Do Authors Still Need Publishers?

Does Stephen King still need a publisher?

My previous post was an allegory for why book publishing is like venture capital. Publishers, in exchange for investing their cash, talent and connections, become part owners of the author's book project. Authors agree to share ownership in exchange for the privilege and prestige of publication, and the shot at commercial success.

In this second and final installment, I'll explore how the risk of publishing will shift from publisher to author, and how this change will impact the future of publishing.

Just as many entrepreneurs no longer need venture capitalists to launch their companies, authors no longer need publishers to publish.

No, I'm not anti-publisher. Publishers take enormous risks to acquire, produce and promote books. Good publishers add tremendous value to each book, to the author's career, and to the reading enjoyment of customers.

Publishing is a tough business. It's difficult for publishers to predict the fickle whims of the marketplace. They never know which book will become the next breakout hit, and which will bomb.

In recent years, publishing, like all media business, has struggled to compete against an explosion of alternate - and often free - product vying for their customer's ever-shrinking attention and wallet. As I wrote in my debut column here at HuffPost, if you examine the sales figures from the Association of American Publishers from the last six years and adjust for inflation, book publishing has been in a slow decline for several years.

The Big Squeeze
With the tough business conditions, publishers have been forced to cut back on investments. This means fewer signings of new and unproven authors; fewer signings of authors whose books are perceived to have limited commercial potential; and fewer post-publication promotional dollars to lavish on anyone except the most commercially promising author.

Sure, a commercial publisher has an obligation to their shareholders, employees, authors, and customers to run their business for profitability. The flip side of this, however, is that many talented and otherwise deserving authors can't get a publishing deal.

Many commercially published authors already assume some personal responsibility for post-publication book promotion efforts that were once the sole domain of the publisher. There's nothing wrong with this in principle, except that most authors are already under-compensated.

I've read that most commercially published authors maintain day jobs to support their writing. If true, it would mean the bulk of book authorship is performed on a volunteer basis.

Tools of Liberation
As I alluded in my previous column, at one time it was virtually impossible to publish without a publisher. Today, the game has changed. New tools for publishing, marketing, distribution, and selling are available to indie authors and indie publishers, often at little to no cost.

With free do-it-yourself publishing platforms for ebooks and print on demand books, authors can publish in seconds or days.

Of course, just because you're published doesn't mean you've written anything worth reading.

If indie authors want to stand out, they must invest the resources and effort necessary to produce and promote a quality work that satisfies readers.

The Future of Publishing: Risk, Reward and Power Shift to Authors
The power center in publishing will shift from publisher to author, and the traditional line between the two will continue to blur. Authors will become their own publishers. Commercial publishers will become service providers.

Commercially successful authors will have greater leverage to negotiate higher royalties and advances. They may also demand to retain digital rights, since the means of ebook distribution are now available to any author at no cost.

Some commercially successful authors will go indie. It's only a matter of time before New York Times best-selling authors, including those on the level of Stephen King, Dan Brown, James Patterson, and J.K. Rowling, realize they can self-publish their next book. Such a prospect should chill the spine of any publisher whose business is based on big hits.

Unproven authors who aspire to commercial publication will need to prove a market exists for their product before a traditional publisher will consider them. Self-publishing will become a vast farm league for commercial publishers. Publishers, including many new indie publishers, will compete against one another to identify, recruit and publish the most promising indie authors.

In the next few years, large media companies and book publishers will partner more closely with self-publishing companies, because self-pubbing services efficiently aggregate the slush pile. Not only do the farm league authors provide publishers a rich pool of talent, they also provide the opportunity for publishers to supply paid services to those authors willing to invest the necessary funds to improve the quality of their books.

What do you think? Do authors still need publishers? How can publishers survive and thrive in the future? Are you indie by choice? If so, why? Join the discussion below.

Mark Coker is founder of Smashwords, a publisher and distributor of ebooks.

 

Follow Mark Coker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markcoker

Comments

[logicbox]

Whatever the case may be, it's worth noting that many of the apparently successful recording artists still have major label backing. I'd suggest that will similarly be the case for most authors; that there will be a major publishing house somewhere in the mix.

[VictoriaMixon]

One thing I'd like to mention is an important point about WHY self-published books get a bad rap: they're often very badly written.

