How to use this Page

This week, we're shining the spotlight on another one of our Place of the Year 2015 shortlist contenders: Cuba.

The post Place of the Year 2015 nominee spotlight: Cuba appeared first on OUPblog.

It depends on what kind of "golden" we are talking about. If we are talking gold as in money, then the internet has certainly allowed certain books to explode in popularity and makes substantial profits. Books like Shades of Gray show the reach of the internet. But if we mean golden age as in the quality and innovation of literature... I just mentioned Fifty Shades of Gray, so that might be all I need to say about the quality of literature. There is still money to be made in books and always will be. As a reader, I am looking for books of real worth. They might be crammed between popular fads and internet sensations, but I have faith they will always be around for someone willing to look.

I don't know how it can be when most of the younger people I meet don't read for enjoyment. I'm so glad I got my sons hooked on books.

As the Dowager Countess might put it: I think we're in A golden age of sorts, but this isn't THE golden age of publishing. I think that day came and passed. I tend to relate the golden age to a time frame between when Gone With the Wind came out and the 1990's. I know a lot of people who made a lot of money in publishing during that time period for just being in the right time and place (Bridges of Madison County.)

I'm also not of the school that thinks big publishers will disappear any time soon. They still rule, indie authors are still struggling in spite of all the hype, and small start up e-presses have trouble paying their authors royalties. I doubt many will last for longer than a few years. There's also a lot of hype out now about indie published authors and books, most of which is not true...or it's exaggerated. But that's another post.

I think the one thing most would find hard to argue is that there's never been a more interesting time in publishing.



But I think things are changing now and we're entering a new age instead of a golden age.

I believe we are absolutely in a Golden Age of Publishing! We've never seen the likes of this in history: All writers can reach an audience.

It's incredible, all voices can be heard. Controversial, of varied class, culture and race, visionary and critical. The impact on society will be profound.

That's not even going into the ease of access and convenience of digital technology. Books will reach more people than ever. It's truly wonderful.

As to whether this is a Golden Age for Publishers, well, that completely depends on the Publishers. They decide if they will re-invent themselves or not.
If they don't, then no, this age will leave them behind. If they do, then....it's possible.

I believe that it can be a Golden Age for traditional publishers as well as for certain self-published authors. Traditional publishers can reinvent themselves and still be profitable.

Self-published authors can also be successful and make a living from their creative efforts. But the ones that will make it are the 1-percenters. The 1-percenters are the ones that are more industrious and creative than 99 percent of authors. I have been self-publishing for over 20 years and have achieved a measure of success at this game (with over 750,000 copies of my books sold). I know better than to criticize and slam traditional publishers like a lot of the authors who are so gleeful about the "indie revolution."

This I know: Traditional publishers and the 1-percenters of self-publishers will be publishing for many, many years after the Pollyanna authors excited about the "indie revolution" have gone on to the next latest craze, where again they be failures. For those who keep achieving success in the publishing industry, of course, it will be the Golden Age.

Ernie J. Zelinski
International Best-Selling Author
"Helping Adventurous Souls Live Prosperous and Free"
Author of the Bestseller "How to Retire Happy, Wild, and Free"
(Over 175,000 copies sold and published in 9 languages)
and the International Bestseller "The Joy of Not Working'
(Over 250,000 copies sold and published in 17 languages)

Yes, I do. Anytime access and choice is more plentiful...I consider that a good thing.

I love the interplay right now between traditional publishing and ebooks. While I know a lot of other people think it spells doom, I think that there's a great sense of possibility right now. The ebook format is still relatively new, and somewhat unexplored. I think ebook formatting might even inspire changes in the structure of print books. Honestly, in the end, it's all storytelling, and there will always be new, exciting stories out there to be told.

I think this era is too complex to be called completely golden. There are flecks of real gold, but an awful lot of mud, too.

@Ted Cross: Plenty of younger people read for enjoyment, but they now have the option to read something other than traditional books. Online amateur fiction, for instance. Or ebook files on their smartphones. And young people often don't mention that sort of reading to older generations, to avoid "real books" snobbery or other kinds of judgement.

You address something I've been wondering about and experiencing myself since the e-book price fixing suit/settlement went down and e-book prices went up.

E-books have a perceived value to me and I hesitate to pay more than that. A tighter budget compounds this issue and means my book purchases are more thoughtful and less impulsive now than they were six months ago.

And $11.99 for an e-book makes me pause and think, especially since I know that price will most likely drop when the paperback comes out in a year.

Hi Nathan,

I've often wondered the same thing. Personally I use e-books mostly for technical matters (I'm a web developer), content I send to my Kindle from the web, some magazines, and for travel (I do NOT miss having to cart around tons of books, either on the subway or plane/train) but I still prefer reading books.

However I do worry that it's not just competition with angry birds or any other time-wasters out there. Those have always been around to some extent. What I DO worry about, is the loss of a space to read, to write, to contemplate. Whether it be cell phones intruding on every single public space, video games or the relentless All-caps nature of the web, the space where writing, and reading, matters I fear is becoming less and less. Look at the decline of literature's influence in the last few years.

Maybe that's pollyanish of me, but it's what I see. Hopefully we'll reach some kind of balance in the years to come.

Best,

Tim

Good thoughts, I wonder the same.

I had an e-reader that went on the fritz and just upgraded to a tablet. I admit, I've mostly used the tablet for catching up with things like Top Chef's Last Chance Kitchen if I don't want to boot up my laptop. I check out ebooks from my library and load onto my device, but the selection is pretty small, and I usually have specific books I'm looking for. I hope that libraries get access to more ebooks, because I think that will help people convert to ebooks more. I use my library a lot; for the books I buy, I am usually buying print at a book event to support the author.

I love this discussion; very thought-provoking.

I don't think there's anything to be concerned about for readers or writers (unless your a print publishing company or investor by day!).

So what if ebooks become all the rage? Readers (vociferous readers) only care about two things: Quality and Accessibility of reading materials. We will read magazines and toothpaste bottles and classic novels so long as they either make for quality reading, accessible reading, or, ideally, both. It doesn't matter if the words are printed on plastic or a digital screen or paper (I mean, it does, but common, let's be honest, that is mostly nostalgic, and although I love the smell of paper books, I love accessible and/or quality reading even more).

If the concern is that ebooks will cheapen the reading experience by virtue of e-ink vs. print, alone, than I very much disagree. If the fear is that lack of 'gatekeeper' print publishing companies or the 'gatekeeper' of the labor-intensive process of printing physical books, in general, will keep the quality of reading low, I think we ought to expect more of ourselves.

Even before the printing press, good stories were told and thrived. Ever after, there may be MORE stories, and thus cheapened quality, but there are still good stories out there despite changing technology, and that's the only thing to be worried about, in my opinion.

I too have been thinking that books might just go the way of the record. Just as you can now easily download just a single, and therefore the concept of the album is suddenly losing meaning, I wonder if books will slowly be transformed into something else. My sister showed me a children's "e-book" of Winnie the Pooh on her iPad, but although there were words on the screen, it was really made to be more like a movie. And it made me incredibly sad for kids and their imagination. I think if we want long-form books to be passed down the generations, then it is up to us as parents to transfer our love of books to our children.

I just read that blog post yesterday. (So, speaking of futures and predictions...yeah...pretty sure I just changed the space-time continuum.)
E-book sells may be leveling off in the real world, but in the Education World it's the exact opposite. Most of my students now carry iPads and Kindles. My Outside Reading List is now emailed instead of handed out in class and contains links to purchase or download the books. Personally, I would much rather pay 9.99 and read a book on my Kindle than plop down $30-$40 for a hard copy. (But that's non-fiction. I feel rather wasteful paying for a fiction e-book I'm going to read in a couple hours. The library card is my friend.)
One of our major textbook suppliers announced at the beginning of this year that they would be phasing out their print department and instead would be encouraging all schools to buy their E-textbooks.
However, you are probably correct in that students would much rather be playing Angry Birds than reading about the First World War.

I don't think people read that much anyway, so that's why e-book sales are leveling off even though tablets continue to sell.

I doubt it's because people are reading less than they used to.

It's sad that books aren't as popular as movies or video games, but they're just not.

Just to add to your tracking data, we bought a Kindle Fire and returned it in favor a Kindle Touch. My wife uses that to read. I have an Asus Android Tablet (10") and I read on that. Hardly use the library any more ... especially after reading in the NYT that bedbugs are spreading via books. Eeek!

I have a kindle touch with several books on it, but I only pull it out and dust it off for one reason- traveling. Since traveling with a library is awkward and expensive (suitcases are $25 a pop now) I settle for an e-reader on trips. But at home I cannot replace the experience of a paper book. It is tactile and real and something I can hand to my children someday and say "these words meant a great deal to me." I can't imagine bequeathing them my kindle and telling them how much I love my books.
You can buy anything on this planet online, but our stores are still crowded. We can order all our books from Amazon, but our Barnes and Noble is always busy. Shopping and selection is a social experience that people enjoy.
You can't download the smell of baking bread and hot cocoa from the corner cafe or the way a book feels in your hand when you carry it to the cash register.
I am an e-book owner, but with few exceptions, I am not an e-book reader.

I think the problem is that people can't buy an ebook from any store, save it on any computer, and read it on any tablet. If that problem can be fixed, I think people will absolutely buy ebooks, and at $11.99. I guess it means open-source DRM that any ebook vendor can apply and a software program that works like iTunes but isn't only for one kind of file type.

I guess I'm not convinced that price point is the key factor in many people's Angry Birds vs. Book decisions. Sometimes, in the short term, sure ... but in establishing long-term habits I think other factors are at play. I'd venture that more people are liable to become addicted to Angry Birds (and similar entertainments) than they are liable to become addicted to long-form written work, whether non-fiction or novels. But hasn't interest in long-form work always been more rare than simpler distractions?

Will addiction to Angry Birds and the like crowd out attention paid to work that requires sustained attention? Maybe. Maybe for some. Maybe for most, but "most" still leaves a significant audience for books, and book-lovers will find price points they can afford, as we always have.

I like potato chips. I also like to eat meals. I'll pay more for a meal than I will for a bag of potato chips, even though the potato chips are, in and of themselves, probably the more addicting 'food' ... and I don't think I'm alone.

I think we have to wait a few more years to see what happens. I always look at kids and I see the future. And you don't see many kids embracing print books these days. They all have tablets.

And, tablets weren't designed for e-books. Tablets were designed for many things, from social media to getting information on line fast. So we're really going to wind up right back where we started. People who read will always read, and most likely they'll be doing iton tabelts. People who don't read will be using their tablets for other things.

In other words, I never thought technology would make more people read. I only thought it would change the way people read. And, I wouldn't be investing in a small e-press anytime soon :)

Yes! I love books, and I don't have e-readers (except for the Kindle app on my phone). I use my Kindle phone app all the time (so I don't have to tote a book with me on errands and such), but I notice other people playing games on their phones. I'm usually the only one reading. I have friends who have bought their kids Kindles (or Nooks or iPads), and I've *never* seen their kids reading on them -- they read print books; they play games on their devices (and they're usually playing games, not holding a book).

This same thorny little idea: my novel versus Angry Birds, has been chasing itself around in my head for months.

I'm going to go find a paper bag to breathe into now.

I think people will continue reading whether Angry Birds is around or not. There have been distractions from long form reading for much longer than there have been free smart phone game apps (case in point: crossword puzzles, newspapers, card games, etc.). But then again, I'm the type of person who reads books instead of watching TV (shocking, I know), so maybe my views are outside the norm.

I agree with Christi. Entertainment in the form of games and apps are on two seperate ends of the spectrum. I dont think people will stop reading all together simply because there are app out there. Interesting post though :)

In this digital world, I now buy more content than ever before. Take today for example, I bought one ebook to read on my iPhone. It is a business book. I bought one audiobook because I'm interested in the author but I know I won't have time to read the book. I would rather listen to it than miss the opportunity to enjoy a good story. Finally, I bought a print book to use for an important project because I want to mark it up for reference.

I love the digital world.

The best thing publishers can do is to negotiate distribution agreements as quickly as possible with tablet and mobile partners. This is how they will add more value to their relationships with authors.

The genie is out of the bottle. This reader is not looking back.

I think you make interesting points in this post given what I can say about my household.

My husband and I each own Kindle Fires. I download books on mine and the occasional game, though I buy at least as many print books as I do ebooks. However, my husband downloads movies, TV episodes, and tons of game apps on his, NOT ONE SINGLE BOOK.

The popularity of such devices does not necessarily equate to the popularity of ebooks. My sister has an iPad she likes to purchase a few books on, but anything she knows she loves and will want to reread, she prefers to purchase in print to keep on her bookshelf. Print books just feel cozier when there's an emotional attachment to them.

It is for that reason that none of my favored books are purchased in ebook format, and my Kindle Fire is full of random reads and guilty pleasures I don't necessarily want sitting out for anyone to see.

For me, I keep my silly app/game addiction on my iPhone... except for Angry Birds. They're easier to see on the Fire's screen. :)

I'd leave a long comment, but I need to go read a friend's manuscript on my Kindle Fire...

I love print books. A few years ago I would have sworn I would always prefer them to digital books. But I only average one print book a month now while I buy multiple digital books every month. My Kindle is such a clutter-reducer, space-saver and money-saver. Plus having a portable library with me is fabulous since I tend to be reading 2-3 non-fiction plus 1-2 fiction books at a time and I like to take them with me wherever I go. I used to lug all that around in a big tote or decide before leaving the house which book to take along. Now I can take them all in a slim lightweight device that fits in a my purse. I have a feeling the eBook revolution isn't going to slow down. It may plateau for a while, but it's going to continue to grow in the future. I feel torn about that. There is something lovely and old-fashioned about paper books, but digital books are just so darn convenient.

I still purchase print books for instructional manuals and books that I know I'm going to need to share with the faculty I work with. But all my fiction goes to my Kindle app on my iPad.

One of the frustration points for me is one you blogged about a few days ago and I missed commenting on...I think just as we resell our own used books, we should be able to purchase and resell previously read ebooks. I understand the issues surrounding this, but I always look in my library's ebooks to see if they have what I want to read for free before I consider purchasing. I'd love to be able to purchase an already read ebook.

I work at a new School of Medicine in charge of curriculum development and instructional technology. We will not have a physical book store on our new campus, nor will we sell physical textbooks. Everything will be eTextbook. The biggest question for me is which provider has the best eTextbook platform (note taking, anotations, both searchable and sharable, integrated media and quizzes, flashcards, etc). That company (not the publisher) will win the eTextbook race. It's no longer just the words on the 'page' that provide the experience, it is how the reader will interact with the functionality the ebook platform provides.

~Eli

As long as people keep writing great books, we'll keep reading them, right? My daughters and all their friends have iPods and/or tablets, phones, etc, but they still devour books and discuss them. I think the readers in each generation will continue to raise more readers. I can't imagine 6 straight hours to read... I'd be In Heaven!

So, first of all Nathan, you know I can't resist disagreeing that e-book sales are leveling off. I disagree for two reasons:

a. The WSJ article was based on research conducted in this link here:

http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print-book-reading-declines/

Yes, the original research was entitled:

"E-book reading jumps, print reading declines".

How the conservative WSJ got, from that research, the idea that e-book sales are leveling off is a mystery only they can answer. I think the game of Twister was involved.

b. The only one who can really tell us what is happening with e-book sales is Amazon. And they aren't sharing their data, so we just don't know.

People can reassure themselves that e-book sales are leveling all, but there is nothing to support that!

Second, you are absolutely right that there are dangers to Publishers in pricing e-books too high; they are losing customers and strengthening the competition. They are also, unfortunately, hurting the authors that publish with them.

I admit I had steam coming out of my ears when I saw how high your books were priced, Nathan. Not on my account, of course I'm going to buy your book, but because it prices your book too high for MG, imho. That could potentially hurt your sales, and it makes me really mad, because your books are very good and deserve to be given the absolutely best chance in the marketplace.

And by not supporting you, Publishers are weakening themselves. They are under-cutting their asset, and the costs of that will move into the future.

So, for a number of reasons, pricing too high is just a really dangerous move on their part. It weakens their position - with authors, in the marketplace and against competitors.

I agree with you 100%, Mr. Former Agent Man.
It's as I've pointed out as well: the major traditional publishers scoffed at ebooks and Amazon because, despite the really low cost to producing a book digitally these days technology being what it is, they missed the appeal of the Kindle revolution.
Kindles, and ebook reading, didn't necessarily explode because people love to read on a screen instead of turning pages!
It exploded because suddenly there was a way to carry large tomes, the newspaper, and magazines and Sudoku or whatever people used to entertain themselves with during long waits or just relaxing--and all in a lightweight package.
But it wasn't even or only convenience that launched the ereader revolution.
It was cost. There are books--you may not like them, they may in your opinion not be very good--you can download for free or 99c?
How much did Amanda Hocking charge?
If you could get Angry Birds for 99c, and a good novel, say, Pride and Prejudice, for 99c to $3, it would be a tougher choice than your $11 example.
Now, that's what Amazon figured out. And what the "major" publishers tried to stop. It's called "undercutting the competition." It's also called attracting cost-conscious consumers in an economic crisis.
I've mentioned before it's similar to the paperback revolution of the start of the last century.
Do you want to spread literature, and human understanding, to as many as possible? Or do you want to keep readinng, as a form of entertainment as well as education, for only those elites who can afford it?
The paperback revolution coincided with the spread of education beyond elites. A coal miner could and might have read War and Peace.
Not everyone in every country has access to the technological infrastructure that has made ereaders so popular in the U.S.
Until they do, likely paperbacks will out-sell ereaders.
But once they do?
If you offer it at a price they can afford, they will kill those Angry Birds...

Tablets are outgrowing books, that's for sure, but will books go away?

Tough to tell. Streaming and kiosks killed Blockbuster, but people still watch movies. There is hope. I hope.

I didn't read all the other comments due to limitations on the use of my eyes, so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else has said already.

This made me think that apps like Wattpad, which offer readers instant, global access to more content than one could possibly read in a lifetime, are going to have an impact on eBook sales too.

Now eBooks are not just competing with games and other forms of tablet entertainment but also other books available for free, right now, anywhere readers have access to the internet...

~bru

A thought: No matter how common they become, e-readers will still mostly be for the well-off in society, whereas books--used and from the library--are what is more likely to land in the hands of the less fortunate, particularly children.

There was a time when books were for only the elite, and then they became more accessible. I worry that in an e-book world--where libraries would struggle to be relevant--that we would return to something mirroring that time. I may be jumping the gun here, but I recently interviewed an author who was writing a book that would only be digital, and that was his concern, that poor kids would not be able to read it. I'm curious what others have to say about this.

Scott

The problem has nothing to do with e-books, tablets, or publishing. It has to do with this, and this alone: what is the value of reading over playing "Angry Birds" for 99 cents, or even for free?

Anyone can entertain themselves for six hours, if the sole goal of life and growing up, and becoming an adult is merely to entertain oneself. So, I ask again: what is the value of reading, over everything else that can temporarily distract our minds and emotions from the burden of living, and the joy of finding purpose in this world?

The problem has nothing to do with e-books, tablets, or publishing. It has to do with this, and this alone: what is the value of reading over playing "Angry Birds" for 99 cents, or even for free?

Anyone can entertain themselves for six hours, if the sole goal of life and growing up, and becoming an adult is merely to entertain oneself. So, I ask again: what is the value of reading, over everything else that can temporarily distract our minds and emotions from the burden of living, and the joy of finding purpose in this world?

Sorry about the double post. I thought captcha had done the usual thing it does when I type it incorrectly, and that it had wiped out the comment.

