I've done a lot of writing for two subscription based publishers who develop and test series ideas before rolling them out. In my former MBA life, I studied market research, and it amazes me how little publishing seems to do of that. Besides seeing what's a bestseller at the moment, I mean. They could segment readers and figure out what they want and then give it to them. Instead, they scan what's available, make decisions, and hope those books sell.
This is exactly true. I spend a lot of time on social media running my Instagram account, and even on social media, you’ll see people interested in reading the exact sorts of books that publishers like to reject. Sure, there are readers who like minimalist MFA fiction. There are also readers who don’t. In this case, they like to ignore entire swaths of readers.
Whether a competitive market works efficiently isn't to do with how capitalist it is. Capitalists are usually pretty keen on cartels, monopolies and protectionism where they can get away with it. It'd be harsh to call out John D. Rockefeller for not being capitalist enough! Innovation and efficiency come from competition, not merely private ownership, as anyone supplied by Thames Water can attest.
This article is arguing that there is market failure due to clustering - that all publishers have the same acquisition strategy leading to the market exclusion of other types of supply. It's an argument plausibly made in this and other articles.
It's very difficult to fix clustering, especially if there's no active collusion and if it works just well enough that necessity doesn't birth invention. Identifying the problem is the first step, but how do you make change?
Your argument is not entirely correct. I sympathize with your intentions and goals, but it has never been the case that capitalism, by itself, insofar as it relates to publishing, has ever published or been able to publish every writer that had a book he or she wanted to publish. There is such a thing as quality. The self-publishing side of things is not anymore replete with higher quality books. It may be true that mainstream publishing is full of bad books these days, perhaps more than in the past, but sample self published books and the writing is often equally disappointing.
The quality of much that is published does appear to have declined; the ideologies that pervade the industry don’t help, for sure. But it’s possible that fewer people are interested in reading. Part of that probably can be attributed to the ideologies that determine what is published, the markets that have been ignored as marginalized groups are favored and pushed and promoted; but it can’t be the whole story.
And I don’t think throwing everything against the wall to find the stuff that will stick is the answer. Plus, in this day and age, it’s unaffordable. How could readers possibly track every book in that case? It’s impossible to now, in the same way that it has become impossible to track every television series, or film that is trying to break through. Consumers don’t have the time.
You could argue that each would find its nitch, and that would be the great hope; but perhaps 12 copies is the nitch for some books; just like 5000 views is the nitch for some streaming shows. Hardly the number that justifies the cost of production. That’s a capitalistic concern as well. For everyone: publishers and self-publishers alike.
Based on my experience, there is a good amount of DEI and conformity in the publishing world today. A colleague was told by an older female agent that she no longer accepted white male authors. I participated in a video conference of 95% women where the agent who was hosting clarified that an older white male in attendance was “okay as one of the few good guys.” I hesitate to say that the answer lies in self-publishing because without a strong concept, good title and cover art, clever marketing and lots of rabid reviews, it can still feel like you’re paddling up a creek with a broken stick.
John Pistelli recently self-published “Major Arcana” via Substack, gained a following and now has been picked up by a traditional publisher. A somewhat encouraging example.
I hesitate to comment, speaking as a raw dilettante compared to real professional writers, with only one VERY minimally successful industry-published book to my credit, but what you say resonates with that limited experience. My impression is that the generation of agents, editors, and publicists currently in power have no idea how to market through social media, and when they say "I can't sell it" they mean they don't know how, today. My very expensive well-known publicist told me that social media only works for authors who already have a huge social media following, i.e. we don't dirty our hands with that. Maybe this option already exists and I'm unaware, but I suspect there is a big capitalist opportunity out there for a truly social-media-savvy agent/publisher/publicist.
Excellent analysis. In my experience, I write screen plays, screen stories fail to sell because they are flawed. I'm reasonably sure that the same is true of novels. To paraphrase from Field of Dreams, 'If you write it (a good story), they will come.'
One, who pays to open these barriers to entry? It costs money to maintain distribution, etc. Who's paying in an ideal world?
Secondly, what is your view of a patron system for the arts? Many of the magnificent works of music, literature, and architecture of old were only made possible through the patron system.
Capitalism is not to blame for your lack of talent. You look at a hack like Stephen King and wonder why he succeeded where you cannot, it’s just sheer good fortune.
I've done a lot of writing for two subscription based publishers who develop and test series ideas before rolling them out. In my former MBA life, I studied market research, and it amazes me how little publishing seems to do of that. Besides seeing what's a bestseller at the moment, I mean. They could segment readers and figure out what they want and then give it to them. Instead, they scan what's available, make decisions, and hope those books sell.