But aren't a lot of traditionally published books poor, as well?

They sure are. But they've at least been vetted by someone who knows the minimum that readers are willing to accept. And they probably would be better-written if publishers' acquisitions editors just had the time to edit them the way they used to. Sure, some acquisitions editors aren't interested in editing, but a lot of them are, and they know how to do it and how to do it right. But since they're mostly hanging onto their jobs by their fingernails these days, watching their peers get flushed down the drain all around them, they simply don't have enough hours in the day to both acquire manuscripts and make them beautiful, too.

The truth is writers looking to self-publish need to hire their own editors. Books simply do not come out beautiful on their own. Hemingway's did not, Kerouac's did not, Random House past-editor Toni Morrison's do not---I'm sorry---yours will not, either. I'm both an author and editor, and I can tell you even I can't edit my own work properly. Editors themselves need editors.

It doesn't matter how much thought, energy, and money you sink into self-promotion. If your book is not well-written, readers will not read it.

And if it is, they will.

Victoria Mixon

[Pete Nikolai]

By definition, every author needs a publisher or their book will not be available to read. Yes, I know you were referring to traditional authors and traditional publishers--and they still need each other. But there are many kinds of authors and many kinds of publishers and it is up to each author to pick the publisher that is right for them. Some can go self-serve and use Smashwords. Some need a little help and can pay for the services of WestBow Press or Author Solutions. Others have earned the attention of traditional publishers and can choose from a wide variety of offers--some may even have the luxury of receiving a substantial payment up front (the mythical "advance").
Thanks for hinting at Thomas Nelson's recent launch of WestBow Press--I know it must have been difficult!

[bardsandsages]

Some of the points here are a bit clouded, and obviously the author has a vested interest in authors self-publishing. Yes, authors can self-publish successfully...if they are able to think like publishers. The problem is that too many authors don't really understand everything a publisher does...from proofreading to editing to formatting to cover design to sales to distribution and on and on.

I've been involved in POD for years, and the thing that shoots most authors in the foot is that they cannot think like publishers. Some authors have learned that they do need, if not the publishers, all of the tools of a publisher. But many authors think that all they need to do is upload their file to this or that site and readers will "give them a chance." The primary difference between the thought process of a self-publisher and a publisher is that self-publishers expect people to give them a chance despite a lack of intensive investment to produce a professional product, whereas publishers know they have to fight for the chance to get readers against thousands of other books.

For an author to successfully self-publish, he or she needs to be able to take off the author cap and put on the publisher cap. And this is hard for people to do. If you aren't going to seek out a publisher, you better be able to act like one.

[StacyS]

I started writing just over a year ago and I love it. Initially, eager and ignorant, I sent off query letters and was rightly rejected. I actually enjoy the freedom that comes with writing in my own space and time so I’ve stopped my search for an agent/publisher.
Like Joe C., I too am an introvert at heart; fortunately I’ve worked as a hairstylist for the past 10 years and am using every tool I learned in that field, to market my ebooks (short stories).
I have started a few novels, (I don’t expect them to have them completed anytime soon) and I would like to see them in hardcover etc. but who knows what the future holds. For now I’m content doing the promoting myself.

[BlackJAC]

Rejection is a guarantee. Ben Mezrich racked up 190 rejection letters. Alice Munro racked up 500. Jack London holds the record at 600. I'm pushing the 300 level, myself; one of them handwrote "REFUSED" and stamped "UNSOLICITED - RETURN TO SENDER" on the envelope and dropped it right back in the mail without even opening it. Besides, when they say "not at this time" they mean "not at the exact second we shot this down, so try again later."

[Michael Pastore]

Why not try publishing the book yourself? ... From your comments, it's obvious you are a savvy guy: just the kind of person who can do very well publishing independently: not only with your own book, but someone who could inspire and help others.

M.J. Rose -- who has commented today on Mark Coker's post -- self-published her work, which lead her to a contract with a major publisher. It's not going to be easy, but it might prove to be more fun than sitting by the mailbox.