@ Scott.

You know, I had the same concern. I was worried digital technology could be very dangerous, making reading a class issue even more than it is, because of the expense of buying the e-reader.

But I recently read some articles about what is happening globally (I'm so sorry I don't remember where they are, so I can't link them), and what they've found is that in some cultures - Africa, for instance - e-books are actually easier and more accessible. That's because alot of Africans, even the impoverished, have cell phones. And you can download apps and free books on cell phones.

In addition, there are some libaries being built that allow people to come in and read on digital technology. I think the first all digital library just opened in some little town in Texas. And everyone still will (hopefully) have access to libraries.

Digital technology for libaries makes sense because of storage, accessibility, even dusting. :)

Also, I predict that e-readers will keep getting cheaper and cheaper, until you can pick one up for 10 bucks at the drug store - or even get one for free from some site doing a promotion.

So, I could be wrong, it still might be something to worry about, but I was reassured by these things. I think it is a very valid concern, though!

When thinking about the future of ebooks, I can't help but look to my kids. Although I readily download books at midnight, just because I can, my 8 and 14 year-olds have not made the switch. I've nudged. We have multiple tablets in the house as well as a Kindle, and still, they choose paper. My personal reason for switching had to do with clutter, but if you look around their rooms, it's clear that they are not of that mindset.

We drove an hour to Barnes and Noble two days ago as a treat. The Borders in town closed and nothing came along to replace it. We used to make a weekly ritual of shopping there with the kids. But now when we make the trip to Portland, it's not the same. They only seem to carry the best sellers and the offerings change very little even when it's been a month or two since we made the trip. Both of my kids are becoming Amazon converts and ask me to look things up for them that friends had or that they saw in the library.

My gut tells me they'll eventually switch only because it's so hard to find what they want in paper without ordering it online and having to wait.

No. Unless the author/publisher was getting compensation for teh book, that would be acceptable. If they did do it, thye dhuld not allow indie or self published books to be resold

It's going to be awfully hard for writers to make a living if, in theory, a hundred people can read the same copy of a book with no compensation for the author. This isn't like a library or even a used book store full of paperbacks, in my opinion. I really don't like it. :-(

This is yet another reason why I think the consumption of all digital media (books, movies, music) is better off switching from a own-per-unit to a subscription model, since ownership of intangible data is so...fuzzy.

It would make these debates moot.

Instead of buying individual pieces of media and 'owning' them, instead you'd pay a fixed monthly fee for unfettered access to the library of media.

You're never watching 'your' Finding Nemo DVD, you're just renting it on demand any time you want. Ditto, you're never reading 'your' copy of 'Wolf Hall', you're just renting it on demand every time you open it on your Kindle.

I would *love* to pay $15 or whatever to read as many books in a month as I want.

Seems insane. How would you ever make any money?

I am so conflicted on this, because I've *always* thought that DRM and its associated restrictions hurts electronic sales--the ONLY time I will pirate or jailbreak a song or movie is when I flat-out can't do what I want with the file (put it on my nook and iPad at once, etc). Otherwise, paying money for the content is both easier and keeps viruses off my computer.

So I've championed publishers like Tor and many self-publishers, who are trying to go forward with DRM-free versions of their books to give their readers the greatest flexibility possible.

At the same time, it's one thing to have DRM-free items that you can read on any reader or give away, versus creating a secondary book market for ebooks. Amazon already makes it super easy to get rid of old media for an Amazon gift card--how soon will they begin compensating people for "returning" their ebooks? And with nothing to incentivize purchasing the new version (no dog ears, no underlining), the vast majority of people won't pay more for exact the same thing--and, I would wager, that even includes people who understand the author gets no payment for the "used" copy.

In addition, there won't be the "secondhand shipper" problem with the used ebook--usually you have to pay $4 shipping for a used book because the used book retailer isn't part of Amazon or bn.com. It will make it easier to buy used.

The whole thing leaves me wondering if this is not just another attempt to drive down the price of new ebooks. The problem is, as usual, such tactics will disproportionately squeeze midlist authors who don't get giant pre-orders of their new titles.

Obviously, this is a dangerous innovation. The only way the author doesn't get screwed in this is if there's a secondary-reader royalty rate established, much like the royalty credits for songwriters. An author would get full credit of royalties on a books initial purchase, a .75 credit on secondary purchase, etc. etc.

There would also have to be some sort of time delay on the ability to resell e-books. For instance, a three or six month delay after initial publication date, that way authors aren't seeing their profit capabilities undermined by fast readers or unsatisfied customers.

And there has to be a limit on how many times an e-book file can be resold. That way there can still be sufficient demand vs. supply to maintain profits for authors.

Well, since the comments on Scalzi's post have pretty much already run the gamut on this, I really have nothing to add...except that my gut reaction was: "So, Amazon is trying to monetize piracy now?"

There's a fundamental flaw in the argument against the resale of ebooks: Where's the uproar over the resale of physical books? Authors don't get any of that money, do they? In reading Amazon's patent, it's clear that once a person sells a bit of digital content, it's not theirs to have any more, unless they buy it again -- the same with physical books. The patnent also says they'll impose limits on the number of times a bit of digital content can be re-sold. Where content creators -- from authors to publishers -- ought to get aggressive in the digital resale market is not to try to quash it outright, but to try to get a slice of the pie in what appears will be a tightly-run marketplace, where Amazon's sales at least will be handled in a manner that should make collecting resale royalties a simple matter.

I think we already compensate buyers for the reduced shareability of e-books with a lower price point. You can buy it cheap, but you can't resell it or lend it (except by lending your device). Ownership has been redefined in the digital age.

I just bought Word 2013 from Microsoft, but what did I buy? A bunch of digital information streamed to my computer. Even the days of "I went to Seattle and all I got was this lousy CD" are over. The licensing model is now simply a fact of life in the digital age.

People want the best of both worlds: the advantages and cheapness of digital files along with the advantages of a physical paper product. But you can't have both. If you want a copy you can sell or lend, buy a paper copy. If you have an ereader and like digital (and digital savings), go that way.

Tout finis.

To me, a "used" e-book is just a copy. I don't quite see it the same way as me taking the physical book I paid for, and reselling it (or giving, or loaning, or whatever). I guess if there is a mechanism for ensuring that I no longer have it, there is room for discussion; otherwise it just seems like illegal copying.

My question is, "Do authors and publishers get paid when a book is sold used?" If the technology is to be used as you have described it, wouldn't it be the same for the author/publisher of an e-book?

My thought is, if the technology to pass on ownership of an e-book exists, wouldn't it create an opportunity for the author/publishers to demand to be compensated for the re-sale of the e-book?

How are authors/publishers compensated for e-books in the Amazon Prime lending program? If they are paid (albeit at a lower royalty rate), maybe it could be used as a payment model for the re-sale of the e-books.

Obviously, Amazon's practices have created reason for the content creators to distrust their every move. However, they have also opened up opportunities for authors to realize their dreams to finally become published.

On the other hand, I would love to see a subscription type service as proposed by Lauren B at 12:29.

My first reaction was Yikes. No Way! But after reading some of the suggestions posted, I can see there are some compatible alternatives such as Lauren B.'s subscription model and Isaiah's idea of placing a time restraint before you can resale and/or the number of resales. (I really like this one.)

Nevertheless, if the author and publisher aren't being compensated then there are definately issues that need to be addressed before Amazon moves foreward, if they decide to do so.

Might as well just blog and give the story away for nothing. At least that way you don't have to pay for a cover and editing.

I think the best thing to do is to sell eBooks as a package with the real books. I want to own the hard copy, but I don't want to also have to buy the eBook. I'd gladly pay a little more on the normal price of a book if it included both. I don't like the idea of reselling 'used' eBooks, because like you say, there is nothing truly 'used' about them.

I think reselling ebooks would be fine as long as authors get a royalty each time the book sells. It wouldn't be right for Amazon (or any seller) to make money without compensating the creator.

Electronic files and hard copy books are apples and oranges-- or maybe apples and blue jeans. They aren't the same thing and it's ridiculous to pretend they are.

I guess some LIMITED version of passing it on--you read it, then gift it to someone--that would match how a lot of readers use books, fits what I make sense. I don't think you should be able to sell one (though I suppose if you made a private deal for the gifting, that is up to you) but once it is gifted, it can't be gifted again, and if it was a 'promotional' version (free or seriously discounted) then the 'gifting' could be removed if the author/publisher decided.

Or maybe the gifting (or a few extra rounds of borrowing) would be an add-on purchase the original eBook purchaser could buy... it is $2.99 but for $3.99 you can lend it up to three times or gift it when you're done.... something like that.

Nathan wrote: For me personally, it's hard to wrap my head around what a "used" digital files even means. A digital copy does not get worn, the pages don't yellow over time, there are not dog-eared corners. A "used" digital copy is exactly like a brand new digital copy. The idea of "used" digital anything is pretty meaningless.
-------
I saw Scalzi's response and reposted it around because it was a thoughtful rant (and I'm a professional writer with e-books and audiobooks too).

But when I saw this item on the problem, I remembered one other thing that makes "used" print books more valuable than pristine ones.

If a famous person (or subsequently famous person) has annotated a book with underlines and/or marginal comments, or if the author him/herself has added marginalia -- THAT copy becomes more valuable than a clean print copy.

One feature with Amazon Kindle that I'm using is the "share" feature that lets you highlight and "share" (with folks "following" you on Amazon Share who also have that book) snatches of text from the book.

The only books where I've seen others sharing text excerpts are some Harry Potter.

You can also insert a "comment" on shared text.

Those shares are not "attached" to your copy, but to the title. Anyone who has that title and is following you can see your shares. You can also post shared excerpts to Facebook and twitter.

Reading is becoming a social networking experience.

It's possible Amazon plans to develop something that allows you to sell "used" copies with access to some commentary by (whoever?).

Or maybe they just want to be sure nobody else can if Amazon doesn't do this?

First of all, the author has been paid for that sold book. Should the author then be paid again for the same book that has been purchased? If that's the case, then library book sales would be highly illegal. Second hand bookstores wouldn't have a business. Authors will find every reason to try to make a dime on everything they can.

Does Calvin Klein get money on clothing that is sold at a goodwill or Salvation Army? No, he's already been paid for the sale of the clothing. Same thing with ebooks. Once the book is purchased, it should be able to be sold back or resold. Now, I'm anti-Amazon, so I don't think they should make a profit off of it. Maybe collect a fund to help save libraries or something. Which yeah, I know will never happen.

I'll probably piss off a lot of authors, but really should you make double off of one book every time it switches hands?

This would be a disaster for both publishers and writers. It might be disastrous for Amazon too if their profits from used digital eBooks don't compensate them for the loss of writers who will flee to sites where their eBooks can only be "rented" rather than purchased. Unless Amazon is confident that they have such a large market share that their position is unassailable, they may want to make sure their author's pocketbooks stay full enough to keep them from being lured away.

Laura @6:31:

Well, I'm not pissed off, but I am scratching my head at your reasoning.

You said that "the author has been paid for that sold book. Should the author then be paid again for the same book that has been purchased?"

However, what has been sold was not the book, rather what has been sold is the right to read the book digitally on your e-reading device. We aren't talking about an item which loses value once it has been accessed, such as a car rolling off a lot or a pair of pants. We are talking about the intellectual property of a written manuscript, as well as the art (if applicable).

By the same logic, music, once purchased, should be free to be distributed in all avenues without any compensation to the songwriters and artists. And if you purchase a CD, that is applicable. However, when a song is played in a venue, streamed on the internet, or even covered by another band and sold, the artist is paid royalties for his intellectual property.

The same should be true of books. Certainly, a book which suffers wear and tear after an initial read and is then resold has diminished its value to such an extent that it poses no great threat to the sales of an author's work. But an e-book, which does not diminish in value for any reason except perhaps time, poses a great threat to the author if it can be acquired at a cheaper price by cutting out the royalties.

In other words, an author's got to eat.

Isaiah Campbell:

In other words, an author's got to eat.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard that saying. Lawyer Milloy said the same thing when he wanted more millions from the New England Patriots. They traded him.

Why shouldn't we treat e-books as physical books? We pay just about the same amount for most of them. Considering it costs next to nothing to upload a document to site.

I also don't like "However, what has been sold was not the book, rather what has been sold is the right to read the book digitally on your e-reading device. We aren't talking about an item which loses value once it has been accessed, such as a car rolling off a lot or a pair of pants. We are talking about the intellectual property of a written manuscript, as well as the art (if applicable)."

If I'm paying $20 (The Casual Vacancy) for the right to READ a book, then I might as well just buy the damn hardcover and be done with e-books all together, because according to you, I'm basically renting it anyway?

I'm not trying to take money away from an author, I'm trying to help the consumer who gets completely lost in this myriad of challenges of the digital world. Scratch your head, but eventually there will be a backlash.

So all the books I've purchased for my Nook, I don't own, I've just been given the "right" to read it?

No. It's hard for authors as it is to make any money on hard copies. Especially first time writers to get a break. I say stick to the hard copy books. I have my first novel available through Amazon and Barnes and Noble and both have asked if I would consider ebook. I said no...more money for them and minimal to zero for the author.

If authors aren't being compensated for the reselling, then there have to be some sort of boundaries set. Otherwise, no one will want to go through the hassle of getting published. What if, if you bought it used but then could not resell it. So you can pass it on, but it can only be passed on once. I also agree with the poster who said there should be some sort of time limit on how soon you could resell it so that it wouldn't bite into new book sales.

DRM is annoying if you can't get a book on to your own device, but other than that, I think it serves a purpose.

This is an issue only because publishers are fighting a rear guard action to maintain the price of ebooks in the ballpark of paper books. This, despite the lack of major costs such as printing, storage, shipping, and returns. A similar situation existed in the early days of PC software when common programs sold for hundreds of dollars. Piracy was rampant. Now, these programs are sold for twenty or thirty dollars, with benefits of online support, and the frequency of piracy is far, far less.

If ebooks commonly sold for a couple of dollars apiece I doubt that a market for used ebooks would exist.

For Laura and those confused about this whole issue.

When you resell a used paper book, you are selling the paper, the ink, and the glue, NOT the content. That is called "The First Sale Doctrine." In fact, you never owned the content of the book. You never had the right to reprint the contents of the book, or sell it as a screen play, or anything else like that.

A digital book is only the contents. If you'd bother to check out the small print when you buy an ebook, you'd see that you aren't buying it, you are licensing the content, and what you can and can't do with that content is included, usually in the DRM information. That usually means you can't loan an ebook, you can't resell an ebook, and you can't post it online for free.

For more details and links to government laws and information on the subject, read my articles on copyright:


“A Reader’s Guide to Copyright,” A simple explanation of what copyright is and what the reader needs to know.

http://mbyerly.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-guide-to-copyright.html


“The First Sale Doctrine and Ebooks,”  Is it legal to resell or share an ebook?

http://mbyerly.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-sale-doctrine-and-ebooks.html

You can also see my articles on the Kindle used ebook system and what used ebooks outside of a Kindle system would mean for publishing, writers, and readers by clicking on the "copyright " label.

Patents are tricky. For example, there was a patent on something called the Berger Lamp for a long time. It's an infuser that takes impurities from the air and add scent to a room. They were very expensive for a long time because of this patent. When it ran out, everyone started selling them and they became more afforadable.

With that said, the odds are Amazon acquired this very important patent to keep others from selling used e-books. Whether or not Amazon will implement this is another question. Many large corporations acquire patents and never use them. They just want to hold them so no one else can use them. If that's the case, it's another brilliant move on Amazon's part.

However, if they want to start selling used e-books, and if authors are not going to get royalties, they are playing a different game now than they were with used print books. Authors and publishers can offset this by selling their own "used" e-books at a fraction of the cost. Or, authors could actually give away these books for free and cut Amazon completely. If it is done, it will create a large stir. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. Now, if one of the big six had been paying attention, they would have acquired the patent and never used it so Amazon wouldn't get it. But Amazon, as usual, is on top of everything.

Obviously, this won't happen. It would actually destroy Amazon's book business, which would do immense harm to their business as a whole.
Seriously... there'd be no ebooks produced, apart from a few rubbish ones by desperate self publishers.
No publisher who needs to make money – which is most publishers – will produce ebooks if this starts happening.
It won't be able to happen to previously sold books, because they weren't sold, only the license to download and read them was sold. So we who've bought them so far can't resell them.
So.
How would this work if it were to be implemented?
Some numbers.
Numbers are good.
Best case scenario for author/publisher...
Consumer buys $10 ebook from Amazon. Author/publisher share $7 however their contract states. Amazon make $3.
Consumer reads book, sells it back to Amazon for, say $4. Attractive deal for consumer. It only cost her $6 for the book.
Amazon sells the "used" copy, which is a faultless brand new copy of course, for, say $8.
Consumer loves this. Gets $10 book for $8. Amazon makes $4 on second-hand copy. More than they made on the new one.
At this point Author/publisher have made $7, and Amazon have made $7 from that one copy.
2nd owner of book sells it back to Amazon for $4.
Turned out a good deal for 2nd owner. It only cost them $4 to read the book.
Amazon sells it to 3rd Consumer for $8.
Amazon has now made a profit of $11 on a book that sells for $10 new.
Much more than the publisher and author combined.
At this point one book has profited the producers of the book.
Repeat forever.
So the publisher/author would sell very few copies of an ebook, and as this production would ensure a loss rather than a profit, they would not produce any ebooks at all, only print books.
Amazon would only try this if their ultimate goal was to stop ebooks being produced.
Probably not Amazon's business model is it?

You can't sell "used" music files on itunes, and I doubt this will ever come to fruition either. Since you've really just bought a license to read a book's content, not bought the book itself, it doesn't make sense to sell "used" e-books.

I heard on the news a couple of weeks ago about a library in Texas that has gone all digital -- it's reportedly the first digital library in the country. They will have a physical location, but it'll be a place where people can go and use Kindles, Nooks, etc. I guess that means they're going to loan e-books.

Libraries have to buy books in order for their patrons to check them out. Is it possible for publishers to work with libraries or maybe even come up with a new model for consumers to be able to share their "used" ebooks and the publishers still reap some benefit?

No, no, no, no, no. This is not cool.

Being a part of the anti-DRM crowd, I have to say it's not the same thing, either (not saying you said that, just ...).

Pirates will still pirate, and people who understand that we must financially support creative works if we want more cool creative works will still pay.

The only difference is who gets the money. I'd rather see it going to writers and publishers than digital distribution behemoths like Amazon. As much as I love Amazon, and I shop there a lot, they've already taken a big enough piece of the publishing pie.

I'm confused how this 'technology' differs from Kindle Direct Publishing, in which Amazon Prime members can "lend" books to others, in a "lending library," all digital and virtual, with no extra compensation to the writers?

On the other hand, do writers/publishers currently get some compensation for resale of their books, by either used book stores or even, for example, the bookstores that buy and sell textbooks?

Perhaps the time has come to allow such virtual resale, with some compensation from the seller going to the writer, again? I see no reason, in the digital world, why the publisher needs to benefit from resales suddenly if they haven't until now...:)

But I share your concern/confusion as well. Since a "digital" used book is essentially the same as a new one, I can see the incentive among, say, Kindle users to keep or reopen some memory on their devices--the equivalent of clearing unwanted used books from your shelves--and get compensated.

But not the writers or publishers?
:)

Here's a new twist on the issue: ReDigi is a company also looking to get into the used e-books sale. But with their sales, authors and publishers would get a cut with every sale--and that's part of what makes it even legally trickier, because giving the author and publisher a cut sort of violates the "Right of First Sale" doctrine. (Source: Publishers Weekly, "Sale of Used E-Books Getting Closer," Judith Rosen Feb. 16 2013.)

