Janny Wurts on Slow Burn in publishing

[Teresa Edgerton]

Of course some of this is due to pressure by the big corporations that bought up the publishers. That means that people who don't know how the book industry works are making a lot of the decisions. Which is ... well, if not precisely crazy, at least short-sighted. But executives at big corporations are often short-sighted. They are only looking as far ahead as their next bonus.

But, yes, it is terrifying if you are looking to make a career as an author. That doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't plenty of authors who do succeed. However, for new authors the old motto "don't quit your day job" is more true than ever. No one should quit their job just because they've sold a book and it is doing reasonably well. Except for a very popular series, each book could be the last.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Well that's (a) terrifying and (b) mad.

Isn't it just.... I think getting local bookstore support is a big one, still, though. Everyone started small. That's okay. But try to find somewhere prepared to give support over the long term if you can. Even if you're thr shyest author in the world, if you network nowhere, network with the local booksellers.

 

[Dave]

I don't think we will ever return to the small independent bookshops. The Internet has done for that. Though I have just been to Iceland, and there were many, many small independent bookshops in Reykjavik. Maybe it is the long dark nights, or the cold, or maybe the language.

Obviously, what you described is wrong, but I still say that it isn't computer tracking itself that is wrong, but it is publishers and booksellers using it as the sole indicator of whatever they think they are supposed to be doing. It is similar to the possible situation with stock market predicting computers that tell investors when to buy and sell. It hasn't happened yet, but since they are all using the same software they will all buy and sell at the same time, leading to the potential for a huge crash at some point, for no valid reason. It would simply be a product of flaws in the algorithm itself, exaggerated and stepped up like a Butterfly Effect.

All I'm saying is that people need to think for themselves and not rely on computers to tell them what to do, or to use them as an excuse to make bad decisions. You do realise that they are never going to return to the old way they did things, so any solution must come from better practice.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Yes, it's a broken model. Tbf, I think some of the publishers know that. I'm not sure what the answer is, though.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

All I'm saying is that people need to think for themselves and not rely on computers to tell them what to do, or to use them as an excuse to make bad decisions. You do realise that they are never going to return to the old way they did things, so any solution must come from better practice.

Of course they aren't going to return to the old ways. The way things are right now seem to suit the corporations just fine. Writers are a renewable resource, so they can use us up and throw us away as it suits them. But without the computer tracking system they might have stuck with the old model ... or, more likely, and better still, decided that there wasn't enough money to be made by buying up publishers, and left the book trade to go on as it had done very comfortably for a long time.

For those who are successful, the system works very, very well. For writers starting out, why not aim for that kind of success, while keeping reasonable expectations? (Reasonable expectations being the key.)

For us tired old hacks ... excuse me, former midlist writers ... we need to find other ways. That's disappointing and discouraging after all the hopes we had when we were younger and seemed to be on a steady career path, and I think we have a right to be crabbéd and cantankerous, but after that we have to get on with things and either get out of the business (many have) or try other options, with no guarantees of making a decent living whatever we do.

 

[Dave]

As I said, I know nothing about publishing, but it cannot be in their own interests either, not to nurture new writers. There is a similar problem with training and apprenticeships. Short-sighted companies cut training budgets during recessions and then when business picks up find that they need more qualified staff but cannot find them. They poach staff from rival companies and companies end up eating each other. The companies that are worst affected are those that didn't cut training and and actually did the right thing, unless their staff realise what a good company they work for. However, that kind of staff loyalty is something from the past too. Usually, money talks loudest. If they carry on this way, the publishers are going to find that they have no good writers left.

Anyway, thanks for informing us of this huge change in your industry as I was not aware it was so sweeping. I expect that a fairly popular author, with a loyal following could easily self-publish, but you still have the problem of marketing the book yourself. Is there such a thing as a Writers Co-operative, run and managed by the writers themselves?

 

[Dave]

I did some searching online and I see that there are plenty of "writer's co-operatives" but they are not what I meant at all. They seem to be only talk-shops and writer's circles to support writing, much like the writing forums here at Chronicles do.

What I meant was something more along the lines of a Retailer's Co-operative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retailers%27_cooperative owned and run by the writers for their own benefit; in effect some kind of micro-publisher.

I know writers, artists and sculptors don't like to think of themselves as a business, and that the struggling artist is a romantic concept, but everyone needs to eat and pay bills, so you need to keep an eye on that as well as on your art. From the talk here it seems some have given up the fight!