[JoeCottonwood]

Some of us are pretty good writers, but we suck at marketing. Take me, for example. (Please.) I self-published a print-on-demand novel, got some great blog reviews, great reviews on my Amazon page, and yet sales are crappy. I don't publicize. I'm sorry, I'm an introvert, I'm a writer. Meanwhile a local bookstore has sold more copies of my novel to random browsers (and at a higher price) than Amazon has sold to the entire world because the local store puts it on prominent display and hand-sells it. Now I've made it available as an ebook on Smashwords, and for some reason it's popular there but not through any marketing on my part.

Publicity, marketing are essential. But the personality traits of great publicists and marketers are the opposite of the traits that make most writers write. You can hire them, but it's a big investment for a small writer. Maybe we need publicity angels, just as writers of a different century used to depend on a different kind of patronage.

[Kathryn Lively]

The author who doesn't wish to take on the work of arranging cover art, distribution, and hiring an editor/proofer will need a reputable publisher to handle those facets of publication, in addition to distribution. Those savvy enough to wear many hats can do so successfully - even before the rise of eBooks, authors have had good fortune with the self-publishing model (The Celestine Prophecy comes to mind). I have done both, and will continue to seek the best option for future works. I think some genres are better suited to self-publishing than others.

That said, if you want to go the DIY, be educated. It takes more than processing a book through Smashwords or Kindle to attract readers. Have a marketing plan in hand. Blog, tweet, FB, get the buzz going. Not all publishers do the marketing for their authors (I've known romance authors on the NYT list who claimed they had to buy their own ads in RT BookClub and fund their book tours). If you're going to do it yourself, do it well.

Kat Lively
Exec Ed., Phaze Books

[BlackJAC]

Interesting that you don't mention taking out print ad space.

[Kathryn Lively]

It's a matter of personal preference, I suppose. I don't oppose print ads, I just happen to have seen better ROI with Internet marketing and other techniques.

[BlackJAC]

Studio movie versus indie movie, network TV versus cable TV, print media versus online media, New York publishing house versus self-publishing outfit...in all these cases, the former has the big distribution network required to get you exposure while the latter requires you to either go door-to-door or cold-call vendors and beg them to stock your stuff. The latter also carries this vague stigma of "what's the deal with this that kept the former from picking it up in the first place?" Stephen King was one of the first authors to use an all-out media blitz for publicity, and James Patterson was an advertising executive.

Years ago there was this band called Green Jelly that decided that they would be a music video-only band and not put out an album. They eventually put out an album, probably because not everyone had cable in order to see MTV. Even bloggers have put out hardcopy books, even if it's anthologies of their online stuff.

The bottom line is that people need to know you're out there in the first place, and not everyone is glued to the computer scrounging the Internet for blog chatter or viral videos or Twitter announcements or whatever the latest electronic equivalent of word-of-mouth is or even what Amazon's recommendation algorithims churn up based on your previous purchases.

[Michael Pastore]

Thanks again, Mark, for another interesting essay.

Do authors need publishers? ... No. There are now more books -- twice as many, I believe -- published Independently than published via big-name publishing houses.

Like you, Mark, I am not "anti-publisher". I am for any publisher, large or small, who understands that there should be a balance between commerce and culture. Publishing must become more than a business. Publishers should have a passionate commitment to bringing the best books to the reading public, to cultivating young authors, and to promote the value of reading good books.

Independent publishing is an end in itself -- for the pure joy of it -- not as a steppingstone to the big-name publishers. If you:

A) start by publishing your work independently; then
B) begin to make a name for your books; then
C) get picked up by a large publishing house; then
D) get so famous that you can
E) publish Independently without the publishing house

... Authors can skip steps "C" and "D", and retain their copyrights.

Even if you publish good books, getting noticed is not easy. What we need is a cooperative publishing group, that can help authors with marketing and promotion.

BookServer, the forthcoming project from the Internet Archive, may prove to be a revolutionary leap for small presses and Independent authors who want to sell their books without losing the lion's share to the online bookseller. Ebooks, also, are another promising technology.

Michael Pastore
50 Benefits of Ebooks

[BlackJAC]

Authors retain their copyrights no matter what. What is erroneously referred to as "selling a book" is really a temporary licensing agreement with a publisher.

[Michael Pastore]

But that "temporary licensing agreement" often translates into long-term problems. If the author is not satisfied with the way the that publisher is marketing her/his book, what can be done? ... The reversion clause is too-often written to strongly favor the publisher.