If an e-book is going to be resold, I'd rather the author and publisher get a cut. As a reader starving for more books but keeping an eye on a too-short budget, I like the idea of more affordable reading. I'll pay full-price for authors I know I like, but if I'm looking for a new author, or faced with an intriguing book from an unknown? I'm more likely to buy if it's cheap enough I can still spend the extra on an author I know I love.

But as a writer, I will pay full price to support other authors whose works I know I like, whenever I can afford to buy new. The conundrum comes when facing the question of whether or not most other people will, too.

I think it's such a complicated question because the impulse is to try to create the ebook market in the image of the paperback book market.

Not sure that can be done because, as you point out, the two are such different animals and yet, as a reader I do want to be able to treat my digital books just like my paperback ones, loan them to friends etc.

At the moment, pre-coffee, I don't have a great solution to offer, but thanks for giving me something interesting to think about on this rainy Friday.

This comment has been removed by the author.

I don't think this conversation should overlook what happened with the shift in music and piracy. Conceptually, the music industry didn't mind if I made a copy of a cd for a friend for free (peer to peer was ok). This was in no way controversial, and completely impossible to regulate. The issue really was when strangers were introduced to the equation with mp3 sharing. I think it's reasonable to understand why that is controversial.

So with my ebooks (as with all my content), I feel like I should be able to transfer my license (for a fee or for free) to someone within my network (there should be an easy way to regulate this - immediate family and an approved list of friends in order to limit it so everything isn't available to all my facebook friends), and I'm ok not having the right to do the same with a stranger.

Also, if we look at the developments in dvds over the last decade, we've seen how the studios are including enhanced content that's only available if you buy the movie or tv show. If ebook licenses do become transferable, we may start to see enhanced content available only to the first buyer - a way to incentivise the purchase. Also, probably windowing so the original purchaser couldn't transfer their license immediately.

Assuming that Amazon is attempting to offer the ability to re-sell Kindle-formatted books across Kindle devices, then they do actually have the ability to ensure that the original "owner" no longer retains a copy. They control the content and the cloud and can make sure that you remove all locally downloaded copies before re-selling.

(Yes, yes, rooted/jail-broken devices and PC's used by slightly more tech-savvy folks could easily be used to cicumvent the issue...just as with DRM and DVD copying and all that).

Now, having said that, I suspect that Amazon is first going to use this to scare sense into publishers who attempt to charge hardcover prices for new e-books (actually, I think the fact that this is getting publicity IS their scare attempt). If the publishers are going to insist on charging paper prices for electronic content, then perhaps the electronic content should come with the same resale rights as the paper.

If Amazon has the patent on the technology, and finds the legal right to do so, they could easily threaten to allow re-sale of those overpriced books. If you were a publisher, what would you do?

Also, digital content CAN age, can deteriorate, can become obsolete. Anyone have a PC game sitting on 5 1/2" floppy disks? Think you're going to play that again someday?

I'm not saying that I agree one way or another on whether this is good. Just suggesting a potential motivation.

No, I'm not reselling the paper, ink, and the glue. I am reselling the content if I resell a paper book. Because when I go to the thrift store or used book store, I am not buying a collection of glue, ink, and paper. I'm buying the content. I'm buying the book. I'm buying what the author wrote at a price point I can afford and in a manner that authors and publishers have no control over. Consequently, when I buy an ebook, I'm not buying a collection of zeroes and ones, I'm buying the content. To say otherwise is silly, no matter what the proper definition of publication rights might be.

I've always thought e-books should function like movies. Buy the book outright for $10-$20, or rent the book (for 21 days) for $3.99-ish. I get a lot of my e-books now through Overdrive, but I hate waiting. I would gladly pay 4 bucks to avoid the wait, but not thrilled about paying $15 for a book I'll read once and forget about.

Interesting question and comments.

I sort of feel like doing a 'wait and see' on this. For example, Amazon may never use the patent - as a commentor above said, they may just be tying up the rights.

If it does try re-sales, it may reimburse authors for them. There's no reason why it wouldn't, it gives the bulk of every sale to the indie author (and quite abit to the publisher) anyway. Amazon does not appear to be interested in bilking the author.


And/or - Amazon may decide to offer subscription for used book exchanges.

Or - It may ask authors to participate voluntarily, like Prime. Some authors might agree for the discoverability.

Or - Amazon may not even know what Amazon is going to do yet. :)

Should be interesting!

In different news, I'm halfway through the new Jacob book, Nathan. Wow, fast paced and fun. Loved the 'elephant in the room' - too clever, Nathan. :D

I wandered around the site for a while, got bored and left. You're right, there is a still an ingredient missing.

Bookish? That's me. The site? Not so much.

I think it's wonderful that you posted this because I didn't know about them. But now I will shout as much as I can and try to inform other people.

The reason why I'm saying this is because I am starting to find sites like Goodreads very low end...trashy. And they seem to thrive on viciousness and controversy. And I don't care much for it. I honestly think sites like Goodreads will turn into places for the lower classes to argue and bicker with each other, and sites like Bookish have the potential to become places where a higher end reader goes.

I go to places like this blog because I learn and I'm informed, and there's a quality to it I like. But when I go to Goodreads I often feel as though I'm wading through a discount department store of the worst kind, with people I would never socialize with in real life. So why would I want to socialize with them online?

I think web sites like Bookish are long overdue, for the people like me who don't want to be associated with the low end types at Goodreads. And I'm only being honest. I don't like cheap fast food either.

I don't know anon, I think every social network is about who you're following and interacting with. I agree that there's a bit of a lowest-common-denominator that can happen with the aggregated reviews, but to me the appeal of sites like GoodReads and Library Thing is that you can easily see what your friends are reading and saying about books, so you have context.

Perhaps different types of people will flock in different places, in which case Bookish could be that destination. But right there that capability isn't really there in a seamless way like it is at some of the other book social networking sites.

I think the idea would definitely work better with a more social site like GR. If GR had the ability to link people directly to the publishers with a buy button, you'd see a spike in direct sales simply because of impulse buying.

I agree in a general sense, and I prefer Library Thing over GR. I just think there's something missing for readers who aren't interested in all the trashy drama at GR. A place where honest people can go and not feel as if they need to shower when they sign out. Bookish may or may not be that place. But sooner or later something will take the place of GR. As more and more mainstream people discover social media the call for more civilized web sites that aren't run like the old wild west are going to be needed. A lot of us are really turned off by places like GR, and at the same time we want nice places to go.

Thanks for posting about Bookish!

The only thing I have heard previously about this site is their sketchy Terms of Use. It made me a bit leery.

Hum, I must said, I hang out in GR very often and never have experienced what anonymous expressed here. Maybe, like Nathan said, it is a matter of who you are following and who is following you.

So far my experience has very very positive.

Bookish has problems. If I search for my book by title on Bookish, it does not come up. If I search my last name, it does come up, but there's nothing on the page that you can't find anywhere else on the internet. And oddly enough, there is a whole separate part of the Bookish site that cannot be navigated to, where videos are house. My trailer is there (http://bookish.magnify.net/video/The-Turncoat-Donna-Thorland-978;search%3Aturncoat) but even if you somehow find my trailer on "bookish.magnify.net" you can't navigate from there to the book's page...

This was at Passive Voice recently. A bit of a put-off.
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/02/2013/calling-bookishs-terms-of-service-idiotic-is-a-violation-of-the-terms-of-service/

I'm somewhat of a Goodreads addict with no interest in starting over on Bookish.

I don't bother with book recommendations. I get that by exploring books in 'my' genres on Amazon. And if Bookish isn't going to have the books be in the same format as my kindle, without any DRM bother, I'm not interested.

I looked at Bookish a few days ago, and couldn't get away from my first thought: there's nothing new here. I love Hilary Mantel, for example, but I don't need Bookish to tell me she has a new book. I've seen it at my bookstore, my library, on my Kindle, etc. What are they giving me that I haven't already seen eight other places? Why not use the site to offer author exclusives, bios and work from up-and-comers, free chapters from stuff in development, behind the scenes of the publishing industry, etc...?

I remember getting excited about this site—like a year and a half ago.

I visited the site, not impress. There really isn't anything for authors. I registered to see if I could add a book that I like and that's not available. You're are correct missing ingredients. It was boring for me.

Sounds look Goodreads with a "buy" button.

Where are the indies? that's my problem with it, in a nutshell.
Too many good self published books out there to be ignored entirely.

Bookish strikes me as a publisher response to someone telling them they need to have direct contact with their customers... without really thinking through what that means.

And I think it's a truism in the online biz (of all flavors) that being a follower (i.e. second into the marketplace of ideas) doesn't do much. "Me too" doesn't garner interest. "Hey I'm different!" does. As well as a relentless focus on serving the customer.

Nathan: I haven't tried Bookish. But it doesn't sound like a platform that, as a reader, I'd really be interested in.

For two reasons: Goodreads does, as you've noted, have a great start and growing popularity/use and your description of what and by whom Bookish has been set up sounds suspiciously like an attempt to sell books at prices the participating publishers want without having to sell on Amazon at prices below what they want.

In other words, Bookish sounds to me suspiciously like the big traditional publishers' attempt at price fixing ebooks and printed books at the same prices as their "industry model" that they actually tried to force down Amazon's throat--and failed, when Amazon and others accused them of price fixing, and the Justice Department agreed that's what it amounted to (restraint of trade).

That said, however, I could see it--if the publishers were smart enough--as a modern, online version of the sort of "Book of the Month" clubs, which sent recommendations to readers, who were required to order a few books a year. And since the advent of the internet, all the big publishers have had their own websites, from which in fact you could purchase their books and learn about their authors.

You likely know, though I'm not sure how many of your readers do, that most of the major publishers, in fact, even had their own weekly (Scribners) or monthly magazines that showcased stories by their authors, and were intended to attract readers to them...

If that's what they used it for, I might actually be interested in it.

Otherwise, as a self-published "indie" author, and also as a reader and friend of readers and writers, Goodreads seems to be ideal, because not only can you contact your friends who are other readers, but you can be in contact with authors...a key ingredient in the reader/author relationship.

It's as if the big traditional publishers--who are all consolidating, because they never realized what Amazon was doing with Kindle--don't get that being "BIG" is not necessarily the same as "POPULAR," or that readers can see them actually promoting great writing or reading over profits that continue to dwindle because readers (and writers) have caught on that you can read great books, recommended books, and some really bad books, less expensively than what the traditional publishers claim it costs them. Because we now know it may cost them a lot--but it's not going to the writers as much as a major, consolidated, international corporation.

You noted CBS, and Simon and Schuster. Charles Scribner's imprint remains under Simon and Schuster's, as Charles Scribner's Sons' "Scribners". But I don't think a Scribner is in charge of it anymore. And I recently stopped by the building, for fun, thinking maybe they'd preserved Max Perkins' office as a sort of museum. But no. There's not even, really, a bookstore in the building. There is, however, conveniently, a bank...

:)

Allbest,
T

I checked out the site, and I felt like it was very commercial. They don't really show you exactly what you are supposed to do on the site to make your stay worthwhile. The social aspect of the site makes it second to Goodreads, but, for me, knowing that the site is made furnished by big publishers makes me feel like I'm not going to get a one-sided view of books. By this, I mean that the books they list will be from their publishing company and they won't want a lot of bad press on a website they fund. Maybe that's conspiracy theory, but I think that would keep me away from the site.

What ppl have been clamoring for bundled e-books and print? If you buy the paper book because you don't have an e-reader, why would you want the electronic version? If you buy the ebooks because you don't want to end up on an episode of "Hoarders," why would you want the print book?

Well, I can't blame them for trying, but I don't see this taking off. I could be wrong, of course. But they are making so many mistakes.

First, it was a mistake to put this out in beta. Once a customer comes and finds it too clunky to use, they probably won't return.

But I think the real issue they will have is with consumer trust. Why would a reader go to a book recommendation site that only features the publisher's books? The site seems to leave out other publishers. I typed some Macmillian books into the search, and it came up empty.

They could deal with this by being transparent and charming and trying to build brand loyalty, but they don't talk about the fact that the site is run by publishers anywhere that I could find. This is a huge mistake. Customers are saavy and, accurate or not, this looks like they are trying to hide and/or fool people.

The site design has too many ads on it, it looks predatory. There is little that is really welcoming or oriented toward the visitor. I had to search to figure out how to use it. I should not have to do that. It should be easy and extremely customer friendly.


Also, the fact that you cannot buy a book for Kindle is a huge downside. They just lost an enormous customer base right there. I wish Publishers would stop trying to directly compete with Amazon, that's impossible. They would do better to utilize Amazon to help them sell books.

And, there's the terrible terms of service. Mistake.

The final mistake is not including indies. Why?? Ignoring indies, when they are probably the strongest voice right now in the blogosphere, is a mistake. Indies will be highly critical of this site, and they talk ALOT.

So, I don't see this ever being really big, but it could garner some decent business if they fixed some things. That's my humble opinion, anyway.

Thanks for sending information about Bookish. I enjoy investigating new sites. It feels like the primary focus of the site is a sales tool. Nothing wrong with that, but if I'm just focused on buying, I'll just go to Amazon.

I am a fan of Goodreads, which provides more of a social forum, an interactive tool to find more books that I would enjoy, and as a side benefit the ability to purchase.

Bookish is a desperate attempt by USA Today to grab advertising dollars in a cynical attempt to make it appear like a social media cornerstone. (Hey, MTV did it 30 years ago and got away with it.)

Readers are not that dumb.

Peace, Seeley

Nathan,
4-5 minutes to load since you posted the "Publishing in GIFF" post (which is still up on the side bar under popular posts).

Help me -if possible- so I can load your blog easier please.

Thanks.

I wouldn't use it as it cuts out independent booksellers. Unless you're James Patterson or like to read James Patterson readers (and writers) are cutting their own throats by just using a big publisher based site -- unless they let you buy the book through an independent bookselller (but what would be the point of the site then?)

Choisissez un diablo 3 gold coût au cours de laquelle vous souhaitez commercialiser les minerais particuliers, sur la base du coût de vendeurs d'autres. Réglage du minerai à la médiane des prix pratiqués est recommandé. Cliquez sur «enchères» au bas de l'interface utilisateur, cliquez sur le minerai de vous souhaitez à commercialiser et à choisir un prix. Les joueurs peuvent aussi piller les foules sans vie, dans les quêtes, donjons et les raids d'exploitation. Prendre des objets verts, acheter des gold bleu et violet à la maison d'enchères. Ces éléments peuvent être matériel, armes ou objets nécessaires aux professions de haut niveau, une sorte d'orbe en congelé. Videz vos sacs régulièrement. De cette façon, vous pouvez transporter des charges de cuir à base, des matériaux et des objets rares qui peuvent souvent être mis à la Chambre des enchères pour de grandes acheter des po quantités d'argent en ligne.

I want book recomendations by the people I follow on social media and books from all publishers, until sites like this are fully integrated with a full offering like amazon they become silos or data islands out on their own. I can't see any reason why I would return to the site over and over again.

I don't see any value for myself personally in this site but when showing it to my husband he demonstrated strong interest. He's a book club facilitator and lit teacher and sees a lot of promise.

My gut reaction was that the site was one gigantic advertisement.

It's already happening; the closest bookstores to me, in a heavily populated Chicago surburban area, are in the next city over, and are two blocks apart (one indie and one B&N). With the closing of Borders and conosolidation of other B&Ns, these are it for about a 20 mile radius, with exception of a half price books. It's strange not being able to run over to the shopping area nearest me for some books. I have to plan ahead to make a trip to stores in a busy downtown area, or order online. I basically started using the library more, which also requires planning, but it's closer to my house and saves me money.

Yeah, I'm ready, but I'm lukewarm if the B&N closures are good or bad for books.

I wonder if the Indies will be able to pick up the slack, or if the B&N closures are symbolic of what will happen to the Indies.

I'm lucky, I've got three amazing Indie bookstores around me in Upstate New York (The Book House in Albany, the Open Door Bookstore in Schenectady, and Northshire Bookstore in nearby Manchester, VT).

I also own a Kindle and, as a Prime member, I get to borrow some ebooks, but (important for me) also cut down on the clutter on my book shelves. (Did I really need to own "Commencement"? Thus the beauty of ebooks.

Good writing will always persevere, the way we inject it into our bodies will always change. It's just like Jacob said, "It only ends once, everything else is just progress."

True story.

It's not just bookstores. I buy a huge amount of stuff online because it's easier and I get a better selection. Why do you think Amazon offers Prime for only $80/year? It's because once you have it, every time you need something, you look on Amazon first. Why not buy that $5 cat toy or $20 pair or earrings or $12 book online? It won't cost anything (extra) for the shipping, and you don't have to drive to a store, hunt for a parking space, and carry your purchase to the car. Instead the UPS guy will bring it to your door in 2 days. Whoever thought this marketing model up was a genius. Or possibly a drug pusher.

Sad. I know I'm supposed to support indie bookstores, but I do love me some Barnes & Noble.

I got a gift card for B&N for Christmas and made a list (from Amazon and Goodreads) of books I wanted. Once in the store, it was hard to locate the books I wanted since I didn't note the genre. I ended up asking for help from staff. She looked up my books on her computer and only 3 of 10 were currently in stock. She asked me if I wanted her to order them for me, but why would I? I can order them myself (on Amazon).

I don't think ebooks are the downfall of brick and mortar bookstores, I think my experience above highlights what is a better digital experience...easily finding, previewing, and buying books in my PJs.

I tend to buy ebooks if I don't want to KEEP the book (like books I'd typically get from the library). Books I know I want, I tend to buy and keep in a collection. Textbooks don't work on a digital format. It's just too hard to highlight, find what you want, navigate where you want to go, get to a page 15 pages back, see a diagram and navigate back quickly, etc.

If B&N asked *me* what I think it would take for brick-n-morter stores to survive, I'd say they should have some bank of store computers for customers to look up the books, and easy way to then find them. Color code the store if they have to. And, give me some kind of an incentive to order a non-stocked book from that store rather than online.

I had a bad experience at a Barnes &Noble. I blogged it before I left as I told store management I would then I emailed the corporate office, linking to the blog. I received a template letter that did not use my names saying they would look at my suggestions. I think things like this have more to do with why B&N is having problems than ebooks.

The growth is slowing, but 48% annual growth is a dream for any business, and a fantasy for most. That rate, despite falling short of previous growth rates, seems plenty high enough to shutter some more book stores.

I think websites like goodreads.com will become more popular. Sure I can order books electronically or online, but that means I won't be making impulse buys because of a shiny cover on the front table of the bookstore. So I'm going to read more of the books that are recommended to me by my friends, and the main place I look is on goodreads.

eBooks are brilliant. I'm not surprised they are more popular. I don't want brick and mortar stores to completely disappear, but I'm ok if almost all of my books (like 95% of them) are electronic.

Luckily, libraries are still going strong. 99% of the time I will read the first book (or two) of a series from the library. Then if I love it I'll buy the series (usually online for my Kindle). I will definitely miss bookstores, though, if they all go extinct. Browsing is one of my favorite ways to discover books. And what author doesn't want to go the the bookstore and see their book on the shelves?

