Recently, I happened catch sight of this interesting headline (probably on Twitter):
12 Common Misperceptions About Book Publishing.
Curiosity piqued and not one to shut out other points of view, I figured I'd read the post. It was interesting, but I don't know that I was all that surprised by most of it. Well, maybe a thing or two.
There are a couple of points in it that seemed worthy of mention. (I've quoted the post in italics, with emphasized points in bold, along with my responses.) Such as the first misconception:
1. It’s all about the front list.The front list gets all the attention because new things almost always do and the books on the front list are by definition new. Also, an editor’s reputation may live and die with her choices of what to publish next. But a publisher’s real asset — the majority of its good will, in business parlance — is the backlist, those books that deliver steady sales year in and year out. It’s the ballast in the ship, the revenue that keeps the lights on. It’s the main reason why some entity would bother to buy an existing publishing house at all. And the absence of a backlist is the reason why newly formed publishers often prove short lived, even despite occasional front list success.Okay. Are you surprised by this? Shockingly, I'm not. And, um, have you noticed a list that's conspicuously absent? Let's see. It starts with "m" and rhymes with "idlist."
Anyhow, #2 goes on to state:
Small publishers care more about books than commercial publishers do. We all know that isn't true. Small publishers care more about their
authors than big ones. That's because they're small and (as stands to reason) can give their authors more individualized attention. Anyhow, that's my impression from what I hear from authors who've experienced both worlds. Of course, ALL publishers care about books. That's their business. They'd be idiots not to. Er, um, next.
3. Editors no longer edit.Someone who used to work at a big commercial house recently told me the story of getting a call a few years ago from his publisher, wondering why he was working from home for the second day in a row. The editor explained that he was working on a crash editing project for a book that was important to the house. “Get into the office,” the publisher urged. “Your problem is that you edit too much.While this story may seem to illustrate the opposite of my intention, to my mind it shows the exception that proves the rule. Because the fact is that that editor was taking the trouble to edit.Okay, so there's at least one editor out there who's actually willing to edit? I must say I'm impressed.
Just randomly pull some books off the shelf at Barnes & Noble or your favorite independent and read the acknowledgments. You’ll find a lot of people thanking their editors for making their books better. Nobody made them write those thank-yous. They could have thanked their editors for the great lunch or for the advance check, instead.Well, it's awesome to know there's more than one editor who's actually willing to edit and help make books better, etc. (Or maybe all these authors are thanking the same editor. Who knows?)
However, here's my problem. For every gem of an editor out there (and I KNOW they exist -- I hear about them from other authors), how many other editors are falling down on the job? And for every well-edited book you see on the market, how many poorly edited ones are sharing shelf space with them? I'm afraid it's quite a few.
Okay, so #4 --
Editors undergo rigorous training. I've never assumed such a thing. #5?
Publishers fact check. Two words: James Frey. #6 --
Bestseller lists feature bestsellers. Paradoxical, yes, but most of us know this is a kind of myth in the sense that simply selling more books to readers won't necessarily put you on these lists. Every author knows the New York Times bestseller list is based on mysterious factors that may or may not reflect actual popularity. And I find the distinction between sales velocity and aggregate sales interesting, but the idea that sales velocity trumps aggregate sales is rather sad.
However, #7 gives one reason to pause:
7. Publishers lose money on books with unearned advances.This is one of those misperceptions that seem to confirm common sense, but the fact is that a publisher can make money on a book where the author never earns back the advance against royalties. Remember that the publisher is receiving about half the retail price of the book and paying to the author’s royalty account only at most 30 percent of that revenue. If the publisher keeps its costs down, it can use a portion of the 70 percent that’s left to write off the author’s advance and still make money.Um, okay. So, you're telling me that all these midlist authors I know who've gotten piddling (by comparison) advances COULD have gotten bigger ones and their publishers still would have made a profit? If that's so, then how come there's so much pressure on midlist authors to improve their sales numbers? How come failure to make sufficient sales is cited as reason for dropping an author?
Hold on. Here's a thought.
Whose costs are the publishers keeping down, in order to make money despite inability to earn back large advances? Think hard. I think I may have mentioned them earlier in this post. (You know, that conspicuously absent list that starts with "m"?)
Okay, so #8 --
A big unearned advance will kill your next book deal. Sure, it might not kill your next book deal, but how likely is it that you'll get another big advance? Not very, I'd think. So saying "the fact that your last publisher made a massive miscalculation shouldn’t — and usually doesn’t — influence what happens to the next work" seems like a bit of an overstatement to me.
On to #9 --
Big advances guarantee publisher support. Apparently not, particularly in light of #7. And thanks for clearing up that misperception. Here I actually thought there was a valid reason publishers were such cheapskates about midlist author advances.
As for #10 --
Authors are rich. -- Haha.Hahaha!! HaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
Then on to:
11. Agents are insiders.
If the market is a herd of elephants, booksellers are underneath being trampled to death while the sales force wipes the blood off their faces and other members of the publishing team stand nearby wringing their hands. In this (really bad) metaphor, agents are a mile away, trying to figure out what’s going on by putting their ears to the ground.Oh, wow. I love this metaphor. I guess it's supposed to mean agents don't understand selling trends anymore than anyone else. But ... wait a minute. What was the question?
And finally:
12. The cost of paper determines book prices
The price of a book — like the price of every created thing — rests upon what the market will bear. As for costs, printing, paper and binding are often the least of it. In a business that relies on the intelligent and highly educated, people are the most expensive input. This explains why big publishers are in a flat-out panic over e-books. If a $9.95 e-book displaces a $29.95 hardcover because that’s what the market will bear, the revenue differential isn’t commensurate with the savings on printing, paper and binding. One solution to this dilemma would be to pay those intelligent, highly educated people smaller salaries and relocate them to Bangalore. A more palatable solution might be to find a really rich guy who’s bored with his sports team.Hmm. Those seem like rather limited and extreme options. Have you considered lowering the price of your ebooks to increase sales? It's worked for a lot of indie authors.