[Alessia Brio]

This article is very timely for me. I'm no stranger to self-publishing, having launched my charity anthology series (Coming Together) via Cafe Press over 4 years ago. However, I had not taken the plunge for my bread-and-butter work until this month.

I recently had several ebook contracts reach their terms and, after looking at my sales numbers/locations, decided to re-release those titles myself using Smashwords, All Romance eBooks, and Amazon Kindle. In the first month of operation (with a few days yet to go), Purple Prosaic has earned almost thrice what my entire backlist earned in the month of July (which are my most recent figures).

As someone who is not interested in chasing an agent or a New York contract, this is very encouraging -- and I believe it's only going to get better as ebook readers become mainstream gadgetry!

My publisher (Phaze Books) has been absolutely wonderful. I have no complaints about how my work was/is distributed or promoted. However, I can achieve the same distribution while retaining rights and earning a much higher percentage of each sale. That said, it's not for everyone. Editing is a critical component, as is cover art.

It's an exciting time to self-publish!

[PaulLev]

The odds against any book becoming successful are huge - which means authors need all the help they can get, including whatever marketing and promotion, however little or much, a publisher can provide. That's why I was happy to have all of my books, including my latest, New New Media, published by the best I could find. In the case of New New Media (Penguin/Pearson, 2009) that may seem ironic, since the book argues that consumers and amateurs are becoming increasingly the same as professional producers (on YouTube, Twitter, etc). But that revolution is still not complete - especially regarding books - and, until it is, the wise choice for any author is to go with a professional publisher. More about the state of this revolution at http://newnewmediabook.com

[MAragon]

As one of the authors who couldn't catch a break with regular publishers due to whatever reason, publishing my own work was the only way to go.
For seven years my first novel to be published was available via a small independent publisher, but he went out of business, so I've had to turn to online publishers to make my work available. Fortunately, they offer distribution services that can be global and I've sold novels even in the UK. My main challenge is drawing attention to my work, but at least my work IS available for the adventurous reader. If I had still been waiting for corporate publishers to decide whether my work was immediately profitable enough or for me to force my work into conformity with their genre rules, I would have gotten nowhere. I like this brave new world of publishing.

[MJRose]

One real advantage of publishers is distribution.

Less than 15% of new books are sold online - the rest are sold in stores. Until the distribution model changes we're still going to need publishers because the stores. Even top small publishers have trouble dealing with store distribution - the big houses get the bulk of the orders.

[Susan Cross]

My take? With publishers no longer marketing why does a new author need one? It's up to the author to assess the risk and either invest in print or go with your site for free. Great posts. The King thing in the Wall Street Journal really got me going. Boycotting you-know-who.
Like many writers, I've written a non-fiction book that will appeal to a niche audience. As long as I have an ISBN and distributor I can market directly to the people who are interested in my subject.
I'm willing to put out some money up front to make some for my efforts. I wrote the book, secured qualified editors, helped to design cover art, engaged a famous person to write the Foreword, got five famous people to give me quotes for the back cover and performed research and fact-checking. I think I am the most qualified person to market my work and I don't feel the need for approval from an agent or publisher. Fortunately, I have a marketing background and have an audience waiting for the book's release.

[henryberry]

The question isn't "do authors still need publishers?"; but are there still authors in a traditional sense. Most "authors" these days are self-promoters, bloggers, talk-show guests, and general publicity hounds. Writing is only one of their activities. It's hard to say whether the writing feeds into the publicity or the publicity feeds into the writing. Publishers have contributed to their own diminished role by the elevation of marketing over editing, the preference for writers with ready-made audiences, and the elevated place of the financial operations in publishing.

For the past two or three decades, publishers have been parts of media empires. These empires such as CBS and Murdoch bought publishers for the synergy they could bring to them. With this synergy, the traditional role and operations of publishers largely dissipated. These days, publishers don't have much to offer writers outside of the handful which publishers reckon can bring in millions and millions through high book sales, movie rights, mechandise spin-offs, and sequels.

I've been observing these changes in the publishing field as one involved in the small-pres­s/independ­ent publishing field since the 1980s.