I have an e-reader, and I like it, but it will never replace the feel of an actual book in my hands. Thus, I am saddened by these closures even if I don't ever go to B&N because I'm from Canada. And being from Quebec, it's even difficult to find English language books. The closest bookstore is maybe 20 minutes away, but they don't usually sell English books. Wal-Mart sells books, but only the best-sellers for English books. So, I have to go a long ways away either to downtown Montreal where they have a Chapters and an Indigo a few blocks away from each other, or go all the way to the West Island for the other Chapters. There's a small Indigo about a half hour away in Laval, recently opened, and I am so glad for it. Saves me gas and time. I do buy books online, but only from Chapters because Amazon, though I love them, tend to use courier services and not the post. And courier services, at least a certain one I shall not mention, always gives me trouble and either never delivers my packages, or after long ranty discussion on the phone with them, will throw my packages onto my porch. I have only bought maybe two e-books since I got my e-reader about a year ago. Anyway, to summarize, I prefer going to actual book stores, even if they are a long ways away. It makes it more special and the thrill of finding a book all on your own without reading reviews and it turning out to be the best book evah is something Amazon can't do for you. :)

I think it shows some wisdom by B&N's Retail leadership. In the US, big-box stores are losing ground pretty much across the board. Bookstores don't have an exemption.

It's not just e-books. It's online sales of paper books: Amazon, and (they could only hope) BN.com, and the like. The big bookstores are, with some exceptions, doomed in the long run. B&N will need to be vigilant for stores that are no longer assets, and close them down quickly.

"Going to the store" is a relatively recent idea, an outgrowth of suburban living and the automobile-mediated lifestyle. Now we're replacing the automobile with the 'Net for a lot of shopping needs. We're going back to getting goods delivered, like they were in the days when the Sears, Roebuck catalog was king.

Aw man. I am lucky to have an indie Fantasy/Scifi/Mystery genre bookstore down the block from my house (and they are successful enough to have opened a second location! good for them!!). I was already shopping there more because B&N didn't have the selection of genre fiction I wanted, plus they do a ton of author signings and other fun events. And if my indie doesn't have what I'm looking for, Amazon sure does.

But what I DO love B&N for are gift items. I love the bargain books (it's the only time I don't feel guilty buying all that fancy coffee table nonfiction that I won't actually read cover-to-cover) and the book-themed merchandise, which I always hit up for my tougher family members during the holidays.

And I think that is the big difference for me: the indies cater to customers who buy a LOT of fiction, run out of big list items, and are now looking for the more hidden gems. The big chain caters to customers who only buy a few big authors a year, plus Christmas shopping. It was sustainable as long as people didn't have a lot of holiday alternatives, but now they do.

Oh, this makes me so sad! I love my Kindle, and I also love indies (glad to see someone else shout out Schenectady's excellent The Open Door, and here in Buffalo I have the awesome Talking Leaves). I'm not an extremist in any one direction. But I will never forget the first time I went to Barnes and Noble. I was six or seven, and the only bookstore I had been was the dinky mall bookstore. Seeing a freestanding, two-story, ENORMOUS bookstore blew my mind--and on top of that, there was a whole window display devoted to horse books (my favorites at the time.) It might as well have been Disneyworld. I'll definitely be really upset if B&N actually goes under. Hopefully they'll figure out a way to change with the times!

I used to work for B&N in the midwest. We were normally meeting or exceeding what corporate goals were set for us. The reason we did so was because we didn't listen to the corporate office's suggestions on what would sell in our market. We listened to our customers.

My beef with B&N is that they look for the biggest bottom line they can get(what business doesn't?!?!). However, they sacrifice customer service.

Brick & mortar bookstores are disappearing because of large companies like B&N either buying them out, or flat out running them out of the area, and then forcing their cusotmers to choose ineffective selling techniques. The stores that thrive are the ones without much competition.

I think it's sad that brick & mortar bookstores are slowly disappearing. I love the idea of electronic books, but there is something about holding actual text in your hands.

I haven't been in a Barnes and Noble for YEARS, but coincidentally was in one TODAY! How weird is the timing of getting your blog post?

As a new published author, I had my first book signing at Barnes and Noble in Gilroy. There were a lot of people and my sales were fantastic. The consumers expressed their love for physical books, so this is heartbreaking for me. I don't know what we can do as authors to stop the closing of a large book store. I guess the best is to stay current on the development of publishers as well. How will this effect the literary agents and publishers? Thanks for your always keeping us abreast of the writing world.

It's bad.

If we want to maximize readers, then the best thing is to have the maximum number of outlets and formats. Brick-and-mortar, online, print, ebook, audio, new, used: everything. Not sacrifice one kind for the sake of any of the others.

B&N is not being forced into anything. They're actively choosing to reduce the number of print books they carry and are trying to steer people toward the Nook (the Nook counter is front and center at every B&N, taking up prime retail space). They also are carrying more non-book merchandise. I'm sure their plan to close the stores is coupled with their expectation of increasing Nook sales. We'll see if that business plan works for them. I predict it won't, but it would be nice to see Amazon continue to have some competition.

Book shopping isn't just about buying words to read. For many people, browsing and shopping are recreational activities. That's one reason bookstores have chairs and cafes. If bookstores survive, it will be because of that social, stay-and-read-awhile atmosphere. I like shopping in my pajamas too, but I also like leaving the house every once in a while!

Amazon is a monster.

I love Amazon, and use it all the time, but it's clobbering the competition--more especially the big chains than local businesses. But for all of us it's a force to be reckoned with.

There are still people who love physical books, and they're not real fond of Barnes & Noble. I work at an indie book store, and we're doing fine, mostly because we now sell a lot of other things besides books. at our store at least, books have been holding steady for the past couple years, after a steep decline for a decade and more.

For us, selling books is more like a service than a way to make money. Beyond lagging sales, there's the fact that book prices are printed on the cover. On other items, we multiply our cost by some number between two and three, depending on a bunch of variables. But with books, we're stuck charging something along the lines of 1.5 times the cover price.

Though we prefer to order from a regular wholesaler, sometimes we end up ordering from Amazon ourselves. The price is often the same as what the distributor gives us, and because I have Prime we get free shipping. Plus they have everything, plus they're fast.

I'd miss physical bookstores if they disappeared entirely, but I don't see that happening. I'm not mourning Barnes & Noble.

The biggest problem B&N or any bookstore has is that books have such a low profit margin. The last figure I saw was 3-5%. That's pretty dang small, and it's not getting any bigger while the cost of floor space, insurance, energy, etc., keeps rising.

Compare that to furniture which has a profit margin of between 500% to 1000%, and furniture stores are dying even faster than bookstores.

Not a good outlook for bookstores, is it?

The reason that bookstores are filled with novelty items, aka not books, is because these items have very high profit margins so they are bolstering the bottom lines and keeping bookstores alive. The next time you see a game or a gadget at B&N, don't cuss it, because it's helping keeping books in stock.

I buy 90% of my books as electronic books off Amazon, based on reviews and recommendations from friends. Although, I must admit, I do love browsing in a book store when I have time. But that time is dwindling, and now I pretty much go into a brick-and-mortar bookstore about once a year -- at Christmas. Then it becomes a whole glorious experience!

I wonder if bookstores will become temporary kiosks at Christmas time, like calendar shops or Hickory Farms? Or they can temporarily take over the buildings vacated by Halloween Costume shops come Nov. 1?

Things like cookbooks or coffee table books might have to be carried in other kinds of establishments -- cookbooks in Williams-Sonoma, fashion books in Abercrombie, novelty books in Urban Outfitters (as they do now), etc. Those are the types of books that seem like they'd suffer most from the lack of "browsers."

Wow. I just spoke at a local writer's conference in Avondale, AZ, this past November where a few literary agents were also invited to speak, and one of them made a prediction that B&N would go the way of Borders by 2016 or so. So this news feels a little eerie, to say the least. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the months and years to come.

This is a timely post as I (true true) wept this weekend at the absence of any physical bookstores for me to visit over the weekend. My desire to visit bookstores stirred because of a lovely Winter rain that fell over Los Angeles. My memories from undergrad and grad school are permeated with me visiting bookstores when the weather was bad and this weekend I was determined NOT to purchase a book on Amazon and to actually buy the Barry Unsworth novel, The Quality of Mercy. What a stupid idea. When the realization hit me that there were exactly two Barnes and Nobles within 10 miles and only one smallish used book store, I sat in my car and cried (the onslaught of tears stemmed from me calling all three and being told that not one carried the book). I'm not exactly sure why I cried but it might have been a feeling of pity that my son may never experience the luxury of spending a rainy Saturday fingering the pages of books in a bookstore. Granted, B&N and the mega bookstores have never been my true cup of team, but they were at least something, which is better than nothing. I called my husband (still crying) and he told me that it may be a good thing and that perhaps the smaller bookstores we both cherish will in fact one day return. Sadly, I did have to make that purchase on Amazon.com (but made sure I chose a vendor that was a bonafide bookstore!). Here's to moving forward but not forgetting the value of experience. One can say the experience of downloading a book is grand, however, there is NOTHING in this world like standing next to a stranger in the philosophy aisle of a bookstore as you both look at similar titles...knowing that this physical person most likely has something in common with you and feeling a kinship with your fellow human reader. I rarely feel that when I download or purchase a book online, even when I read reviews. Thanks as always for your blogs Nathan!

B&N is "Fully Committed" to Retail

Good post, Nathan.

I think the underlying context here is that B&N plans to focus on building its digital market.

It's sad. I have very fond feelings for B&N stores. I remember when they came on the scene. I know they are given a hard time for putting some independents out of business, but I remember that they also revitalized the book industry. They made books so much more accessible.

I was just driving by the big storefront near my house that used to be a B&N, and it felt so sad - I loved that store. I studied there, and browsed and read for hours.

Nonetheless, this is the reality. And I think CEO was pretty optimistic saying it would only close 1/3 of its stores over the next decade. I suspect it will go much faster than that. It will snowball.

Because I think your point is well-said. At some point, consumers will lose their choice - they will have to go with the prevailing technology - in this case e-books.

And your other point is also well-said - that the closure of bookstores will most likely hasten the adoption of e-books...which will hasten the closure of the big stores, and so on. A snowball.

I love my Nook for it's storage and the fact that it fits inside my purse. But what I love about bookstores is the opportunity to communicate face to face with a person. Not just the clerk behind a counter, but the other people browsing the same section. I love the banter between fellow book lovers. There's a sense of community, even in a large chain store like B&N, that will never be replaced. Comment sections on blogs or dueling reviewers on Amazon are just not the same thing.

Nathan,
Could this be some consolidation to free up cash for the Microsoft partnership with Barnes & Noble? I know the Microsoft side of that deal wanted to emphasize ebook testbooks as that is a steady and profitable market. Or has the deal gone sideways?

Yvette Carol said:...

I will miss brick and mortar stores.
E-books are great, they don't take up space, don't fill my bags, etc. In fact, it's almost like they're not there at all. That's why I find my "ownership" of e-books less than satisfying, because I can't touch them, they're not ever really mine.

Of course the irony of all this is that on my blog, I'd already chosen to blog about the power of handselling today, before all this doom and gloom about my employer hit.

But the things I could see brick-and-mortar bookstores leveraging are POD and overnight shipping. In my opinion (mind you, as a humble digital sales rep and not a manager of any kind) is that B&N could throw some money into ensuring that books from the warehouse end up on the truck en-route to the stores the same day. Like a few people have noted, the difficulty is that a physical store just *can't* stock every single book. But imagine if you could call the store during the day on Tuesday, and the book would be there on Wednesday? Or imagine you could walk into the store and use the Opus book machine to print the book you need for school tomorrow?

These are the things bricks and mortar stores need to think about. The places where we beat the pants off of Amazon are handselling and being able to hand a physical book to the customer *right now.* This is what B&N needs to think about leveraging.

One thing people tend to miss is that BN have several hundred College stores (most aren't branded as BN) which do very well, and have vigorously pursued the e-book model of late. (See the BN Superstore at State/Jackson in Chicago, which is the DePaul University Bookstore for an example of one of their large college stores.)

I think the closure of some BN stores will be an initial boon for the independents.

Amazon is negotiating over paying tax to the states, because it can then build fulfillment centers in every state allowing for easy same day delivery to the customer. I predict in 5 years Amazon Prime will be offering same day delivery for a small fee (they offer on some items now in Chicago although at a larger cost). This will likely deliver a deathblow to further retailers including some independents.

There will still be successful bookstores which are mostly independent, they will be the community focused businesses involving a great deal more than books. They have to be a destination.

(I've worked in large corporate bookstores on both sides of the Atlantic, and currently run my own online bookstore, overall about a decade of bookselling experience)

I refuse to say my good-byes to book stores. I cannot imagine a world where I couldn't take my children by the hand and pick up books until we find just the right one. Millions of people like me won't accept that our recreational shopping is confined to clothes, sporting goods and home goods. We will demand books. Lots of them. With real pages and great covers and little cafes and the sound of parents sitting down to read with their little ones. We want to look one arm chair over and see someone engrossed in 1984 and see the person across from us thumbing through the history of Latin dancing. Of course we want ebooks, but shopping for a book is an experience unlike shopping for anything else and there is a huge market for it. Don't count reading consumers out just yet. If B&N drops the ball, someone will pick it up.

Recent activity (which I'll explain some day when it's time) has led me to believe that while you are likely 100% right about this in the U.S., we (writers) tend to forget that there are other markets for our books, and other places where readers still clamor for print copies of others' thoughts and creation--perhaps out of economic necessity.

While ebooks are inexpensive to both produce and acquire, there is an entire wireless infrustructure in the U.S. that makes it possible that doesn't exist everywhere.

In addition, some countries that have less reliable power generation as well as lower average standards of living may not be filled with people walking around with Kindles or other ebook readers, or even the latest iPhone or iPad--as the cost of them might be greater in comparison to their livelihoods than in the U.S.

So. While I agree the brick-and-mortar stores may be threatened (more the major chains, I venture to guess, than smaller stores with far less overhead/investment) by the ebook advances in the U.S., I submit rumors of the death of the printed "book" have been greatly exaggerated by cultural and geo-centrism...:)

I'm pretty sure Amazon has a giant Cheshire-Cat grin right now. They'll happily absorb B&N's lost sales, and they probably don't care whether it's in ebooks or paper books.

No. For environmental reasons, I desperately tried to go digital. A curl up and read simply isn't the same, for me, with anything less than a "real" book.

Don't you agree that another factor to consider with the proliferation of closing book stores, is the ease of ordering "real" books, say, via Amazon?

Comments like, "I do love browsing in a book store when I have time," and, "the luxury of spending a rainy Saturday fingering the pages of books in a bookstore," which don't include any mention of buying anything from the bookstore, make me wonder if bookstores have the wrong business model.

Maybe bookstores should have a cover charge and a 2-book minimum.

I primarily read hard copy books -- I don't even own a Kindle, though I do borrow Kindles from family members on occasion. However, I find myself buying more and more books from Amazon as most of the book stores nearby have closed. I live in the LA area, and in the last few years, all the bookstores I visited regularly have closed -- the 2 Borders that were sort of on my way home to the valley from work in the city, the Barnes and Noble in Encino (it had free parking!), and the B&N I would go to at lunch time in West LA. There are hardly any new-book indie book stores in LA, and there are no good used book stores. I'm from Tucson, where Bookman's (a used book store) reigns in awesomeness with multiple huge locations and comfy couches, so these rare and threadbare used book stores in LA do not meet my expectations. All I have left are a little used bookstore in North Hollywood called Iliad, the B&N in Burbank, and the Book Star Barnes and Noble in Studio City (I think this one was an indie that was bought by B&N). Of these 3 that are left, none of them have the selection I want. However, I try to buy books at B&N to support the brick-and-mortar store ideal. I've never seen a general-new-book indie book store in LA (I'm not counting the new-agey niche stores here). I've heard there's one indie book shop in Pasadena and one in West Hollywood, but the first is out of the way and the second is right inside the Westside traffic/parking snarl that I prefer to avoid. Maybe Parnassus (of Nashville fame) will come open a branch out here...

New era? It doesn't sound like B&N is going to disappear. Borders and B&N expanded greatly as the Baby Boomers hit their most intense reading years, and lost ground during a recession. Doomsaying notwithstanding, ebooks and bookstores will coexist.

Donna

I have two universities within seven miles of my house, and yet there are no independent secular bookstores left in the entire county. B&N is the only non-religious book seller in the county. That's one of several reasons why I chose a Nook over a Kindle. I want them to stick around. Even when doing the majority of my shopping online, I've been trying to use B&N more often. But they don't make it easy. I haven't had great success with their customer support. A few months ago I tried to order two CDs and preorder a book, but the CDs were not going to ship until the book did because the order wasn't automatically split like it would have been on Amaxon. And, I can only have three gift cards on my account at once, and customer service can't combine. Their suggestion: delete the one with the smallest balance, forfeiting that balance, if I want to add a new card. I'll continue to try to support B&N, but they're not exactly making it easier to want to go to them first.

I hate to sound like that movie "You've got mail," but when I'm in Barnes and Noble or another big box store, I look, but I buy on Amazon. If I'm in my local quaint little bookstore, I buy whatever Sue recommends. I think that's what's missing from the bigger stores; the expert advice.

I've tried to support my local Barnes and Noble, but like others have said: They don't make it easy. The last 4 - 5 visits I've left mad, and usually without what I went in for.
The worst was when I checked online before going to see if the title I wanted was in stock. There was only 1 and a button for me to reserve it. So I did, thinking it was better to buy it locally than ordering online. However, when I went to pick it up, it was over $5 more for the in-store price than the online price. Nothing in the reservations system warned me of this. Basically I felt punished for shopping in the store.
I can't be the only person these kinds of policies turn off.

I know it has to happen, but it doesn't mean I'm ready for it. I've hung out at Barnes & Noble for as long as I can remember (in fact, I'd make sure there was one nearby before I moved to an area). I know the times are changing, and eventually, a vast majority of them will be gone, just hate to see that era come to an end.

Nathan, It's all those (exciting, intrusive) and a bit scary. It's bad enough, when we authors get the courage to check them, to read our reviews at the various bookseller sites. Now we have to face learning that some readers may quit in the middle of our books (or even earlier). Pressure upon pressure.

Sure, I don't care. Privacy is pretty much an illusion any more, anyway. It's naive to think that we're all in our own little secret bubble. I don't actively seek it out, but if I'm part of some surreptitious 'market research' that can improve things, so what? I really don't mind.

I would love to have that data, especially on free downloads. For example, what percentage of my free downloads have actually been opened, read 25%, read 75%, finished? While I hope the last three would all be equal, I suspect only a very small percentage of those who download it for free actually even open it, let alone read it. I hope I'm wrong on that, though. Have you seen any statistics on what percentage of free ebooks get read?

creepy.
*shiver*

meh.
I only get pissed when a snooping technology uses me to generate some sort of free advertising--a la FB and it's timeline telling everyone what I bought or read online, etc.

If you use my interests to advertise to my friends, cut me a check. Otherwise--if it's anonymous data collection--I don't really care.

As a writer, I had to admit, I would probably be fascinated to find this info out, unless, or course, a lot of people weren't finishing my books. :(

As a reader and a citizen, this scares me.

I can see how this will be especially useful to track the free books out there. An author could shoot up the rankings with a free book with a great hook, but that no one can stand to finish.

As an author it would be scary but useful to know if I am losing the audience at a certain point. Especially with ebooks that allow you to revise and re-release the book.

I think it would help, for instance, Patrick Rothfuss to know how many people stop The Wise Men's Fear after the Felurian bit, as I did. God above I wanted to love that book. It died.

I am a little surprised at people's surprise at this. How many of us have credit cards? Our purchases are tracked. They even give us a handy statement at the end of the year categorized by type of expenditure.

