the opening that captures attention. I guess it did kind of capture my attention but not in a positive way, and I would find it difficult to share the item. Words do matter and at some point in time it did seem well realized that gender based occupational and other such references did shape an often unconscious association of males that also 'naturalized' males as the 'normative' means of being human. There are recommended replacements for those once gender-biased (male-biased) terms, and 'salespeople' seems neither a difficult one nor an awkward one.
“Do you have a book in you” was a great read and the points of challenge in trade publishing made in your letter very much on-target. Some of these challenges, of course, are inherent—especially the promotion, marketing, and sales of books—but other challenges are still relatively new, such as the digital publishing technologies and the resistance of senior editorial workers regarding this technology. I spent much of my career focused on this latter challenge, having moved from book publishing as an acquisition and developmental editor to editorial positions in trade periodicals focused on digital publishing technologies and business processes. I was especially interested in the editorial interface in digital publishing, but even today, the technology piece of the process is too often handed off to the technologist-as-shaman, with the editorial worker thinking of the technology as a “black box,” and so the potential value contribution of editors is diminished.
On the other hand, these days self-publishing has taken over much of book publishing, at least in terms of sheer numbers; in science fiction, for example, an Amazon search for “science fiction books” modified by “released in the last 30 days” numbers over 10,000 titles. The vast majority of these are self-published. As your letter and some of the comments have pointed out, the editorial services (e.g., line editing, copy-editing, proofreading) from trade publishers have been disappearing, and the situation is even worse for the self-published, and the struggle to promote and market a book has not gotten easier, even as the this falls to the author more these days with traditional publishers and certainly even more so for the self-published. One of the ironies is that the digital form of books should make discoverability easier, but the same technology contributes to such huge numbers of books that finding new titles is made difficult due to the “signal-to-noise” problem of more needles in more haystacks. The meta-data work—the most valuable of which being editorial in nature—should make finding titles more efficient and accurate, but the associative and taxonomy meta-data is left to algorithms and not subject and category experts because that is cheaper.
And then there is the challenge of book publishing being a low-margin business, and editors are considered too much an expense.
Looking for committed, qualified staff at the entry level? Try recruiting retired academics. Most of us have an interest in publishing, some experience with publishers, and time to focus on projects. Perhaps turn publishing into a guild-like enterprise, with teams recruited to bring specific book proposals to fruition from the acquisition stage to flogging the finished project. I know many people who, if approached to work on a project that interested them, would do so for minimal pay.
Ross Dunn
just now
Bravo, Karen. In the past five years, my experience with a major textbook publisher ran downhill from exhilaration to anger and gloom. My late friend and the great Islamicist Charles Beckingham once told me he was sure that the top executives of a London publisher he dealt with, a publisher still in the game, held regular meetings to devise new ways to avoid selling books. And that was twenty-five years ago. I wish you the best in this endeavor. Authors will flock to you. Probably me.
Hi, Karen. I have long enjoyed your posts for their clarity and humanity. As a longstanding self-published author (since 2000, with 7 editions), I can say that maintaining longevity demands that I have a market that I can feed easily and regularly. My book, Research Strategies: Finding your Way through the Information Fog, has generated about $200,000 in royalties since 2000. This is not because it is a natural hot seller. It's in a niche market. But my niche knows me through listserv posts, other academic publications in my field, and what I call "marketing by service" (being open to offer advice and encouragement to the many librarians who e-mail me).
I am now being deluged by agents and marketers offering to help me get my book published in the mainstream. I've turned them all down. Why? First, because I want the flexibility to control my marketing and bring out new editions whenever I see the need. Second, I have my niche market in hand, and there simply is no other market. Believe me, I've tried. Third, I want to control the price ($21 and no more). Though I have published several books in the mainstream, the real action is in my self-published title.
If you are hoping to do a trade line, I would focus on authors who know (and can be in touch with) their readers. I would keep prices low. Beyond that, I really don't have much advice.
Stay well. William Badke
This is quite interesting and it is good to think about publishing and how some of its elements might be shifted or gotten around. However, it is also disappointing that gender biased speech is back or revived, and particularly at the beginning of such a piece in would should be the opening that captures attention. I guess it did kind of capture my attention but not in a positive way, and I would find it difficult to share the item. Words do matter and at some point in time it did seem well realized that gender based occupational and other such references did shape an often unconscious association of males that also 'naturalized' males as the 'normative' means of being human. There are recommended replacements for those once gender-biased (male-biased) terms, and 'salespeople' seems neither a difficult one nor an awkward one.