A Publisher by Any Other Name

Quick, name you favorite book. Now, quick, name who published it.

Gotcha, didn't I?

As someone who has worked in book publishing for the past 13 years, I'm keenly aware of the different houses that exist in the United States and the kinds of book they produce. I can name a number of the bestselling titles at most of the major presses -- or, at least, their most prominent authors or series. Keeping tabs on the competition is part of my job, and I take it pretty seriously.

But I have to admit that I don't think the general consumer cares very much who is published by whom. I don't even think most people notice. Tell me the last time you walked into a Borders, or a B&N, or your local independent and said, "Hmm, wonder what Simon & Schuster has been up to this week?" The companies just don't matter.

True, when browsing we may be mildly impressed by a title that has Knopf on the spine, or Norton, or Houghton, or Farrar, Straus and Giroux. We may select a Harvard University Press book over a similar one published by the University of God-Knows-Where. We may even smile and nod in recognition when we see that a collection of poetry has been put out by Copper Canyon or Graywolf Press. But I'd argue that recommendations by family and friends, and fabulous covers, and favorable reviews, and favorite authors are much more likely to catch our attention than a dolphin logo or a Borzoi silhouette.

Maybe that's why some newspaper book review sections -- even some fairly big ones like The Denver Post -- don't even bother to list the publisher any more.

It is a bit curious, though, that in this age of branding, both personal and corporate, publishing houses haven't done more to create an identity for themselves and to get that identity out there -- beyond literary agents, beyond book review editors, beyond the folks in the biz, and into the hands of the people who matter most to us: the readers.

Are there companies that have managed to establish themselves as leaders in publishing a certain kind of book? Tell me which houses have caught your eye...

Comments

[wadenelson1]

Publishers outsource the actual printing to printers.

So what's next, are you going to suggest that ABC lithography should try and "brand" their style of printing?

What about the paper manufacturers. This book was set on Hammermill Superwhite blah blah blah.

The content, not the typeface, nor the cover, nor the publisher, is what is of import. Furthermore, in 20 years "traditional" book publishers will be going the way of newspaper publishers today. Unneeded intermediaries.

[3fingerbrown]

Penguin Classics is a "brand" I've learned to trust: attractively packaged, trustworthy translations, lucid commentary and notes, readable typeface, and a fair price. If I'm in the bookstore with two different editions of the same work in my hand, I'll always go with the Penguin Classic edition. On the higher-end, hardcover shelf, Knopf has been putting out some beautifully produced books lately. As to why people don't notice publishers anymore, at least part of it is that the big publishers don't have a public face anymore, I mean an individual who the public can identify as the personality of the company. Before these houses became mere divisions of big conglomerates, there was such a thing as the celebrity book publisher. The obvious example is Bennett Cerf, who was one of the most recognizable and respected people in America during the 1950s and '60s. Where would Random House be today without his tireless promotion? (Sadly, someone I know at RH tells me there's not a visible trace of him at the office, not so much as a conference room named for him.) If the big publishing houses were owned by actual people passionate about books, as they were in Cerf's day, instead of faceless corporate entities passionate about money, as they are today, the reading public would be more aware of the differences among them.

[Kassia]

There are two publishers who stand out when it comes to branding. The first, of course, is Penguin. The other is Harlequin. Both rely on consistent "looks" to signal their brand to readers. The difference being that Harlequin is very much focused on selling their brand -- sometimes to the detriment of their books -- while Penguin seems to consider the title/author a bit more. Still, a reader scanning the shelves can easily identify these publishers, and I'd wager that most know the publisher name.

[itolduso]

I know I sound like a nut, but do a little research. In 1999 Dynamic Designs undertook a comprehensive study of the Holtzbrinck publishing group's many companies and subsidiaries public websites. The study included all divisions, products and joint ventures of Holtzbrinck for which a website could be found-they came up with over 150 of them. Then look up Pearson Publishing and the Bertelsmann group and start looking into where their companies intercept- from internet stores,on-line books, print-on-demand (Lightning Source),and BookScan to advertising, reviewing, warehouse and distribution channels, there are some telling signs that 99.9% of everything we read is controlled by the same people.

[HMDeWitt]

In the UK, Picador, Abacus, Faber and Serpent's Tail are all publishers whose books I look out for; Canongate also has a recognisable style, though I haven't bought as many of their books. Harvill used to be very good for interesting work in translation; I'm not sure what they're like now that they're part of Random House. Phaidon, Thames & Hudson and Taschen have noticeably different approaches to art and design. Since the big publishing houses often own so many imprints, with different strengths, it's hard to make much of the larger corporation; I assume that's also true in the US.