How many of us have supermarket club cards? Totally tracked. They know what you bought, when you bought it, how much, how much you paid for it. What about bookstore club cards? They already know what we're purchasing. And our library borrowing is also tracked. I believe I can see my borrowing history when I log into my library's web site.

The only difference I see is that they can now tell a little about how and whether you're using the product... or rather, how and whether you've opened the book and turned the pages, and how long you rested on a given page. They still can't tell if you've actually read it, what you thought about it, etc.

With all our tweets archived at the Library of Congress and Facebook timeline taking us back to our births, this seems like it's not degrading our privacy at all. In fact I'm surprised it's taken this long.

This seems like another way to pre-judge a book's worth (why do they stop reading?). Supposition by the 'ereaders stats gatherers' doesn't reveal WHY, only that they did. They assume the problem is with the book.

It's much easier to stop reading an ebook than a physical book. Nothing there (no book on the shelf) to remind me if I don't open that ereader.

People quit reading books for many reasons: it was a gift and not to our taste, it was a bargain or free, but didn't live up to it's hype, etc.

Stats can be useful, or they can be slanted to reveal what the person using them wants to convey.

More culling of the herd. I'd say it's scary for the writer.

I would want to know where people drop off in my books. I would prefer to know in the critique stage, though, so I would have the opportunity to address the issue; I'm not sure what value hindsight has in this regard.

I'm not bothered by e-booksellers collecting metadata on a particular book for analysis, as long as the author can access it. I use Google Analytics to track website stats for my blogs, a similar tool for my books would be interesting, as long as I could refrain from obsessing over it (which is not likely, I'm a sucker for things like that).

I own a few ebooks. I've been slowly working my way through the Song of Ice and Fire series. In fact, I've been going so slowly with those books that I wonder if they think that I've left off. I started reading the 2nd book last August, only to pick it up again 3 months ago. Also, I own one of my favorite books in ebook format, that I also own in print format, and so I go back and forth between the two, depending on which is more convenient.

Thanks for seeing the positive in this frighteningly Big Brotherish situation. As a writer, I'd be intrigued to know where readers slow down or stop, but not at the cost of a corporation having that information. I'm not a big conspiracy kind of guy, but when it comes to big companies, I'm moving toward paranoia.

I'm all for knowledge... it it's shared.

Creepers. Are those E-thingies also watching you WHILE you read? That’s the next step… No more lavatory reading. Wait… there’s a novel in this!

IMO - the only shame here is that it's not provided to the author. This is a big deal, and being able to interpret this data and turn it into sales down the line is going to be huge. If I could get 1 # from Amazon it would be sample to purchase percentage conversion. Having that AND being willing to make adjustments to your sample pages to drive that % higher could be extremely valuable. Not sure Trad pub is willing to do this yet, but eventually they will be.

For a wonderful example on how this type of monetizing works, look at the success of free/paid (Freemium) games on the iOS platform. Players are not paying until they've decided the content provides them value. Game developers know when players lag and address those areas to keep them interested. I know it's a frightening step to take, but it might be a necessary one.

I've made the transition from a traditional video game developer (PS3,360 stuff) to Freemium (iOS,Android) while working for a major publisher and I'll never go back becuase i can offer a dramatically improved and personal user experience.

I'll be the first to acknowledge there are differences between game publishing and book publishing, but I'll also be the first to point out some frightening similarities.

As a content author, knowing when your readers 'tap out' is FAR more valuable than knowing when your critique partners do.

I say - bring it on!

I would absolutely want this data. Invaluable. Big Brother today is a BIg Brother also being wacthed by those it watches. I'm fine with that.

Wow! That's redonkulous. Thanks for the heads' up (I wonder what percentage of the ereading population knows about this?!). It's one thing to take information when people KNOW (eg. search engine tracking), it's another when companies are deliberately taking advantage of consumer naivety.

This almost makes me want to go back to reading print books. When we are assured there is nothing save our convenience to the reader involved in switching from print to etext, we were all too blind to believe it. Meh. Way to go B&N and Amazon.com

And what exactly does this gain authors? Of course writers have been dying for centuries to get that forbidden glance into their readers' minds, but will it make them better writers? Methinks not. Writing is part soul, part artistic borrowing (creative licence, stealing, whatever) part heedless idiocy and mostly just plain hard work. If you can't wring something successful out of those sectors without extra information (unfairly gained information, at that!), why are you even writing in the first place?

Privacy is such a constant conundrum that nothing about any of us is private except for our own internal thoughts.

If the e-book companies like Amazon and B&N would share such gathered information with authors then their benefits would be endless for future writing projects, as well as marketing and advertising their wares.

Don't want to know. Don't care. Besides, I think this is more about tracking sales and trends than helping authors figure out where people stop reading their books. And unless there is a book out there were a large number or readers...like 10,000 or more...are all stopping in the same place it doesn't really matter anyway.

I am a data junkie! This is almost like a dream come true for me...I'd love to get the job as the analyst who determines what the data means...one fun thing about data, to me, is figuring out what is worthwhile and what is trackable but otherwise totally useless.

I'll chime in with vic and Mirka. To me it's on the creepy side.

Maybe I'm just too clueless to be afraid of this stuff, but I find it fascinating. If I could have it all consolidated (and not coming at me every day as a distraction), I'd love to know not just where people stopped reading, but where--at least in an NF book--where they put bookmarks. I should be getting my first e-reader this weekend, so maybe I'll change my mind when I'm on the readership end, but I don't think so.

Sounds cool. I've tried asking readers before when they got distracted while reading my stuff, and they usually have no idea, so I have trouble figuring out where my weak scenes are. Granted, I'd like this feedback BEFORE it goes on sale online, but it's still a good way of knowing where to shape up if you have a certain type of scene that people regularly step away from.

That said, I share e-readers with friends and vice versa based on what books we have. I hope they're not expecting all the books on an e-reader to be read by the same person. If they are, they may be in for a surprise!

Totally inaccurate information. Sometimes I stop because I'm going back later and then I get busy with a project and can't get to the book. Sometimes I stop because I have read the book before and don't want to read just yet, waiting for a time I know I'll be ready or re: above and just don't get back to it because something else came out.

But I don't expect anything less from BN. The company so ignorant they handle their customer service the way they do. What a fiasco it was to even GET my e-Reader. [rolls eyes]

S'up, Big Bro?

As a writer, I find that info fascinating and think it would be useful.
As a consumer, I find it invasive. Much like Facebook.

This sounds both exciting and intrusive, and others have said, a bit scary. Yes, I expect companies to keep all the data they can. Like how TiVo knew that the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction was watched by more people than the entire Super Bowl audience that year. In fact, it is the most re-watched moment in their history.

So I'm not so much concerned over them watching my reading habits. However, I am concerned with them making decisions based on that information without making the data available to the author.

As a writer, I would love to have that sort of data (what people highlight, where they stop, how quickly they read, etc.) It could be extremely valuable to help tell what parts work and what parts don't. What do people love and what do they hate. Especially if they could tell not just overall time to read, but time to read parts. So you could see if most people zip through certain sections and drag through others.

So I see this as potentially a great tool, if authors are given access to this data so they can use it as feedback for improvement (especially for ebooks, where the author could use the information to revise and republish in a matter of weeks instead of years for the dead-tree editions).

Sadly, as with any new development, it could also be seriously misused. Remember the words of Mark Twain: "There are three types of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics." So anytime any group is gathering statistics, it's very easy for them to be misapplied to prove some preconceived idea.

But I guess I'll remain hopeful that this will be a case where data will be shared, rather then horded.

Great post - very interesting! I don't think it really bothers me that much that they're tracking what I'm reading, where I'm stopping etc. I think it has the potential to be a good thing and when it comes down to it they're not going to get too much about us out of the books we're reading. They're not going to be able to access our emails or social media accounts or anything, so I think it's relatively harmless!

Absolutely.

As someone who is coming out with his first commercial debut later this year, I would love to know where people are bookmarking my book and/or if they're finishing it.

I'm very surprised nobody has pointed out that if companies have access to this data, then governments will also. (Surveillance used to require warrants, but that is becoming less and less true.) It doesn't seem far-fetched to me that people could be targeted because they're reading something perceived as "extremist" or "terroristic." Not to mention the opportunities for censorship. If someone decided to pull back all copies of a "subversive" or "pornographic" book from e-readers everywhere, who would stop them?

I'm also surprised at how casual people seem to be about the ever-increasing monitoring of every aspect of our lives. Maybe it reflects the current, my-life-is-publicly-available-on-Facebook mentality, but it really shocks me how little people value their privacy.

I never thought about the possibilities of this, but I think it could be a useful tool to improve the book market.

INTRUSIVE! For me, reading is personal, private, an escape. Would you want someone to be able to view your other private habits? Take sex for example: They would know how fast you go, when you slow down, when and if you finish. Can you imagine the spam we'd receive for our reading habits? I already get way too much for viagra, penis enlargers (I don't even have one-why would I need an enlarger?), and webcams chats. I don't think I could handle the intrusion on my reading as well.

I'm thinking that it could be a slippery slope to writing books that are focus grouped and tested first.

Publishing Industry seems to follow Hollywood in all things like pitch sessions with agents and authors, and high concept plots.

Just remember Seinfeld did horrible in focus groups and didn't really catch on with the public right away.

For indie-pubbed, not sure. I'd hate to sit down to a laptop and think...gee, on my last novel 18. 7 percent of readers left off at page 81...

Haven't we created enough stress in our lives without this one?

I can't wait until I have the technology available to study the reading habits of my students. That may be the only thing to get me sold on my school converting to ebooks.

If they don't allow you to opt out, then I don't like it.

What's been pointed out by a lot of commentors here, that data without context is worthless, is something that needs to be considered more closely.

The larger entities, your usual Publishers Row address, is probably not going to take the time needed to do follow up when a data point is determined from the data. They will most likely just walk towards their own conclusion, much as they do now, without any care or concern regarding author development.

Smaller entities, more likely the one person shops, may have the time and resources to do the follow-up necessary, taking a representative sample out of the dataset and query for insight. This could be a note to the reader, asking a few questions, inviting a dialog with that reader. Much like most of the small-ops today work, come to think of it.

So the only real difference that this all makes, in the end, is that there may have been a few bucks exchanged before the process, as opposed to this happening before going to press. End result is net even, with maybe some advantage for the smaller operations (where most writers are going to end up in the future anyway) who will be able to capitalize on the real time data a lot more nimbly to greater effect.

Not surprised, but find that the data is not complete. I read more than one book at a time, different categories, different purposes. There are a few books I've stopped reading from boredom, but other times there are things that pull me away from a book - research, writing my own book, reading hard copies of stories, or the need to read something else temporarily. So the data does not give the whole picture.

Seems the data collected would be 'cooking the books', to use accounting parlance. I wonder if Shakespeare would have been discouraged to write by marketing analysis. Reading tastes and styles are too subjective and personal to quantify in a pie chart of sales.

that readers drop off, pace-wise, at points, is not always indicative of their overall enthusiasm for a specific writer -- some writers insert reams of data or fact and figures to add weight to social commentary, yet truthfully, only the most eager really cares how many tonnes of coal the proles used in a scabrous northern town. It is natural to... skim over the boring parts of a flabby novel whose MC is discussing the mundanities of a trip to Ikea.

My point of view is I find it all a bit intrusive, whether I'm the reader or the writer of the material. It's getting in to Big Brother is watching you zones that feel distinctly uncomfortable. Almost like prying.
Yvette Carol

"The possibilities don't stop there. Could authors improve if they knew at which spots in their book people are dropping off?"

This is a double edged sword.

If the ability to do this so accurately existed in TV, it would result in a monkey randomly appearing and throwing crap at people's face in the "slow parts."

"People love it!"

For self-pubbing, I see it as a very useful tool. Under the mismanagement of any non-creative "creative" entity (basically people who only care about maximizing profit) it could be just as much of a detriment, if not more so, than not having this technology at all.

I haven't completely decided, but I do want to say thanks for keeping us all up to date on developments like this!

I agree with Heather Marsten. How quickly I read a book has nothing to do with enthusiasm for that novel, but more to do with how many of life's distractions pull me away from it (kids, my own writing, critiquing, my degree, etc.). I have at least five novels that I'm dying to get into right now, and one I've only just started but haven't had the time to get back to in the last fortnight.

So yes, while the data might be useful for some, it in no way represents enthusiasm.

As authors, couldn't we demand the stats on our own books under data protection registration? Might be worth a try, at least.

Of course, if the info is not shared with the publishers, there is no way the publishers can use it to decide whether or not to take the next book!

As a reader, I have no problem with the information that they can gather from my e-Reader. At all.
As a writer, I would be very excited to have this information shared with me. I would love to see where my readers stop; is my pacing effective? Are they breaking where I want them to break? And while I tend to read two books at one time anyway (one fiction, one non) I would find it valuable to learn if great numbers of readers were giving up on my books.
This excites me. It really does and I am sure that this information will be made available to authors, or the technology to gather this information will evolve (eg. Reader Share Aps).
Thanks for blogging, Nathan. Always a great read.

Very useful info.

I bought 50 Shades of Grey a few weeks back, and put it down at the half way mark.

I just couldn't get over the first person narrative and writing style of it; it seemed a bit...amateur (oops!). I know of a few others who have also put it down after the first few days of reading.


Although it is a best seller, I wonder how many others have bought it and failed to finish it. Maybe the sales of the sequels will tell the tale.

I think if writers can access the information about their books it can be a very useful tool. If readers are stopping reading at a certain point - I definitely would want to know this to try to not make the same mistake in the future. The main problem with the information is that it does not tell the writer why people are stopping reading, hopefully the writer would be able to work it out.

web usability geeks know that it's not enough to know where a person stops surfing a site, you really have to know why as well.

so, well and good, if authors want all the data on the readings of their latest e-book; but data is not information.

I find it exciting.

I suspect most people who buy books for themselves don't read all of them anyway. That's why titles and covers and placement are so important. I'm sure every publisher knows this already and banks on it.

This could be really interesting for authors if it showed a lot of people stopped at a certain point. It might indicate that part of the story was a chore to get through, or angered people, or something else, and that insight could help the author write better novels from then on. Of course, that would require the author to make a lot of assumptions about why people stopped, though, especially if there were no prior reservations about that point in the story. That could be a bit dangerous and maddening.

Really is my business and my business alone. Are we never alone anymore. Are "they" always there. BIG BROTHER!

Sorry I stopped at that certain point in the book, but I had to catch a train.


Hope the author doesn't change the scenes here due to my putting the book down while I picked up the baby. I love the book but am so busy with life's distractions right now.


Better finish the book, they're watching, and I really like this author.



I'll read a few more pages. Oh, now I have to cook dinner.


So you see, it's silly!


Oh this author I don't care for, I'll just read page 1 and 2 and drop it, then tell my clan to do the same.



Really some of the stuff that could go on...



And it's creepy having no privacy.



I also wonder if sales in e-readers might actually drop due to this new awareness.


So what are you going to do?

I'm a writer, but the first thing I was concerned about was whether we retained our privacy when we read e-books. As long as we do, then it sounds great.

Great article. We certainly do live in a very different world now the internet has taken over...

Interesting observations, Nathan. One of the pluses of the current environment is that the connection between author and reader has never been stronger. When you figure out how to reach the influencers, please let me know. ;-)

That's an excellent observation of how the tides have changed given the control the artist now has over the distribution of his work. I actually like the concept of "influencers" over "gatekeepers."

Although, as you said, even if you make it past a gatekeeper, you still need an influencer to bring your work to the forefront of the consumer's eyes.

This reminds me of Patton Oswalt's keynote address at Montreal’s Just For Laughs from a few days ago, especially in his second letter addressed to the "gatekeepers".

http://thecomicscomic.com/2012/07/27/patton-oswalts-letters-to-both-sides-his-keynote-address-at-montreals-just-for-laughs-2012/

Names. I want names! Ha ha.

Excellent post. Always a pleasure to read your clear thinking, Nathan. I completely agree.

I would add that I predict it's a matter of time before some major influencers arise. I could see books getting particular 'seals of approval' to show they are high quality, for example. The consumer will want a sorting process.

I can only hope this doesn't include some type of exploitation, but I could see it going both ways.

You can self-publish, but what are the odds of success? I'd say very small. The traditional gatekeepers are still the ones getting books out there on a larger scale. I'd say the influencers can help get your book to a gatekeeper. One example of this is the following: If you have a few established authors willing to cover quote, you can peak the interest of an editor. The book ultimately sells itself, but the influencers (notable authors) got them reading it. :D

“…will it help to get in with the influencers?” Nathan asks.
Sounds daunting. What does ‘getting in with’ mean?

Or will influencers become the new gatekeepers? Are we just swapping one set of controllers (agents/editors) for another (bloggers, talk show hosts, columnists)?

You make valid points about the freedom of choice, but a book's success shouldn't be based on the writer's popularity status, or how 'in' they are with the influencers. In that case, a good schmoozer will trump a good writer. (this has been shown to happen even with Oprah)

Perhaps the dust needs to settle before we can see where the quality lies. (BTW - who are the barbarians - those who don't wait for approval?)

I would argue that gatekeeping will never really fizzle out....there will always be advertisers and profits to be made in the media world off of cultural objects.....i see where you are coming from though...i would definitely agree that there is a larger input of information and ideas into the cultural triangle, but, as far as what is actually promoted and consumed by the masses, there is definitely a gatekeeping system alive and well today

I would argue that gatekeeping will never really fizzle out....there will always be advertisers and profits to be made in the media world off of cultural objects.....i see where you are coming from though...i would definitely agree that there is a larger input of information and ideas into the cultural triangle, but, as far as what is actually promoted and consumed by the masses, there is definitely a gatekeeping system alive and well today

What about "influencing" tools as opposed to people? I think there is a lot to improve there but we already have the recommendations from sites like amazon and goodreads. Add to that how easy it is to read samples of books online.

It may be unfair of me to memtion amazon here and not other online sellers but I do think that they are the leaders in that even if it's just because they have much bigger numbers of reviews.

It's always been a "help" to "get in" with the influencers, no matter what field you want to make it in. That's why people who have "connections" stand a better chance at whatever than those who don't.

The deluge of options open to people for whatever media entertains you--television, movies, books, music, podcasts, talk shows, sports, or theatre--can be daunting. We make our selections based on familiarity and filters.

The filters are designed to keep the rich richer. That is the reality. It isn't much different from the model available from the traditional model except for the patina of control, freedom, and modest success.

We still struggle against the sub par dreck, the unbelievable and unexplainable phenomenons perpetrated by the public consumption of media. We still are faced with the fact that even more pressure is put on agents and publishers. Finally, we have some hope, but it is of the slimmest kind. It comes down to who can yell the loudest to the most for the longest in the most compelling way. Marketing 101.

Seems like the old adage, "Money Talks and BS Walks" applies more and more to self publishing every day.

If you have the cash to get print it in stores, pay for advertising across the board and do what major publishing houses do from returns to hitting the PR trail. You can now do it all yourself.

No gate-keeper needed other than good old Ben Franklin. (A bag full of Bens, actually).

I've always trusted the experience of a traditional agent/publisher with my work. Sure, I could do it myself, but I want proof that I'm good enough to be believed in by a professional. And so, I've continued to make my mss and letters as best I can, and to tell you the truth, I'm glad. If I had become impatient and published early, I would have missed out on a better story.

Jennifer

I think culture gets more democratic now. First there were only a few people who decided what te rest should read. So if these people were Dostoevski-lovers, people would start to read Dostoevski. But maybe there was some other, much better writer in the time of Dostoevski, that no one ever read, because the decission-people didn't think him worthy.