When people start small businesses, they also have great ideas that they are passionate about, but they often neglect to think about the other things such as marketing, advertising, suppliers, premises, equipment, training, accounts, tax. Those are the boring things, but often those are why the business will fail. That's why banks will ask you for a detailed business plan before lending any money to you.

Anyway, I think a writer's co-operative is part of your answer to fix that. You can share resources and experience. You can save money by economies of scale. If large enough you can employ staff like accountants to share between you.

I realise that still doesn't get your book on the shelf of a bookshop though.

 

[HareBrain]

Is there such a thing as a Writers Co-operative, run and managed by the writers themselves?

There's something like that in my town, CHINDI (Chichester Independent Authors) which you need to have SPed to join. I also remember reading about one other in the States that did erotica. I'm sure there are more.

I had the same idea myself a while back, of four or five authors combining marketing, cross-marketing, sharing a website etc, but haven't done anything with it yet.

 

[millymollymo]

All the more reason to support the small book seller that doesn't use the complex software, makes book buying a personal experience, and has time for us annoying "new blood" authors that are trying to find their place on the shelf.
Likewise indie/small publishers - they too can dig into this niche. There are not many small book stores but they will (and do having spoken to a few) appreciate the author/publisher team that goes the extra mile, not sat there looking at their watch all the time.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

There's also the argument that having a day job keeps authors grounded. I'm not sure I'd like to be at home all day every day writing things.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The problem with such a cooperative as you propose, Dave, is that unless those already part of it were selective about which books/authors they let join, it would still lack the sort of reputation that the big companies have, the reputation that is good for so many sales and one of the greatest advantages that writers forgo when they self-publish. Many self-published writers complain that so many readers won't give their books fair consideration, and that the good is reflexively lumped in with the bad. I can only think their plight would be much worse if they lumped themselves in by allowing the same books they would wish to distance themselves from into the same cooperative.

But how to choose who is allowed in and who is not without fostering a lot of bad feelings, both within the cooperative (people might want their friends to be allowed to join, while others might think those friends would bring the quality down) and outside it (nobody likes to be told they aren't worthy to be a member of a group they have asked to join)? Would it be worth it to get the extra sales? Maybe. Or it might be self-defeating because of all the ill-will and the resultant bad-mouthing that could result. (Or maybe not. Maybe that would pique readers' interest and be good publicity for the cooperative. Who knows?)

 

[HareBrain]

Or it might be self-defeating because of all the ill-will and the resultant bad-mouthing that could result. (Or maybe not. Maybe that would pique readers' interest and be good publicity for the cooperative. Who knows?)

Especially when it descended into all-out armed feuding. That was part of my planned business model.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Fists at dawn... Actually, I'm with Stephen on this. I'm glad to get out to work sometimes. I'd like to do a little less work and a little more writing, but don't fancy doing no work. I'm a sociable person and fairly extrovert and enjoy seeing people as well as my own company.

 

[Hex]

I think you'd need to be careful about who joined such a co-op, and perhaps not only about quality. You might want all the books to be in the same genre (which rules me out of just about any co-op we'd start here), or perhaps you might want them to be placed in the UK, or... something.

You would, undoubtedly, need rules about how people would be invited and everyone would have to agree. But I don't think those are insurmountable obstacles -- they'd just need to be carefully outlined at the start.

(I would really like not to have to go out to work -- I quite like people but I get all of that I want from school and friends stuff).

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I would really like not to have to go out to work

Careful!
Redundancy money doesn't last long ...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

You might want all the books to be in the same genre (which rules me out of just about any co-op we'd start here)

Do you mean because you write YA? Because it would be hard to get together a co-op that was just Fantasy or just SF, because some of our writers write both. And if a co-op wasn't dividing things up the same way a big publisher would (and why should they?) there would be a lot of books that were arguably right on the line and could go either way.

 

[Hex]

Mmmm. Good point. I guess you could have linked co-ops along the lines of the amazon recommender thing -- "If you liked this book by X, you might also like this book by Y" and then you'd also have "As well as writing sexy space opera, author X also writes fabulous fantasy" and hope readers would follow that stream as well.

Or perhaps I'm over-complicating things.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The recent existence of book-bundling is a consequence, I think. I have an announcement to make about this, but can't just at the moment. However, it does seem to be a business/cultural model that's going to increase in importance.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

As well as writing sexy space opera

Is that stuff like barbarella?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

These books don’t just need word of mouth, these books need champions, people to push them ever after everyone else has moved on. Until communities clean themselves up, allow for a higher barrier to entry, and cut the crap, its going to be nearly impossible to stand out within all the noise.

This really stood out for me - in the comments section.