[Mxyzptlk]

In general publishing, you are correct, it makes no difference. What does Random House stand for? I'm in the biz and I have no idea. The author is the brand.

I think in non-fiction it can be different when a publisher specializes in certain subject areas. As an example, Falcon is trusted by many for its outdoor guides.

[klondiker]

That's an interesting idea!

I guess I don't actively look for, or even notice, publishers. The ones that stand out are the ones that usually have similar book jackets or something. Like, in Canada, Vintage Canada stands out for me (with their distinctive orange V) for publishing really good contemporary Can. Lit like Atwoof, Ondatjee, etc. Or, there's Signet Classics or something.

But, it would be fun to know more publishing houses. We always know when NBC has a new sitcom, or when Pixar has a new movie out. Why not publishers?

[itolduso]

Because there's really only three of them- and their relationships are so incestuous as to render them all part of one HUGE conglomerate that controls all aspects. Oh-there's thousands of different imprints, but start tracing them back and you'll discover that all of these seemingly independent,prestigious publishing names are all owned and controlled by the same company-which also owns or partners in every aspect of distribution-from printers, to warehouses to booklists and promotional channels-the big three have a finger in every piece of the pie-in all parts of the world. They don't want you to be curious about them.

[klondiker]

....That would be Atwood, not Atwoof. Sorry :)

[Scarabus]

I"m an academic who has served on lots of tenure/promotion committees, so maybe I"m more aware of these issues than the average grazer at Borders or Walden. But far as I"m concerned the imprimatur always *potentially* matters"whether book or journal. The problem is that, given mergers and acquisitions and such, credibility is more volatile than stock quotes.

Will any educated person trust the post-Murdoch WSJ reporting the same way she or he did the pre-Murdoch reporting? Let"s hope not. (The editorial side of the WSJ has always been a shallow, partisan joke, so nothing will change there.) Will any educated person trust the NYT the same way she or he did before Judith Miller was given front-page space to "steno" the nation into the moral and strategic disaster of Iraq? Let"s hope not. The entire organization have blood on their hands. Trust and credibility are hard-won but easily forfeited.

I believe passionately in free speech. I think it"s perfectly appropriate for, say, Anne Coulter to be published. However, Coulter"s books are compilations of pure hate and vituperation, filled with assertions supported (sic) by a combination of no documentation and false or cobbled documentation. A house publishes Coulter? Then that house forfeits all claim to credibility for itself and for every other author it publishes.

OK. Two discrete issues: commercial "bankability" and moral/ethical credibility. It"s easy for a partisan fat-cat to buy a gazillion copies of a book, bumping it up the best-seller lists. The copies then can be either given away at partisan meetings or just buried in a land-fill. Means nothing. The publishing house remains solvent, but at the cost of forfeiting honor and credibility.

Do I pay attention to "branding" when purchasing books? You bet! But I care much less about how many blockbusters a house has published than about the honor, integrity, and academic rigor it has demanded from its authors.

[Dunnage]

It's like the movies, the networks -- who the hell owns them now. Oh, and publishing has the secret handshake thing.

[drblack]

It would be impossible to pick a favorite but I do pay attention to publishers of books and in similar vein record labels for music.
I know that the Tolkien stuff was Houghton-Mifflin and Ballantine in paperback.That was my favorite book when I was young and still stands high on my list.
Now that i think about it I even still remember that my favorite books as a child of 5 was published by Random House, the Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators..
Now you have made me nostalgic to find those again.
Though I read all genres i have always loved Hard Science Fiction,Fantasy and Horror.
Publishing houses that put out these books have always been near and dear to me. Arkham House, Ace books, Gnome Press etc.
I hope that more small publishers spring up, as well as record labels and media outlets of all kinds.

[Clea Simon]

Catching the eye indeed -- publishers may not be pushing name recognition, but they do brand certain looks, at least imprints and small presses do. Think of the Penguin "Lives" series of short bios, or the lovely Felony and Mayhem mysteries, with that sort of concave lens worked into every cover.

They may not want to brand more than that. I mean, if each publisher had a truly distinctive look and name recognition, they couldn't try to poach each others' readers. Which they do with visuals -- to the point where gold, embossed covers now signal "If you like Phillippa Gregory, you'll like me" and certain day-glo hues say "Jennifer Crusie fan? Pick me up!"

Just a few stray thoughts.