Now everyone decides for everyone. We have millions of eyes reading every written letter in the world. Trhough portals like Reddit, the better the text, the more it will be read.

I think these are better, more democratic, times than the despotic , elitary times of the past.

(And no, I don't think this will lead to less quality, on the contrary)

I agree. It's like the fence has been torn down, but they're still manning the guard towers.

Research shows that, by far, the top two ways people select their next book are (1) familiarity with the author's work and (2) personal referrals. (Book reviews fell near the bottom of the list, but I would guess that individual super-influencer celebrities like Oprah count as a personal referral.)

Given that data, what's very interesting to me is the "vast bottom of the scale" you mention, combined with the role of Amazon. The Amazon "customers who bought this also bought" feature approaches a personal referral in that we all sort of trust the conventional wisdom. While it's not a new thing for book stores to be influencers (they have the tables up front and decide what faces out), Amazon's role is broader and deeper here. If you can get your book to start showing up as being purchased by people who also bought something hot, you'll get a bump. In theory.

The trick is to last long enough to hit the tipping point. For a traditionally published book, a countdown clock starts ticking the day the book hits the stores. If sales don't hit the tipping point by the time the clock expires, tough luck. But self published books have no such countdown clock.

Yep. If you can't get in with a traditional publisher and you don't have a pre-made awesome platform, your exposure is going to depend on who else you know. This is why a lot of us are still interested in traditional publishers and agents at this point; even if they don't provide as much marketing as they used to, we hope they'll have more connections than we do. Someone mentioned a "seal of approval" in one of the comments above, and I think both traditional publishers and some of the other big-name influencers whose opinions will come to be widely trusted will serve as this seal. Anyone will be able to publish, but those seals will help books get read.

Thank you as always for your wonderful insight. I find today's world so liberating. Even though I'm still "querying" away, I no longer feel dismayed when I get the rejection form as I realize I wield a great amount of power in liberating my story. I hope CBS Interactive is treating you well!

Stacey said...
"You can self-publish, but what are the odds of success? I'd say very small. The traditional gatekeepers are still the ones getting books out there on a larger scale."

Actually, most traditionally published books also sell poorly, which is part of the reason the midlist doesn't really exist in bookstores anymore. Self-publishing has brought the midlist author back and allowed plenty of authors to make a living from their writing alone. This month, with self-publishing, I sold over 13k books and made almost twice what the average tradionally published author makes in a year. I would never show up on the bestseller list with those numbers, and a publishing company would probably have dropped me before I had the chance to build my audience. As it is, I'm making more than a comfortable living as a self-published midlist-level author. And I network with a few dozen other people doing the same thing.

Anon from 3:37 again...

Forgot to mention, I don't have a platform. I don't blog. I don't advertise. I don't network to sell books but to learn how to write what my market wants to read. So, no, I'm not a big believer in the idea that you have to have anything behind you but good writing, a strong work ethic, and the willingness to out the readers' tastes before your own.

Since Snooki got not one but two book deals even though she didn't actually write either book (and neither do many of the celebrity "authors"), does that mean that people like her are more powerful? Does that mean that her kid is going to be President someday?
Just kidding.
I hope.

Still a long way to go for the unnoticed writer. Great stuff today, everyone.

Your posts are always good... this one was great. Thank you.

Firstly, thanks for increasing number of blog posts per week, Nathan. Love reading them and glad to be on receiving end of more.

Secondly, I thought this an inciteful post. Things happen in cycles, don't they? And the age of the internet certainly has enabled many people to become independent sellers. I don't know if you remember mp3.com when anyone was able to upload their music for free and the listener was also able to download it for free. Some of my favourite songs were hosted on mp3.com and composed by indie artists such as Gossamer. Much pay-to-listen music wasn't nearly as good, I thought. I'm glad the gatekeepers' role is being eroded so I can enjoy media treasures that I might not have had the opportunity to experience.

Absolutely. And I think agents can actually play the role of contact with "influencers."

But, as you know, I've been contending this since essentially it became obvious the "traditional" publishers were freaking out (as were critics) over their sudden loss of dominance over the "marketplace of ideas."

I imagine the same sort of reaction was experienced by various religious leaders when that guy Guttenberg started all the trouble...

I agree for the most part. But I also think as the mainstream becomes more aware of the Internet and what's happening on the Internet, there will be rules (for lack of a better word) that will require some kind of balance and verification.

This, for example:

"Anyone who wants to be a journalist can start a blog. You don't need a newspaper."

There was a case last year, I think in Seattle, where a blogger who THOUGHT she was a journalist was sued for defamation. The judge ruled she was NOT a journalist; just a blogger. He made this very clear and listed distinct differences. I wish I had links to this, but I don't.

However, a good deal of what we see and read on the Internet right now is a lot of truncated information supplied by novices and that's going to change. The most recent case with using photos without permission is another good example. True journalists know the difference. Bloggers don't, and we'll be seeing more and more legal cases pop up in the future.

as someone who's published 15 books with major publishing houses, I think you're right, and it makes me feel a new kind of weariness. it's democratic, yes. and i love the democratization that technology affords. but i see my relationship with the page -- the thing i care about most deeply -- being diverted not by a handful, but by masses i feel pressured to engage. i love readers -- probably too much. i think of them far more often than they think of me; the relationship will never be equal. but the push to interact and spend more time with them than my characters (not to mention my own family) is hard. i got into writing as a solitary act because i needed that solitude to make sense of the world -- which is both beautiful and brutal. i didn't go into sales and yet my job -- if i allow it -- becomes one of overwhelming salesmanship. my grandfather sold vacuums, door to door. i relate to him now in a way i never thought i ever would -- snowy stoops of West Virginia, trudging up moutain roads... it's different. it's the same. i was never good at rubbing elbows -- with gatekeepers. and i never got the feeling that they wanted me to. they wanted to see my words on the page -- liked them or didn't. do the influencers really want my elbow rubbing? the idea of trying to influence influencers makes me feel a small death in my chest. here's what i can do. hole up. write. devote myself to the page and hope that my characters burrow into a few hearts -- influencial hearts or not.

Well, black and white films or not my kids are reading all of them. I'm not even a fan of audio books because the create the voices for me. I can't see myself buying my future children any interactive electronic book so black and white it is!

I think it's somewhat ironic...Adding an audio/visual element to books in effort to enhance them, but if you think about it, when has the movie been better than the book?

I think they both have their place. Sony's new Wonderbook toy-book-thingy will never replace books, but it could augment the reading experience if done right. Technology can make things better, but some things will never truly go away. Books are like bicycles. We can improve them, add to them, change how they look, but you still have to pedal them to make them go. Mopeds and Segways haven't destroyed bikes. Like old school black and white books, there will always be people that want them.

Speaking of technology improving stuff, I'm listening to a graphic audio book right now. It's got voices and music and sound effects and it's awesome. Way more entertaining than just hearing a dude read it--I always hate when deep voiced men turn on their lady voices for other characters, especially in romantic scenes. It won't work for every genre, but like interactive ebooks, it's a nice option to have.

As always, artists will choose the appropriate medium for their art.

Subjects that can best be presented as a printed book, will be so formatted. Subjects that require interactivity will be enhanced through interactive media.

ebooks are in the "playing with the toys" stage right now. This will settle out as the public gets used to the novelty of the new medium, and authors begin to choose, for reasons of esthetics and content, the appropriate medium for their works.

Many of the interactive ebooks look like glorified websites right now. They could work well as linked companion books, to follow up with research or further exploration, such as with an historical novel. There could be integrated teaching notes. Skeleton Creek used the links with videos, and I'm sure there are many examples where traditional books have used websites. When does the technology take over so much so that it is no longer a book?

Even with all of this advanced technology, Retina display iPads and Kindle Fires, people still prefer paper or e-ink displays for reading a novel. That is the rub. The technology to have interactive books has existed for some time, yet, few want to blur the lines between the experience of imagining and the experience of having the imagery fed to them.

Do you prefer a graphic novel or a traditional novel? The graphic novel is a bridge between two mediums, and it works for some genres, but not most. I think the same will be said of interactive books. For children’s books or material that was formally illustrated or a graphic novel, it’s a natural progression. For the average drama or crime novel, people will still prefer the written word.

For periodicals, a mix of media will become the norm. For some texts, it will always be a written word. Can you imagine the Quran or New Testament as a graphic novel or interactive e-book?

Is this like All Your Base Are Belong to Us?

Also, I wish James Cameron had never made Avatar at all!

Also, I refuse to make any guesses about the future. I am still amazed that I can speak to someone in a different location on a magical device.

Imo, a book is something you read. If it's interactive, (fiction, anyway,) it seems to me like it would be more like a "gaming" thing.

God, I hope not. I read books to read books. The only interaction I want with the story is within my own imagination.

The thing is, I don't think the analogy works. Color movies are a technical improvement over black and white movies, but they don't change anything about the actual format of the media. Making books interactive is a drastic change of the actual medium, not a technical improvement the way hand written books were a technical improvement over oral storytelling and printed books were a technical improvement over hand written books and ebooks are a technical improvement over printed books. It's a completely different type of change.

It all depends on the tools, right? These things will never become commonplace until the tools make it so easy virtually anyone can create them. Right now they take a huge investment. But 40 years ago, not many people had video cameras, yet today we can all instantly get amateur video of anything minutes after it occurs because people can shoot and post directly to youtube or facebook from their phones.

Web sites started out that way, too. Remember 1995, when Javascript was invented? Before that, there was no browser-based programmability, and just to get a basic HTML page up on a web site required knowledge of DNS. How times have changed in 16 years. Anyone can go to a number of free places to create an interactive blog with all kinds of widgets. It has opened up whole new creative realms that didn't exist two decades ago.

So can I imagine a time when non-interactive ebooks are like today's black and white movies? Yeah. But it's a long, long way off (especially if you're measuring in internet time).

I agree with Sarah McCabe. Interactive ebooks aren't really novels with some extras. They are totally different media. Furthermore the existence of one new medium doesn't mean the death of an older one. Books are pretty deeply ingrained in our culture, despite what many educators bemoaning standardized test scores might say. I can't see them disappearing anytime soon. Even though T.V. has been around for a very long time, people still listen avidly to their favorite radio stations.

Normally, I strive not to be a Luddite, but the whole "interactive novel" idea holds no appeal to me. If I want to "chose my own adventure," I'll pop Gears of War, Halo or Borderlands into the XBox. But if I want to be "told" a story, I'll watch a movie or read a novel, as a passive audience, letting the creator take me on a journey.

As someone said upthread, the addition of extra media, interactivity, etc., turns reading into a whole other media.

I think that one of the major pleasures of reading is that we get to use our imagination alongside that of the author's. We get to imagine what the characters look like, and in a way, we get to decipher the code (when the author shows, not tells). I hope that e-books don't take away that experience.

I think that books will stay books because if someone wants interactivity, they can get it in video games, the internet, and the few books that warrant, and will be enhanced, by that interactivity.
This may just be wishful thinking, but I think that people value the experience of reading and recognize that it is different from interactive experiences.
Watching a movie in color is essentially the same experience as watching a movie in black and white, except that there is color. I don't think that reading a straight text is the same as using an interactive product.

Movies are about watching life unfold before you. Of course color was an enhancement on black and white because it more closely mimicked real life. Same with photography.

However, writers have had the option of including pictures with their books for centuries and... don't. Not always anyway. Why? Because books are about using your imagination to fill in the gaps.

Apples and oranges.

Reading is supposed to be an immersive experience. Too much "interactivity" would ruin that, at least for me. I'd hate to see our cultures gadget obsession intrude on my reading.

damn, I liked the title the other way!

No.

Tracy, I memorized all my Sunday School verses in the original King James, but the first Bible I read cover to cover was the Picture Bible. Essentially a graphic novelization of the entire Bible, not just the New Testament.

Mostly I agree with other posters. This is apples and oranges. It is a new medium that will requires stories to be told and enjoyed in a new way. The ones I've seen so far in novels take you out of the story and just become annoying. There are some cool uses in children's books I've seen, but that's how you read to children anyway. You stop and talk about the book and the pictures as you go.

Yeah I like the way Jaime put it.

I'd have to say no. People will choose how they want to enjoy a story. A lot of the multimedia and interactive books are overdone and many 'readers' have commented on how it's distracting. I've billed my memoir as a multimedia experience with two dozen videos that readers can view if they want to. Many readers have told me that they didn't check out the videos until the end or they never bothered at all. If it's labeled a "book" then the written word should be the ultimate medium and the rest of the 'stuff' should be extras that add to the story. It's all about what you want. I find 3D movies to be too much sometimes and opt for the regular (and cheaper) version of the movie. Good ol book-books will always have a place. Plus...it's trendy to Unplug now. Pretty soon it'll be retro to read a hardcover. All the hipsters will be doing it.

...shameless plug. In honor of summer break and teachers (heavy teaching theme in the book), I've lowered the price of my multimedia ebook to 99 cents for the month of June.
Amazon and B&N.
iPad version coming soon!

Creative forms of story exist for a reason - they appeal to something innate about the reaction of people to the medium. So I agree with Peter and Michael - as the technology evolves, artists will find ways to use it. What becomes popular will depend on how well they use it, and if it can touch people.

I wouldn't be surprised if video replaces the now-boring "camera and microphone" style of fiction. But it can't replace writing that depicts all of the senses, and that gives us insight into what the PoV character is thinking and feeling.

Yes, definitely.

I think there will be a wide range of what that means -- some will practically be half movie or half video game, others will be much tamer.

But I do think we're just a generation away from kids not understanding why, in a print book, they can't just touch a word and immediately get its definition or pronunciation.

Hi Nathan! Nah, I think it might work out kind of like the way they thought movies would make tv obsolete. There will be amazing innovations in digital reading but there will always be the physical book as well. If not I shall be very sad!!

I notice that when I'm immersed in things such as t.v., iPod, Kindle, internet, I have a horrible attention span. But when I sit down and clear my mind to start in on a real honest-to-goodness book, I feel much calmer and absorb the story on a deeper level. For me, having attachments imbedded in a book file would be a brain scattering experience.

I disagree with those who say interactive or multimedia elements makes it something other than a book. Think of it as the logical extension of illustrations. Before, illustrations added to the enjoyment of the text. Now imagine color illustrations. Now imagine moving color illustrations. Now imagine moving color illustrations that you can interact with.

As you follow that progression, it's still a book. They're just illustrating the story.

And that's just for a narrative. Maybe a fully multimedia product for nonfiction starts being something else entirely, but there are a lot of ways a novel could feature unique elements while essentially remaining a novel.

I remain unconvinced. I still think it's "gaming" at the interactive point.

They'll be classics, something for the reader who wants to exercise their imagination.

I agree with Rick's comment.

IMO--it'll be a definite genre with hardcore followers, but won't necessarily take over. Well, maybe in like 200 years. But not for a while.

They won't be like movie versions of books. They'll be like "enhanced" books...books with extra stuff...

My client K.R. Sands has published her first book of short stories,Boy of Bone, beautifully illustrated by Jon Lezinski...the stories are inspired by exhibits at Philadelphia's Mutter Museum of medical oddities. An Ipad app version of the book is coming out this month. A character hums in her head; you'll be able to touch the text and the hymn will play. You'll be able to read about the original Mme Sunday who grew a horn out of her forehead. Everything that can be referenced, will be. How cool is that?

I think I've said this before. A lot of the interactive fiction stuff has been heavily explored, especially back in the early 80's. I'm not sure why folks think interactive reading experiences are something new. Check out the Get Lamp documentary.

However, you walk the slippery slope of turning a book into a comic book, which isn't a bad idea. Adult fiction is way too long for the typical adult that only has a half hour to read at lunch time, which explains why I see so many adults reading shorter YA fiction.

I'm really surprised people think this won't happen! I respectfully disagree. I think whenever you offer possiblities for creativity, people will pick them up and go far with them.

And there are so many new possiblities here.

The interactivity possiblities for non-fiction are enormous. Links directly to source material, interactive Q and A, quizzes with immediate feedback, animated pictures, integrated videos.

With fiction, too. It will probably start with animated covers. Can you imagine the appeal of certain genre covers being animated? Romance, with animations? Sci Fi, with animations? People may start browsing just to watch the covers. People may buy the book because they like watching the animation on the cover.

There are also a number of possiblities before or after the book. Authors can add illustrations, animations, colored fonts, animated fonts all kinds of things. They can set up links to songs, videos, websites, games to enhance and continue the experience.

In terms of inside the fiction story, absolutely. One example: With a first person narrative, there is alot that could happen!! The narrator could directly interact with the reader. It's absolutely fascinating to think of the possiblilites.

I see this as an expanded art form. Books may come to vary based on how the story can best be told.


In addition, there may be financial charges for some of the interactions. Now THAT will be interesting to watch.

Think of all the extras that feed off of a kid's movie. Now, they could start right with the book. (Not advocating for that, but I'll eat my hat if it doesn't happen).

I predict: 25 years from now, a book without interactivity.....I agree that will be just like a black and white movie now. A specific and unusual choice of medium to fit the story.


Fascinating topic, Nathan.

I suspect a closer analogy than colour movies might be 3D movies - an add-on that works quite well for a while as a bit of a gimmick but never quite replaces what came before as it doesn't really deepen the storytelling

I would like to express my appreciation regarding this article. It is very informative and helpful, regarding importance of this kind of task. Thank you for sharing it!

Having just come back from the Wesleyan Writers Conference I'm thrilled to see this question.

It doesn't have to be dramatic to make a difference.

Reading on Kindle I can trivially get the definitions of words I don't really know the meaning of. That that make it not a book?

Some print books with many charactors include a list of charactors at the begining of the book to help you keep track. Imagine being able to click on a charactor name anywhere in the book and get that charactor's description...or a synopsis of what we know about that charactor at this point in the story!

I think little things like this can greatly enhance the reading experience of the "book"

"Hey, Grandma, tell me about books when you were little."

"Well, we had to actually touch the screen to turn the page - no direct-to-brain downloads."

"Whoa..."

I don't think e-books are imperfect translations of paper books at all. E-books serve the exact same purpose. It's not what the book looks like at all that matters, it's the content within. Words are words, regardless of where you get them.

I think it will depend on the genre. For example, a cookbook may be more amenable to "interaction" than a collection of poetry. As always, the market will determine the penetrance of this phenomena into the mainstream. Others, like JA Konrath, have talked about the possibilty of animated covers for ebooks. It is an evolving area, and potentially very cool.

I picture more of a dual future. For certain types of books, "interactive" elements will be beneficial in that they are interesting or increase functionality (as with cookbooks, for example). But for many types of books, the "interactive" element actually decreases interaction. In fiction, for example, the more the author provides in "interactive" elements, the less the reader's brain is doing, and the less the brain does, the lower the intellectual and imaginative interaction.

What you have then is TV. And while TV can be great, we already have TV. Making a book more like TV is more likely to make poor TV than a better book, as it weakens the very advantages that a book has over television or movies, namely the imaginative engagement, the role of the reader as a partial creator and interpreter of the story itself.

So I see both advancing. Increased "interactivity" where that is functionally relevant, but traditional text formats will always be popular, as they offer something that only they can provide.

There will likely, of course, be some artistic hybrids that do a bit of both, but I have a feeling these will be a minority, partly due to cost. Interactive media is cheaper than it once was, and will probably get more so, but high-end interactive content is always going to cost a lot more than simply creating text (with costs not just in terms of money, but in terms of time, knowledge, skills, and talent).

