Comments on: Will Book Publishers Ever Be Irrelevant?

By: Mark Young

Mark Young — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:41:03 +0000

Thanks for this thought-provoking article., Bobbie. Unfortunately, the vote could not have recorded what a group of readers thought. I think if readers had more of a voice, legacy publishers might start quaking in their boots about the future. On the other hand, maybe readers will ultimate register their vote where it really counts–the pocketbook.

By: fabianschonholz

fabianschonholz — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:52:47 +0000

I do not think so … but they will definitely change their model to adapt. Otherwise they will perish.

By: Bobbie Johnson

Bobbie Johnson — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:42:39 +0000

It’s definitely not that self-publishing itself will make mainstream publishing irrelevant (it won’t). But if publishers can’t learn from what they see in front of them, then they face something that’s far more likely and far more dangerous.

If the tools being explored by self publishers are successfully co-opted by non-publishing outfits that want to move into the space, they’re screwed. Almost all the professional infrastructure that the publishing industry uses is already available outside that framework (most editors are freelance, for example). So if Amazon finds a way to route around publishers and offer authors a better deal with relatively similar outcomes, why wouldn’t authors take it?

Bridle suggested — and I’m tempted to agree, from the material I’ve seen — that the digital product that mainstream publishers put out is often crap: full of errors, transcoding mistakes, glitches, poorly done. Where’s all that experience and expertise going?

The author relationships that publishers used to pride themselves on are being replaced by agents. The publishing and distribution part of their process is being replaced by technology firms. Discovery is outsourced. Risk is mitigated by banking on writers with already-developed audiences. And so on.

I’d love it for publishers to stay strong and healthy and good, but many (though not all) of them are doing a great case to push for their own extinction.

By: Cyndy Aleo

Cyndy Aleo — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:40:09 +0000

I get so tired of seeing the same mantra. Self-publishing won’t take over the world. The simple reality is that media industries need gatekeepers. 99.9% of the books being self-published, and that will continue to be self-published, are books that probably shouldn’t see the light of day.

Think I’m wrong? Go download a few freebies or $0.99 books on Kindle that don’t have Hocking or Konrath as an author. In this instant-gratification-craving society, too many writers are self-publishing because they aren’t willing to put in the time and effort to hone their craft. Add in an overall lack of knowledge about marketing books, designing covers, formatting, and most of all, editing, and you’ll simply find that much of the slush that has traditionally piled up on agents’ and editors’ desks is now being e-pubbed for your reading “pleasure.”

Traditional publishers aren’t ignoring digital at all, but the tech community apparently expects everything to happen overnight and at no cost. You get what you pay for. I prefer to pay for quality over a quantity of not-ready-for-primetime.

By: Carl

Carl — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:33:09 +0000

“But in fact, the growth in profits comes because they’re cutting back on what’s unique about them — the relationship with authors, the expertise in editing, design, typography, the quality of output, the nurturing side of the business.”

I think that’s what it comes down to. Publishers could very easily be relevant in the digital world, but traditional publishers are abandoning that which would make them relevant. Which prompts the question of whether they can figure this out and change course, or whether they will be replaced, either entirely by self-publishers or by self-publishers and a new generation of digital-first publishers.