HarperCollins’ New Publishing Format
Tags: book publishing, harpercollins
The other day, HarperCollins US announced a radical shift in their publishing policies when they launch a new imprint soon. The entire Wall Street Journal article is here, if you’d like to read it, but here’s the short version:
- Authors will no longer receive large advances
- Book sellers will no longer be able to return books
- They will no longer engage in co-op programs at book stores
I think, given the radically shifting book market, these are fantastic moves to be making. While they might initially lose authors with this model, it reverses the ridiculous “wait and see” approach of publishing– that is, throwing a bunch of money at a book and wait and see if it does well. It’s a much more efficient business model.
The Wall Street Journal argues that the largest impact on the publishing industry will be the non-returnable aspect of this new approach. I can’t help but wonder what this will do for the creative element of the industry.
According to WSJ, executive Robert S. Miller “thinks he will attract major authors who have a book in the desk drawer that doesn’t fit their image, as well as up-and-coming writers.”
Without books costing publishers so much money up front with expensive advances, they will be able to publish more books. And when you publish more books, the avenue opens for more authors and more voices to enter the publishing industry, and gives consumers more content to choose from.
According to HarperCollins executive Jane Friedman, who spoke to the New York Times,
At this moment of real volatility in the book business, when we are all recognizing things that are difficult to contend with, like growing advances and returns and that people are reading more online, we want to give them information in any format that they want (my emphasis).
I wonder how such a model would work for the Canadian publishing industry. Yes, the Canadian publishing industry isn’t nearly as competitive as the American one, but I believe such an approach would further solidify the mandate of furthering Canadian cultural production as well as streamlining the business side of publishing, as well as empowering book stores and consumers to select titles that are right for them.
I think this is a really deeply ugly precedent for publishing and Canadian writers.
According to the latest statistics from the Writers Union of Canada, most Canadian writers are currently living under the poverty line. This is a painful reality most of the folks in the publishing industry won’t ever have to deal with - except in the pages of the works they sell.
Authors spend, on average, six months to several years producing the the goods the publishing industry distributes. Producing a book is a full time job, not a hobby. Authors have to buy food, pay hydro and phone bills and cover their own dental and drug costs (unlike the salaried marketing and editorial staff who misplace their invoices just before heading off for paid holidays). I cannot tell you the number of authors I know who have had their heat, phone or electricity disconnected due to late or stalled payments from publishers.
The truth of the matter is this: the real cost to the publishing industry right now is paper and increasingly limited sales of the papery products they call books. There are alternatives - most of these are paperless.
The publishing industry should pick a fight with the folks who have the big money: the pulp and paper industry. Not the booksellers or writers - they are the last shred of meaning industry that has been taken over by marketing specialists.
BTW - the article states: “little or no advances” to authors (as opposed to “large” advances). Again, this is of substantial meaning to anyone who makes their living as an author - anywhere.
Harlan Ellison gives some meaning to the difference between the way cultural producers view the value of their work versus those salaried professionals who deign to rip creatives off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
While I think Melanie makes a very strong point from the perspective of writers and booksellers and while I also don’t necessarily agree with all of the moves made by HarperCollins US, from a marketing standpoint — there are just way too many books being published. There is also not enough focus on what customers really want but that’s another story.
The idea that producing a book is a full time job is only partially true in my opinion. There is no way that majority of authors can make a living simply by writing one or two books for an entire year — most Canadian publishers cannot afford to pay that much money. Most authors aren’t able to demand large enough advances so they write their book on top of their full time job. Almost all Canadian publishers rely on grants from the government for their titles. There’s a lot of speculation about eliminating returns and how it may revitalize the industry but rather I think one of the key elements to eliminating returns is through Print-On-Demand (POD).
From my personal perspective, the bookselling and publishing industry cannot continue to function as it has been because it does not make sense nor will it assist in helping to grow the industry. The future of the book industry is not in the traditional form of a book anymore, it is the content within that product we refer to as a book. I realize that my statement typically triggers fear in the hearts of a great number of people but I also think one of the key things to understand is that the format of any content can always be changed and made available.
Melanie’s last paragraph is hard to argue with. She’s not necessarily wrong but at the same time I wouldn’t say that booksellers or writers are the last shred of meaning
Very interesting points to consider! Thanks you guys!
Thanks Ehren. Actually, my partner is a full time author. He makes his living exclusively as an author. He writes kids books but has to write quite a few in any given year to stay afloat. I do know authors (among them some well known Canadian authors) who have spent an entire year working on a single novel. It really depends on the nature of the work.
But most novelists do not have day jobs. They need their mornings/afternoons for writing. And they write very little on a daily basis. This is why the process is so time consuming. They may spend additional hours researching or reviewing existing material. This is why they apply for writer’s grants. Because this money pays for all that seemingly unproductive time spent thinking. Since most writing doesn’t happen at the keyboard but in thought.
I recognise the role that everybody else plays in producing a book but I live with a person who comes up with the raw goods. I know the hard work that is for him and other authors. Some days the ideas just don’t come. It’s not like other work. But like all other work it has value. And the value of this work in our culture is priceless. It IS culture.
If publishers seek to cut costs, they should start with the billion dollar paper contracts. That’s where all the money is.
Melanie, I do agree that culture is important although I am hesitant to broadly tag it with the word priceless, nevertheless I think the whole book industry (authors, publishers, and booksellers) needs to rethink their role — focusing on more than just reducing advances or renegotiating paper contracts. Especially since public perception of books are changing.
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, but if you can’t support yourself with writing, then you should do something else. My partner is a columnist and he knows that if he couldn’t support us(in addition to my own income), than he would get out of it.
Also,I know it doesn’t help the environment, but I wouldn’t buy a paperless book.