What a cool thought! That never occurred to me, but you may be right, Nathan! Looks like agents may be more necessary than ever if someone has to connect authors with talented graphic artists!

I've got an idea that's so beyond where mainstream is and this article made me think of it in a new way. What if books had sound tracks that went with them like movies? That's what I've thought of for years. But with tablet readers, the music could actually play at the appropriate spot without any prompting from the reader.

after reading a few more... the brilliant thing about tablets is you could probably have a feature to shut off the features

I think there will still be a definite role for literary agents to play in the future of publishing. As you pointed out, they're far more than just "gatekeepers".

Their role may morph according to needs of the industry, but I can't see it going the way of travel agents, for example. There are just too many more things in the mix than just searching for what you want and finding it.

Everyone has to change, and if you don't you'll be left behind.

I think you are right, everything is changing. It's hard to say exactly WHAT it will change into, though. I think agents provide a wonderful service and I think, the studious ones, will find their place in the new publishing world--whatever it happens to end up being.

I wonder if the day will come when agents must query writers.

What could their role be?

Their role now essentially is to do the business side of publishing so a writer can write, yes?

As a self-published author I know there is a whole lot that goes into the business side. Would an agents role then grow to take things such as coordinating with editors, book cover artists, bloggers and blog tours, and PR?

If that were the case, I'd gladly put a percentage of earnings for those items to be off my plate.

As an agent I can say that I am not afraid of disappearing, it's just that some aspects of my role are changing at warp speed-- and what I provide for clients is also evolving. It's actually a very exciting time in terms of new opportunities for authors. The tough part is the changing business model and adding services where there are specific client needs. I feel as though my role as a coach to my clients is more robust then ever and I think my clients would agree that in this time of uncertainty that having a partner in this process is very valuable. Great blog Nathan!

I think Lee Lofland is on the right track. I wouldn't doubt that in the future, agents will be sending queries to successful indie authors saying, 'Here's what I can do for you...' In fact, to some extent that is already happening to some authors.

I'm not sure how the publishing agency is going to change, but I think in 10 years or so, they may be obsolete (at least in the current incarnation).

I tend to think the role of agent may become more of a business manager role and they will take on some of the marketing functions that publishers take on now. Not sure exactly how that will work financially. Perhaps a cut of sales so it's in their best interest to really promote a book? Right now, I'm not sure the financial structure of publishing makes sense for anyone but the publisher.

It would always be worth it to me, for example, to pay 15% of contracted deals to have the deal run smoothly and keep all parties in the loop, but the article you cite above, Why Rejection Letters of the Future Will be Silent, only further confuses the issue. In the same breath that many agents are trying to clarify their role in a deal as facilitator/pitchman, they are still talking about the 99% they see as unpublishable. Given the fact that lots and lots of real crap is published annually, making people lots of money, isn't it safe to say that the whole, "you were rejected because your writing isn't good enough" line is at the very least disingenuous? To stay viable, I believe literary agents would be well served to concentrate on the fact that a decision to represent a new writer is based upon potential income, not some nebulous and highly subjective concept of arbiter of the quality of literature. If a writer feels they are ready to publish, and the book can make enough money to go around, it becomes a business decision. I really think the tired, old leather-patched elbows vision of Gatekeeper is something that needs to have a stake driven through its heart once and for all.

Agents are too egotistical and arrogant to be scared. Plus, since publishers get the dry heaves at the thought of actually dealing with rank and vile authors whose names aren't King and Grisham, the few that actually have gotten their toes wet in epublishing have still found a way to keep agents on the playing field. There's one publisher with a new electronic imprint that will only accept submissions from a small handful of participating literary agencies. Which, in my mind, is just furthering a decayed business model that never really worked for writers or anybody, to begin with. Keeping agents on the playing field and maintaining that buffer between them and unpublished talent is simply a needless perpetuation a corrupt, collusive status quo that so needs to go or radically change.

I don't think agents should be worried... yet. Self-publishing has a lot of evolving to do before their worlds change all that much.

I think those who are willing to adapt and shape their role with what's happening in the industry will still be around. Their title may change and some or all of their duties, but I've found people who love the business want to be in it in some capacity. If it's their passion, they'll find where they fit. Or even better, maybe someone will blaze a new trail and change how we do things entirely. (Hopefully for the better.)It could be an agent just as easily as a writer or anyone else in publishing.

Hell no they're not going anywhere.

Agents may have to evolve further as the needs of the writers and publishers change.

The need for evolving to suit the times occurs in other industries as well. It's not new, and those who see the writing will adapt.

I think we still need agents, but that's IMO.

I think agents can survive (and thrive) if they shift their model back to working for the writer. The agent needs to go back to being someone that supports the writer and helps him achieve the things he's not good at, like marketing. Agents that cling to publishers and working for publishers and screening for publishers... they are going to decline as the publishers decline.

Well, I happen to know of a few agents who quit being agents. Doesn't mean it's a trend, though. Or maybe it is... Ultimately, there will always be agents of one kind or another.

Super interesting comments! I'm just absorbing it all. At the very least their roles will change further, but it's so hard to say how. I suppose it's like predicting the next trend in publishing and then being right about it!

There'll still a need for agents, but with the rise of independent e-publishing (both self-pub and small press), there may not be a need for as many as in the past.

Large contracts, movie/TV rights, and foreign language rights will still have to be negotiated. Agents with a background in contract and/or intellectual property law will be in the best position to represent authors in this process.

Honestly, I don't think they should be worried. I love having an agent, and I can't imagine doing this without her. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.

My agent doesn't just send my book out to editors and negotiate contracts. She gives me editorial feedback, she answers questions, she finds ways for me to promote my book. I don't think we'll ever stop needing that.

But I've always thought that self-publishing was going to coexist with "traditional" publishing, not destroy it.

I think that most writers will always need agents, because a lot of us aren't familiar with the publishing industry and we don't know how to sell books like agents do. Not to mention agents can provide very helpful feedback on our manuscripts.

I don't think they will disappear any time soon, but I definitely feel a change in the industry.

It's a fascinating time. Everyone is re-inventing themselves now that the book universe has changed. I've marketed services in the past,and it's a hell of a lot of work. Trying to sell my book without a good agent is like venturing out on a new road without a map.

Well, my friend... did YOU stick around? :)

The agent is already changing and they will fill the role of business partner so writers can do what they like - write. But their role as gatekeeper and their number will certainly dimish. I see them calling authors who have made a name for themselves

Yawn.

Agents - for those who have been paying attention to the political landscape of publishing - have been 'worrying' for at LEAST two years now.

I'll never forget the terrified scurry by agents running back to hotel rooms after the 'agents forum' concluded during the 2010 PNWA conference in Seattle.

...Or the actual 'shout down' of agents at the 2011 conference by PNWA attendees who were calling BS on agents and their 'It's your query letter' spiel for why authors were facing 3:36,000 odds of getting a traditional publish contract. Yep, they were worried, alright!

I come back every once in a while to the Bransford Blog in hopes of catching an actual cutting-edge topic - oh well - sigh.

It's Big 6 Editors who should be worried. Agents are salespeople, the world always need them; especially in an industry littered with introverts.

The Big 6 carry tons of merger-debt and yet still have EPS expectations. The next thing they'll require agents/writers to bring with them is a professionally edited manuscript. At that point, what does the author need the publisher for?

Seeley James

I can't believe that agents are going anywhere. I have to believe that there will always be traditional publishing houses. Even if there aren't as many, the role of the agent may evolve, as so many careers do these days. As long as there are authors trying to break into the game, agents will have work - in whatever form it may be.

I agree with the sentiment of agents working for the authors. Becoming an agent FOR the author in truth.

I wonder how long it will be until we start seeing agents trolling through blogs, self-pubbed works on Amazon and Smashwords, and Wattpad, looking for the next author to sign?

Could make things really interesting if the agents are the ones who have to start shopping themselves around. They would still pick quality writers to choose to serve and promote, but would turn the current model on its head.

I'm surprised to see people posting that agents need to start working for writers. That is, and always has been, what they do. If they didn't they'd be out of a job. The idea that agents are working for publishers' interests is propaganda.

I agree that agents can be more than just gatekeepers. The question is will they be? One of their challenges is size - most being too small to make dramatic change. A few thoughts on the changing industry dynamic are on one of my blogs http://onewritersvoice.com/2011/04/11/writers-and-the-long-tail/

Nathan, you're definitely one of the "good guys," and I can say that because we've met, chatted, and you've been a guest on my blog. However, not all writers have had pleasant experiences with agents. And those not-so-nice encounters are the root of many of the ill-willed comments you see and hear.

Actually, I've had a couple of bad experiences with agents and that makes me quite leery about future dealings, should I ever need to begin a new and much-dreaded agent search.

I think that authors will always need coaches, mentors and guides. People who understand the business and contracts. People to offer editorial help or referrals) and emotional support.

The skill set of agents will continue to be hotly in demand (not to mention their contacts). Whether their job title will change or not, I don't know.

But I do think that agents will start moving away from the traditional idea of:

***Contract with a client, and try to sell their work to a Big 6 publisher**

and more to:

**Contract with a client and figure out the best publishing path for them. Whether indie publishing, small press publishing, traditional publishing, some combination or something else entirely.**

So, I think agents will foster each client's individualized path to publication.

They may also experiment with flat fee assistance. Indie writers who want help with film rights, etc.

This would be a very good idea, I think. :) Not too much time investment, but potentially lucrative. The interesting thing is that agents may find that as they individualize the client's path to publishing, they make more money. 15% of 70% is a nice chunk of change.

Agents do risk reaping some anger from indie writers now, if they shut them out or refuse to listen to their concerns. This is the biggest danger facing agents right now. I'm not an agent, of course, so people can take this with a grain of salt, but if I were an agent, I would try to present myself so that every writer on the planet saw me as potentially THEIR ally, no matter what path they took or how they felt about the Big 6.

I say this because I believe that indie writers are not a subset. I believe they are the future. Whether traditional publishing survives or not, I think indie writers will make up a HUGE chunk of the market. So, I think agents would be wise to be very attractive to all writers on this planet called Earth.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks so much for an interesting discussion, Nathan!

Let's hope so!
(Just kidding.)

The present model needs to, and probably will, change.
It has been too easy for writers to feel like they are a fly being swatted away. When I read that out of 10,000 queries to an agent, not one was taken up it seems like a system that is not working. What a waste of time, both for the agent and the 10,000 writers.

I also think that those writers who have become accustomed to a 60 - 70% royalty will not easily give up percentages of their income again. Fixed amounts, yes, but not ongoing percentages.

I know some solid travel agents that have managed to stay in business by adapting and specializing. If they can make a living in the world of Priceline and Expedia, I'm pretty sure the smartest, most forward thinking agents will be able to as well. The mediocre? Yes, they should be refining their skills to secure other employment.

Artists will always need business people to help them not get screwed by other business people.

The artists' business people might wind up with a new label (manager always being a popular choice when going for vague) and the business people might wind up with a new label, but the essential dynamic is eternal.

Agents aren't gatekeepers, but they are the funnel through which books get to publishers. That funnel will always exist, but I think it is tightening and soon will include only the "big six" and a handful of intrepid hangers-on. Midlist will move to indie and self publishing, making it much harder for second tier agents to make a living. As an agent, if you're not living on the best seller list, you'll be doomed.

Going extinct? No. Becoming rare? That's how I see it.

Unless the publishing industry suddenly becomes run by angels and will never try to rip you off...you will ALWAYS need an agent
I wouldn't try to buy a house without a real estate agent...so why would I sign a book deal without a literary agent?
Same idea.. protection,peace of mind and most of all, someone to blame when things go wrong :)

I don't have any axes to grind against agents personally, and I know some agents that I like very much, but I also know a lot of authors who have been burned by their experiences.

Will they go away completely? I think it is worth considering that agents have not always had the "exclusive gatekeeper to editors/publishers" role they (sort of) have now. I was shocked when I read some of the history on the subject and learned about how recent those kinds of developments were. I used to think agents were as "traditional" as publishers themselves. Not true. Most authors did not need them once, and they submitted their manuscripts directly to editors. Maybe we'll go that route again, who knows?

I do think that agents will have a much smaller role in the future.

I think agents will continue to groom promising writers, especially those who are self publishing. Most writers want to write, but if they chose the self publishing path, they have to market themselves. A lot of writers don't want to take the time or have the interest in building a platform, branding themselves, and attracting readers.
Agents could help them with fee-based services to get their self published books attention.
I wouldn't be surprised if interns and newer agents aren't already familiar with what it takes to be successful as a self publisher and wanting to take the next step, offer a service to recruit writers to they agency.

"The idea that agents are working for publishers' interests is propaganda."

I did see that posted on a popular self-publisher's blog recently. I thought the same thing.

But I also think the agents that will continue to thrive are those who are willing to change with the times. In other words, no more divas. And please don't tell me that's not how it is with some. There's been a great party going on for many years, and I think that party has ended. I really do know, from personal experience, in some cases it is that way. I have seen and heard things I would never repeat. And I also believe that when agents stop worrying about print books...and trying to save print books and brick and mortar bookstores...they are going to be a huge help to authors.

But it's all so secretive now, and no agents are speaking up about anything. Please don't tell me you haven't see this either. There used to be many agent blogs; many have shut down. It's like they are all terrified to speak on any topic involving e-publishing or the way things are evolving. It's very interesting to watch.

But again, I do think there will always be a need for agents. I just think it will be a different breed of agents in years to come. Summer Fridays are going to be a thing of the past, especially as new authors begin to produce more at a faster pace.

The good thing is that readers can now vet books they might never have had a chance to read because an agent didn't like it. And we all know that's the case because agents themselves have always said it's a subjective business. In other words, readers and authors aren't chained to the specific tastes of agents. If you ever check out the conversations on goodreads for self-published books, you'll see how much fun thousands of readers are now having.

anon-

I agree, I wish more agents would step up and speak up about these things and defend both themselves and the business. At some point it becomes exhausting, though. I certainly get exhausted by the negativity and I'm not even an agent anymore. There are people where being anti-traditional is a religion, and it makes you want to just throw up your hands and disengage.

I know there are superiority complexes on both sides, I know there are rude people on both sides, but I'm not sure I know a single person left in traditional publishing who is actually anti-self-publishing or anti-e-publishing. Just about everyone has a client who started that way even if they're not actively facilitating self-publishing, how could they be anti?

But there are a heck of a lot of anti-traditional-publishing zealots out there. It gets very very exhausting to try and stand in front of that mob and shout for reasonableness.

People who become exhausted trying to find an agent--with a good book--are more likely to eventually run to self publishing. But I learned if I want to see my book on the shelves…I would need an agent. I'm not going to jump out at anyone online like in a store. Both sides have pros and cons. It's up to the author to decide which option is best for them. As long as bookstores are around, agents will be too ;)

Nathan,

I understand that you have a very unique perspective, since you are a former industry insider and an author, but I want to make a suggestion because I hear how frustrated you sound.

I hope this is helpful. Since I tend to be an anti-publishing zealot, I may be the wrong person to offer this to you, you may be fairly fed up with me, but....I'm going to offer it anyway, for what it's worth, and hope it's helpful.

It's not like I follow these suggestion myself, but I should, and I'd like to get better at it.

Okay, so here it is:


People don't take a strong stand against something unless there is a very good reason for it. And until someone understands their reason, it is very rare for someone to relax their position.


So, before arguing for reasonableness, it helps to listen to the other peson first. Really listen. Fully understand their perspective. As if you were them.

And don't assume you already do. Look at what people are saying and how they are feeling, and really put yourself in their shoes.

Because shouting for reasonableness doesn't work because people will just shout their reasonableness back even louder.

That's the thing. Each side shouts their side and no one listens, and it doesn't go anywhere because neither side feels heard and so they just shout louder.


The training I've had in communication (occasionally, I remember to use it) suggests that when you are talking to someone who disagrees with you you start by:

a. Hearing them and reflecting it back to them. Keep reflecting and wait until they say: Yes, you understand.

b. Then, find a point of agreement, or if that's not possible, go to the next step which is to ask them to listen to your position.

People will often stop being angry if they just feel heard. EVEN IF THEY STILL DISAGREE. If they feel heard, they relax and they can usually hear your side.

Part of why the anti-publishing faction is so strident right now, is they are not being heard.


If anyone is in a position to help writers feel heard, it's agents. It's just going to take some neogtiating within themselves to be non-defensive, courageous and open in communication.

They need to understand that some writers feel hurt, damaged, dismissed, and angry at the industry. Telling them they shouldn't feel that way won't work. It will just make them more angry or hurt.

You have to listen.

It would also be nice if someone would listen to agents as well, so I'm going to do that right now, alittle bit. I imagine this must be very stressful and scary for them right now. I imagine they feel somewhat betrayed and misunderstood themselves. And getting pressure from both sides. I imagine it is very hard, and I hope they are offering support to each other, or finding ways to feel some sense of comfort within their community.

Anyway, hope this was helpful and not more aggravating.

I wonder if agents will "evolve" in the same way the headhunter's job did after the advent of online job boards like Yahoo and Monster.

Headhunters never went away completely. Those who still demonstrate value to job-seekers are still around today. These are the ones who actually work for the client.

And then you have the others...headhunters who link to a million people on LinkedIn and browse the same job listings anyone has access to.

The game may change but the smart ones find a way to evolve.

"there are a heck of a lot of anti-traditional-publishing zealots out there"

As someone who works for a Big Bank and thinks my company is one of the good guys, I understand the feeling. From my office I can hear the Occupy protestors (they're quite festive and lively, BTW). I know the good side of my industry and know there is incredible misinformation being spewed by our detractors. In some cases, outright lies. So I hear what you're saying.

But those zealots were created by something. People don't just wake up one day and say, "Hey, I hate traditional publishing. I'm going to go trash those muthers!" And people don't hate Big Publishing because Amazon has brainwashed them.

I have met wonderful people (yourself among them) in publishing. I love the writers, agents, and editors I've met at conferences. I've made amazing friends. But there are also those agents who give all y'all a bad name. There are those who are infuriatingly arrogant and elitist. There are those who act like gatekeepers and seem to work for the publishers rather than the authors.

The zealots don't just materialize. They are created by conditions, and the conditions in this case were created by Big Publishing.

While there was a trend over here in Australia for fewer publishing houses to accept unsolicited subs, now it's going the other way with the biggest houses opening their doors for specific times each month for writers to submit directly to them. It's a non-frills affair with writers requested to email their work but not to expect a response if unsuccessful.

Despite this current trend, I can't foresee the system changing terribly much even with the advent of ebooks and self-publishing, especially as bookstores and libraries usually don't stock self-published work. And for an array of other reasons as well, the majority of writers will still prefer to get their work out through a mainstream publisher, and the role of agents as gatekeepers and negotiators would still be needed. There's always a chance, though, that this role might diminish at some stages if self-publishing becomes more lucrative and enticing to a growing number of writers.

The artwork was a good fit! lol

I miss my agent since going indie. She got me my rights back to 10 of my novels, I give her a complimentary download of all the eBooks I write, and of course she is in touch with me whenever I get a royalty payment. Fortunately, most of her clients are still traditionally published (I was dropped by both my publishers and have found new life as an indie writer), so I don't think she has anything to worry about. She is also a contracts attorney, so agenting is not her livelihood. In general, I don't think that agents with existing clients are in trouble because traditional publishing is still very much alive, but I think they will have to get creative in terms of getting new clients, perhaps, as has been suggested, by approaching indie authors with good sales numbers.

I have to agree with Peter and Mira. The people exhausting you have had bad experiences or have some reason to feel negative. Even if that negativity is completely unjustified (and I can't think that it is), we all know perception is half the battle.