This is exactly true. I spend a lot of time on social media running my Instagram account, and even on social media, you’ll see people interested in reading the exact sorts of books that publishers like to reject. Sure, there are readers who like minimalist MFA fiction. There are also readers who don’t. In this case, they like to ignore entire swaths of readers.
Whether a competitive market works efficiently isn't to do with how capitalist it is. Capitalists are usually pretty keen on cartels, monopolies and protectionism where they can get away with it. It'd be harsh to call out John D. Rockefeller for not being capitalist enough! Innovation and efficiency come from competition, not merely private ownership, as anyone supplied by Thames Water can attest.
This article is arguing that there is market failure due to clustering - that all publishers have the same acquisition strategy leading to the market exclusion of other types of supply. It's an argument plausibly made in this and other articles.
It's very difficult to fix clustering, especially if there's no active collusion and if it works just well enough that necessity doesn't birth invention. Identifying the problem is the first step, but how do you make change?
Why on earth would it be harsh? Capitalists are always rent-seeking, which is to say, trying to undermine capitalism.
Your argument is not entirely correct. I sympathize with your intentions and goals, but it has never been the case that capitalism, by itself, insofar as it relates to publishing, has ever published or been able to publish every writer that had a book he or she wanted to publish. There is such a thing as quality. The self-publishing side of things is not anymore replete with higher quality books. It may be true that mainstream publishing is full of bad books these days, perhaps more than in the past, but sample self published books and the writing is often equally disappointing.
The quality of much that is published does appear to have declined; the ideologies that pervade the industry don’t help, for sure. But it’s possible that fewer people are interested in reading. Part of that probably can be attributed to the ideologies that determine what is published, the markets that have been ignored as marginalized groups are favored and pushed and promoted; but it can’t be the whole story.
And I don’t think throwing everything against the wall to find the stuff that will stick is the answer. Plus, in this day and age, it’s unaffordable. How could readers possibly track every book in that case? It’s impossible to now, in the same way that it has become impossible to track every television series, or film that is trying to break through. Consumers don’t have the time.
You could argue that each would find its nitch, and that would be the great hope; but perhaps 12 copies is the nitch for some books; just like 5000 views is the nitch for some streaming shows. Hardly the number that justifies the cost of production. That’s a capitalistic concern as well. For everyone: publishers and self-publishers alike.
The problem with giving most books a chance is that
Print runs are only economical in large batches.
Stores have to select the goods, and the turn-over in products is relatively high -- and would be higher if they were stocking more titles.
Online and print-to-order may be changing that.
Based on my experience, there is a good amount of DEI and conformity in the publishing world today. A colleague was told by an older female agent that she no longer accepted white male authors. I participated in a video conference of 95% women where the agent who was hosting clarified that an older white male in attendance was “okay as one of the few good guys.” I hesitate to say that the answer lies in self-publishing because without a strong concept, good title and cover art, clever marketing and lots of rabid reviews, it can still feel like you’re paddling up a creek with a broken stick.
John Pistelli recently self-published “Major Arcana” via Substack, gained a following and now has been picked up by a traditional publisher. A somewhat encouraging example.
I hesitate to comment, speaking as a raw dilettante compared to real professional writers, with only one VERY minimally successful industry-published book to my credit, but what you say resonates with that limited experience. My impression is that the generation of agents, editors, and publicists currently in power have no idea how to market through social media, and when they say "I can't sell it" they mean they don't know how, today. My very expensive well-known publicist told me that social media only works for authors who already have a huge social media following, i.e. we don't dirty our hands with that. Maybe this option already exists and I'm unaware, but I suspect there is a big capitalist opportunity out there for a truly social-media-savvy agent/publisher/publicist.
Excellent analysis. In my experience, I write screen plays, screen stories fail to sell because they are flawed. I'm reasonably sure that the same is true of novels. To paraphrase from Field of Dreams, 'If you write it (a good story), they will come.'
Funny that many famous classics were rejected so often, then.
“Oh, Amos Cottle! for a moment think
What meagre profits spring from pen and ink!”
Lord Byron, English Bards and Scotch Reviewers (1809)
Two questions.
One, who pays to open these barriers to entry? It costs money to maintain distribution, etc. Who's paying in an ideal world?
Secondly, what is your view of a patron system for the arts? Many of the magnificent works of music, literature, and architecture of old were only made possible through the patron system.
Even when the patron system was in full blast, much poorer people played for their art -- such as music. There's no other way to get what *you* want.
Yes, capitalism works in theory.
Capitalism is not to blame for your lack of talent. You look at a hack like Stephen King and wonder why he succeeded where you cannot, it’s just sheer good fortune.
King's first book was rejected over 30 times, so -- lack of talent on his part?