I have a theory, of sorts: Western culture values quantity over quality. More is better than less. Big is better than small. Perhaps it has something to do with the dualism created by Judeo-Christiana theology?
Whatever the case, it may account for the increasing length of blog posts to do with the business of publishing and writing of books. Ironic really, that people offering ‘advice’ cannot do so succinctly in an industry where getting to the point is the point.
‘Lies, lies and damn statistics’ comes to mind when reading a recent post from Publishers Weekly journalist Andrew Albanese.
Bowker recently released industry stats (see below and my post A deluge of self-published shite) indicating supposed dramatic growth in the number of self-published books released to market. While most publishers count the number of books they release by title, one company has redefined the concept by counting the number of books printed.
Publishers Weekly Albanese wrote:
When Bowker’s 2009 book industry stats were released yesterday many in the industry were stunned to see an unfamiliar company name, BiblioBazaar, leading a surging new segment of “non-traditional” publishing stats with a whopping 272,930 titles produced in 2009–almost as many titles the entire “traditional” publishing business cranked out last year. Could it be? Could one little-known company really produce so much volume?
And the twist in the tale:
“If by ‘produce’ you mean create a cover file that will print at multiple POD vendors, a book block that will print at multiple POD vendors, and metadata to sell that book in global sales channels, then yes, we did produce that many titles,” said Mitchell Davis, president of BiblioLife, parent company of BiblioBazaar.
It’s an interesting business to be sure, but counting the number of titles printed? Bowker must be issuing ISBNs at a furious rate if each print job warrants its very own ISBN.
Rather than critically examine the trend Albanese went off on a love-in with BiblioLife’s prexy Davis. Not good journalism.
Here’s the full article for those who care.
The speaker who provided the greatest number of ‘lightbulb’ moments at the creative3 forum held in Brisbane AU this week was Hugh Mason of Pembridge Partners.
Although the following slideshow is sans the ever so important context provided by Hugh at the event, it is nonetheless worth a look if you’re engaged in the creative industries and seeking finance (muso, author, film maker, shoe designer, chef …).
I’ll try my best to answer any queries via comments, but I can’t promise Hugh’s eloquence or understanding.
The book publishing industry is beset by an absurd debate about the integrity of certain business models: vanity publishing, subsidy publishing, collaborative publishing, partnership publishing, and so on.
Certainly there are some businesses that are clearly out to take an author’s cash. Such examples can be found in any industry. It’s very much a case of buyer beware.
Where I have a problem is that the debate (often argument) is focused on who pays to produce a book. I don’t see how that is even vaguely meaningful in any business terms whatsoever. What matters most is how a business model allows an author to make a full-time living from writing.
Will a ‘traditional’ publishing deal where an author receives an advance against royalties on a 10% base lead to a full-time writing career? Usually not!
Is it possible for an author to recoup a their $20,000 investment in production costs when a deal only includes 100 printed books? Absolutely not.
The debate ought to focus not on the money ‘in’, but the money ‘out’.
Props to i.lab incubator for the tip to this 2004 video from Guy Kawasaki about founding a business on ‘meaning’ before money.
Having just spent the past few days at the creative3 forum, where investment in the creative industries has been top of mind, this is timely to say the least.
I received the following in my favourite news reader and would have linked Seth Godin’s blog, however the site is/was down and authors, musicians, artists and chefs :-) alike to should think about what Seth has to say.
With so many options in media, interaction and venues, you now get to choose what you expose yourself to.
Expose yourself to art, and you’ll come to appreciate it and aspire to make it.
Expose yourself to anonymous scathing critics and you will begin to believe them (or flinch in anticipation of their next appearance.)
Expose yourself to get-rich-quick stories and you’ll want to become one.
Expose yourself to fast food ads and you’ll crave french fries.
Expose yourself to angry mobs of uninformed, easily manipulated protesters and you’ll want to join a mob.
Expose yourself to metrics about your brand or business or performance and you’ll work to improve them.
Expose yourself to anger and you might get angry too.
Expose yourself to people making smart decisions and you’ll probably learn how to do it as well.
Expose yourself to eager long-term investors (of every kind) and you’ll likely to start making what they want to support.
It’s a choice if you want it to be.
Take care out there.
(I fired up my proxy server and managed to connect to Seth’s site: here’s the link. Go figure.)
Hugh Mason of Pembridge Partners (UK) spoke this morning at the creative3 forum and gave us an insight into the venture capitalist’s head. There were only two things in there: risk and reward.
Whatever you’re pitching and to whomever you are making the pitch, Hugh’s advice is well worth remembering.
Book editor Ann Patty’s guest editorial on the subject of whether editors should receive royalties for their work (read it here on Publishing Perspectives) is causing a quiet stir, but a stir nonetheless.
Patty writes:
Low pay has been part of the ethos, profit participation rare to unheard of. It’s time to change that. Book editors should receive a royalty.
Mark Barrett from Ditchwalk replied:
I’m sorry that you feel as if you’ve been exploited. I’m not sure that the correct solution is to legitimize the exploitation of someone else.
Whatever the arguments, and there will be many, I am forever intrigued by the notion that there has to be a single solution to any given problem.
Music industry executives failed to understand the fundamental truth that there wasn’t one, simple solution to their industry’s disruption. Indeed, former Sony/BMG COO Michael Smellie reinforced the point at yesterday’s creative3 forum in Brisbane, AU. He told me during one of the breaks that he didn’t see any end to the current disruption during the next decade.
Business models will come and go. Some will be short-lived while others will stay a little longer, only to adapt as commercial environments change. It will be quite some time before any unitary path emerges. Until then, editors should test the ‘royalty against fee’ waters and see what happens; if they can find a willing publisher that is.
Publishers Weekly reports Bowker stats that indicate new book releases topped one million titles in 2009. Of those 764,448 were produced by self-publishers and micro-niche publishers. Jim Milliot writes:
A staggering 764,448 titles were produced in 2009 by self-publishers and micro-niche publishers, according to statistics released this morning by R.R. Bowker. The number of “nontraditional” titles dwarfed that of traditional books whose output slipped to 288,355 last year from 289,729 in 2008. Taken together, total book output rose 87% last year, to over 1 million books.
I’ve seen it all before during my time in the music industry: as barriers to entry fall along with the cost of the tools of production there is an exponential rise in output. Not all of it good. In fact, most of it shite.
The simple fact is that the majority of the 764,448 self-published books will not have undergone the rigours that quality content demands.
This presents obvious problems and some very exciting opportunities. With so much content, quality and relevance become increasingly important. Marketing becomes doubly important. Quality metadata becomes critical. Services that help us search for and find quality, relevant content become indispensable.
As a publisher, I find the challenge of having our titles find their target audience a very exciting one indeed. It of course helps that we work with authors who have established non-retail channels to market, but the challenge in moving to the mass market remains.
This week I am attending the already valuable creative3 forum run by QUT Creative Enterprise Australia here in sunny Brisbane, AU. Two super keynote addresses this morning, one from Adam Elliot of Harvey Krumpet and Mary & Max fame (both fab films), and the other from Russel Howcroft, boss man at ad agency George Patterson Y&R. (You might know Russel as the capitalist-pig-dog-guy on the ABC’s The Gruen Transfer. Personally, I can relate …)
From a creative industries investment perspective Russel asked a killer question:
“If you can’t afford to market your product, should you even create it?”
A couple of hundred creative entrepreneurs instantly became rather uncomfortable, but it is such a pivotal question and one that we all must be able answer before we invest time or money in our next project.
On a lighter note, Russel questioned whether creativity works in a commercial environment? A pair of creatives from George Patterson Y&R in Melbourne had already put the question to the test. The following vid provides the wicked sick answer.