I am not anti-traditional publishing or agents, but I have some friends who have written really good books. They have agents but can't get published. I'm not sure if it's the state of the industry or the fact that their agents are inept, but it makes me frustrated for them.

Unfortunately, none of them are seriously considering self-publishing at this point. I believe their books would be popular, but "traditional publishing" is not letting them in.

I am about to start submitting my first novel and quite frankly, I feel like I might get an agent, but I'll probably never be published traditionally. From what I've seen from the outside, it does seem as though agents are much more interested in being cozy with a publisher than in advancing a particular author. Perhaps that's completely incorrect, but it seems as though many people feel that way. (Even the people I know who are published authors are really close with their editors--not at all with their agents.)

Nathen if you want to see anti self publishing, check out the comments here about Goodkinds decision to self publish.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/52532-terry-goodkind-to-self-publish-next-novel.html

Nathan said: "The idea that agents are working for publishers' interests is propaganda."

Seriously? So a literary agency could decide to take on only wonderfully written novels and refuse to take on any inferior commercial writing because their hands aren't tied in any way by the demands of the big publishing houses? The literary agencies tell the publishers what they will and will not submit to them, what will and won't be marketed to readers? Or, honestly, isn't it the other way around? I'm not sure how you can say it's propaganda to express the viewpoint that literary agencies are paid by the publishing houses and therefore are beholding to them. For years, agents have been telling many writers that their books are wonderfully written, but won't sell enough copies, meaning enough copies to satisfy the big publishing houses' requirements. Many of those same authors went on to self-publish those same books and made plenty of money. I guess you could rephrase "agents are working for publishers' interests" with "agents are working for those writers who will satisfy publishers' interests" if it makes you feel better, but calling the first statement propaganda doesn't make it untrue. It seems to me that, in today's political climate, whenever someone labels something "propaganda," it's just a code word for turning off the discussion, bringing it down to the level of, "Is not...Is, too...Nunh Uhhh." For years now, special interests have been saying that global warming is also "propaganda," but the Earth just keeps getting warmer anyway. Calling global warming "propaganda" doesn't make it untrue.

TYPO: meant "beholden," not "beholding."

-Anon at 9:22 PM

I think their role will be more limited.

mira-

I know you're familiar with psychology, so you are also probably familiar with confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out information that confirms your pre-existing beliefs and discarding anything that is contrary to that. I would ask you to examine your confirmation bias because I feel that you discount the things I'm saying on this subject.

I've been on every side of this business - I've been an author querying and getting rejected, I've been a literary agent, now I'm out of the business, I've been traditionally published and I'm probably going to self-publish someday. I have plenty, plenty of frustrations with traditional publishing, but I also don't let those frustrations blind me to the fact that the industry is made up of very smart people working for the love of books (it's certainly not for the pay) and doing what they think is best for the future of the business.

Is there some truth to what anti-traditional publishing zealots are saying? Absolutely! I've never argued otherwise.

Yes, the industry needs to get with the times. Yes, there are clauses in contacts that are onerous. Yes, 25% net is too low for a digital royalty. Yes, the industry sometimes treats authors like pests. Yes, it's frustrating to send a query and have it go unanswered. All true.

Where I get frustrated is when those valid points become religion for some people and leads them to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Traditional publishing is not a bed of roses, but it's not a den of thieves either.

When anti-traditional publishing becomes a religion, no amount of "I hear you, you have some valid points, here's where I think we agree, here's where I think we disagree" is going to persuade people. It's not rational at that point. And that's where I think a lot of people have ended up, not because of personal experiences with many of the things they're angry about, but because people have let their frustration with the querying and traditional publication process cloud their perspective.

There are some things self-publishing is better for. There are some things traditional publishing is better for. There really can be peace in our time.

Peter-

But even look at your own phrasing - you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative. If someone from traditional publishing started calling self-publishers "The Unwashed" or even "Little Publishing" can you imagine the resulting umbrage? The entire country might catch fire.

I don't actually think most of the conditions people are frustrated with have much to do with "Big Publishing" at all, but with the funnel. And that funnel exists because up until now there were a finite number of books that could physically exist in a bookstore. Life in the funnel completely sucks. There are too many good books for too few slots, and that influences everything else - there are more agented books than can be bought by publishers, and there are way, way, way more unagented books than can be repped by agents. So there's a whole lot of rejection at every stage of the process, and by its very nature it's frustrating.

That's thankfully changing with self-publishing, but as long as traditional publisher publish only a finite amount of books, welcome to the funnel. It's not fun.

anon@9:22-

Agents take on books they think they can sell to publishers. That is their job. It's a business. Agents make more money if they get better deals for the authors, e.g. if they're willing to get a publisher to pay more, which is at the publisher's expense.

They're not beholden to publishers, they're beholden to their clients. The better deal the client gets the more money the agent makes. Their interests are aligned.

Nathan, unfortunately I can't respond from my work computer because it will send to spam. Typing on my little I phone won't work for me to adequately address your comment. So I'll respond this evening. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you!

"But even look at your own phrasing - you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative."

That was intentional.

The point in using it that way (in the specific places I did) was to invoke the emotion while trying to illustrate how the Zealots feel. (Zealot itself is a loaded term. So... Hey, Mom, Nathan started it!)

That is, when I say Big Publishing, it's a shorthand that invokes all the bad aspects of the publishing industry that the Zealots don't like. The problem is not with the pejorative use but with the fact that it makes no distinction between the good and the bad. It does make distinction between the big and the not-big, however.

Which is exactly how I feel any time a friend of mine gets all up in my facebook about Big Banks. They don't hate "banking," they just hate "Big Banks." Which includes me, even though I personally am as far removed from the bad done by Big Banks as can possibly be.

The fact that there are Zealots who lump the good in with the bad and then get loud about it does not change the fact that there's bad. If there was no bad, there would be no zealots. Which was my original point. And which you have stated time and again, both in posts and comments. So actually we agree.

The subtle difference is that Zealots tend to be most angry about and target those they think have the most power and influence and elitism. Because that's where the biggest bad is. I think the Zealots don't hate "traditional publishing," they hate "Big Publishing."

For my own personal part, I agree with you. My frustration (until recently) was with the funnel. Self-publishing eliminated the funnel, and my frustration went away. As you've pointed out, we all need to understand our own motivations and do what is right for us individually. My motivations are served beautifully by self publishing.

More recently, though, I've become frustrated with the ongoing turf war between traditional publishing and Amazon. Here, "traditional publishing" means something different. It includes publishers, agents, and independent booksellers. Almost anyone who isn't Amazon or a self-published author, as a matter of fact. And there are a lot of anti-Amazon Zealots out there...

Peter-

Yeah, definitely agree that some of the hostility to Amazon in some traditional publishing bastions is extreme. You know what Yoda said about fear...

Also agree that the "bigness" and power makes publishing an easy target.

Okay we pretty much agree.

Nathan said: "But even look at your own phrasing - you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative. If someone from traditional publishing started calling self-publishers "The Unwashed" or even "Little Publishing" can you imagine the resulting umbrage? The entire country might catch fire."

You've seriously got to be kidding me. Nathan, to use a term you directed at Mira, I would say that you have a huge confirmation bias. It has become very clear to me that you do not even remotely understand most of the arguments against big publishing or even where the term comes from. Big publishing companies are labeled "big" because they are huge conglomerates. When you suggest that "The Unwashed" could be an equivalent term for self-publishing companies, your bias shines through. "The Unwashed" is the same type of prejudicial term often used against minorities, calling them "unwashed," "dirty," "diseased," etc. "Big" means "extremely wealthy;" "unwashed" puts people in their place. And you know what? The country hasn't started on fire. Who cares what you suggest as a pejorative term for self-publishers? Who cares? The point that many self-published authors have tried to make, but it falls on deaf ears, is that authors often do much better after leaving traditional publishing for self-publishing and it makes them kind of angry that they wasted so many years believing the myths they were told by big publishing. If you do plan on self-publishing some day, you might want to keep in mind that alienating self-published authors isn't a great way to introduce yourself to that community. The fact that you treat the big publishing houses' side of the DOJ lawsuit with much more respect than you treat self-publishing as a whole speaks volumes about how little respect you have for self-published authors as a community. You always tread very carefully when talking about traditional publishers, but you treat self-publishing the way that prejudiced people treat any minority, your opinion is shaped by negative examples in that group. Not all self-published authors are angry or loud. Many are happy - quite happy, actually, because the publishing path they've chosen is a lot of fun.

anon-

I think it was clear I wasn't actually calling anyone anything. But that's a lot of umbrage for what was posed as a hypothetical. I think you proved my point.

Peter and Nathan, do you realize that the discussion has now fallen to the level at which nothing of substance is being discussed? By focusing on one term, the term "big publishing," the discussion has narrowed down to whether or not that's a pejorative term. Fox News does this brilliantly, by the way. A linguist once pointed out that by controlling language, Fox News completely takes the focus off the real issues. I'm just waiting for self-publishing to be labeled "socialist," than we'll have the kind of discussion we're used to.

anon-

I feel like you're trolling at this point - if you wish to continue this discussion I'm happy to do so but only if you're non-anonymous.

I wasn't trolling, but I can see where you might think so. I'm going to opt out of the rest of the discussion, as it has become a bit one-sided.

I think they will, but there's going to be a painful period of adjustment. The self-pub model, once it gains critical mass with traditionally published writers (which may take a while, since I assume many of them are chained to contracts which would necessarily limit their ability to adapt as quickly as novice authors) start publishing, that will accelerate more quickly.

I was not a fan of the whole self-pub thing (how else to describe), until I went back and looked at my contracts, and read That Guy's Blog. Stripped of the rancor towards traditional publishing, what he says makes sense: the archaic royalty periods, the gross financial exploitation of writers who aren't front list (mid-list, you're essentially self-publishing, at this point) and the countless other ways authors are being taken for a ride, the 30/70 split is clear, pays in a timely fashion, and well... what else?

The digital / device element is simply too large to ignore at this point, and unless they have some magical way to control it, that genie isn't going back into the bottle. So they have a while for literary fiction. Genre fiction, it's already gone: people don't seem to care about imprints, or houses, or any of that.

This question is a good one, and one I've given thought to, but I can't help but question if it works as a one size fits all. Prestige authors (or those with that perceived cachet) are supported by houses' less glamorous lines: what happens when lady's fiction, for example, has completely migrated to digital, and whatever subsidiary of Random House that drew upon that revenue stream, no longer can? Do agents then become hyper-hyper-hyper selective, only repping prize winners? In which case, how do they prevent their client lists from atrophying?

Peter and Nathan, do you realize that the discussion has now fallen to the level at which nothing of substance is being discussed?

must... not... take.. the bait...

I am anon 4:44 & would add ... people don't tend to think about this, but sometimes an agent's slowless (to read a mss, submit it, return notes), works in the writer's favor, forcing or provoking revisions that this fever for instant publishing (and crashing down those gatekeepers' walls) circumvents. For people like Amanda Hocking who thrive in the world of series, producing as much possible makes sense - the writing isn't (sorry, not to be a hater, but she as much admits this herself) as good, but her as a business needs more attention than a slower, or less "productive" writer would. And though I'm sure her agent has a game plan, it's probably a different one than a literary novelist in the deep south who one the National Book Award.

another question for Nathan: given the money that authors can make digitally, yet the attachment to prestige of MSM pub, do you foresee a world in which one can have both? perhaps using pseudonyms? and did you read the NYMagazine interview with Barry Dillers in which he retorted that new technologies (he was speaking about tv antennaes that suck off MSM broadcast signals) don't replace but grow up alongside existing technologies? Is that co-existing model valid for publishing, or would you say TV is apples to oranges? (And back to the original query, if they can coexist, how do you foresee agent/agencies fitting into that sort of blended future?)

I am anony 4:44 & 4:53: whoever is disrupting this convo, please stop. this question is too important to some of us to wade through off topic posts. Thank you for being considerate of others.

anon-

I think there will be blurring all over the place, at least if the author keeps an open mind to opportunity. There will be (and already are) authors who go with traditional publishers for some books and self-publish others, there will be authors who start out self-published and move entirely to traditional and vice versa, there will be authors who self-publish their e-books and work with a traditional publisher for print books.... there's basically an infinite number of combinations.

I'm not sure I still quite see how agents will fit into the self-publishing process, unless they're able to cultivate a relationship with distributors to lend their books preferred promotional status. But short of that, I think the value add as an overarching consultant is somewhat murky. It's only going to get easier to self-publish and I think it will be tricky for an agent to add value in a way that scales.

But I think agents will continue to still exist for the biggest authors who have many different types of deals to negotiate, from traditional print deals to foreign rights to subrights. The biggest authors will always have room for negotiation, and an agent can add a lot of value there.

But who knows - things keep right on changing.

okay, how would you have that conversation (not you, per se, but a generic "you") about self-pub/trad pub tracks with your agent? in a way that wasn't threatening, and didn't upend the author/agency agreement which (assuming they're standardized) is an agreement for the agent to rep literary work the author produces? and if the 2.99-3.99 is the price most people are willing to pay for digital books, is the 15% commission appropriate? (and how does Amazon's inevitable collection of taxes affect that equation?) ... please, please speak to some of the dollar elements of this: I feel like this convo's been limited by "feelings" and tho I respect everyone's, I'm focused on finances

you've spoken/written before about big authors, & their need for contracts but what about an agent & foreign rights/ translations? it's one thing to upload to the domestic market, but other than English language countries (amazon uk), how would one even begin to navigate the global market?

I wanted to add something about an agent's value: they're schooled in thinking tactically/strategically in a way that, cleaver as I am, am not. I've noticed, too, that my agent consults with the other agents, and I wonder if people know you don't get just one agent, but benefit of experienced people you may never meet or speak to.

I haven't listened to this, but the paper (imagine that) version of Wasserman's piece in this weeks, "The Nation" (supplement with two others), is very interesting and worth a read.

http://www.thenation.com/audio/168196/steve-wasserman-amazoncoms-takeover

Nathan, so, I wasn't familiar with the concept of confirmation bias, so that's interesting. I'll keep that in mind. Please let me know if you feel I am doing that in this conversation, or others, too, if you want.

I'd like to ask for some more information.

I'm really sorry you've felt discounted by me. I'd like to make sure you feel I am valuing what you think and share. Does the content of the last post to me cover it? Or is there more?

The second question is: what do you mean by "religion"? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that concept when it applies to anti-traditional writers. I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm trying to forumlate a response to you, but I'd like some clarification first.

Thanks.

What I think is happening is the same that happened with trading stocks, you know have the capacity to do it yourself without a stock broker. If you think of an agent as a stock broker making a transaction for you, then think of it as a premium of service. While stock brokers still exist today, we need less of them.

For now, I'm leaning toward "morphing" into something else. I also think Agents may have to rethink where there clients may be coming from. They may have to rely on more than the inbox or the slush pile to find their next author.

I also think there needs to be an alternative to writers conferences. Writers who live in the vicinity of the conference or writers who can afford to fly to a conference make up a limiting pool. Many, many writers will never get the opportunity to impress anyone in person.

Last, agents will have to take their blinders off. That narrow focus they use to choose their next project may have to include good writing - not just flavor of the month.

In today's world, authors have got more resources on their hands. A lot of authors take to the internet, build their own websites and start establishing online platforms where they can promote their works themselves, works that they might have self-published or published the traditional way. I believe the role of the agent after its boom in the last two decades is shrinking back again to how it used to be. Soon, publishers will start to get more contactable as a consequence to the influx of self-published books. When this happens agents will become optional to short-on-time authors, and a luxury to the more established ones.

Nathan,

I believe agents will survive and prosper if they can develop some empathy and compassion for writers whom are hard working people. To consider submitting a query to an agent whom says in advance, "I will respond if I am interested" I do not think so. For they must come to realize that they would not be in business if it were not for writers. You were always courteous and responded promptly when you were an agent.

@Daniel, not to be obnoxious, but what exactly is wrong with, "I will respond if I'm interested"? A no is still a no. I'm consistently amazed by the unspoken sense of entitlement underlying the believe, "they must come to realize ... were it not for writers." True, but 15% of nothing is still nothing. People's expectations of what they "feel" agents should do blows my mind.

So, I took my questions down....
Nathan, honestly, I feel like I'm stuck in an argument with you I keep trying to end.


However, I am going to continue because I always cut you off when we debate, which I think is unfair. So, here I go. You can decide to respond or not, but knowing myself, I'll probably consider deleting this comment tomorrow, unless it becomes part of a conversation, because I dont' really have perspective on it. Besides, I don't care if this comment is made public or not. I'm talking to you, Nathan.


So, I probably should start by reflecting your above statements back to you, but I think that would just annoy you at this point, so I'm going to go right to my perspective.


This is why I speak out. I believe that strong pressure needs to be put on publishers so they will change their practices towards writers. I don't believe that they will change these practices out of their own initiative. To put it in very clear terms, I think that labor needs to stand up for itself in order for management to change.

I have no issue with those who work INSIDE publishing. I'm sure they are wonderful people. I have an issue with those who work at the TOP of publishing. The people who are very rich and powerful and probably want to keep it that way.

To give an even better example, I have serious problems with oil companies, but I'm sure there are wonderful people who work in them.

I also have no issue with writers who want to work in traditional publishing. If they think it's best for them, that's great.


In terms of reform, I'm fine if publishers adapt and survive, if they do so while offering better terms to writers. But I'm not attached to that solution.


So, I know that you don't agree the system is exploitive and needs pressure to change, Nathan, but I wish you would understand that I do. I'm sorry if that makes you feel I'm discounting your opinion. That's not my intention, I just see it differently, Nathan.

I will say that I had already decided, this weekend, to stop saying anti-traditional publishing statements on your blog. I've decided it's rude. It would be like going to a vegetarian's website and talking ad infinitum about the barbeque last week. I'm sorry if my statements here have put pressure on you. I guess there is a part of me that wants to change your mind. But I think it's time to let go of that.

So, that's my response to your post above. I will respond if you want to continue, I won't cut off the debate. And if you don't, that's okay, whatever works best for you.

Oh, I guess saying I feel stuck in an argument I keep trying to end is really unfair given how provocative I am.

That is unfair. I'm sorry. I just hate feeling as though we are at odds, so whenever you respond, I just want to say "let's agree to disagree." Maybe that's trying to dodge accountability. Sorry.

Good for you, Peter, answering in a way that is non-reactive and witty. Always admire you, Nathan, for keeping a calm head in any debate. A debate is always about issues and shouldn't become about the debators. Not everyone is good at expressing their opinions, but everyone has the right to express his/her opinion without being insulted for having that opinion. Disagreeing with the opinion without finding fault with the one expressing it is always a win-win - in my opinion. ;)

Kudos to you, Mira. I feel exactly the same as you. There's nothing wrong with questioning the questionable practices of very rich and powerful people at the top of huge multinational conglomerates. The DOJ has done the same in regard to most of the huge publishing houses, and kudos to them as well. Like you said, that has nothing to do with all the wonderful people who work for and with those corporations, most of them being paid only a small pittance compared to the huge profits made by those at the top. No one should feel guilty or apologetic for the type of stand you're taking.

But are the biggest publishers operating on huge profit margins? Are they 'greedy corporations' with profits going mainly to Board members while being ruthlessly stingy with their authors? Do any of us know this for a fact or is it heresay? I've always had the impression that the book biz operated on a slim profit margin with only the occasional best sellers keeping most companies going. Wasn't it Houghton and Mifflin the latest publishing company to file for bankruptcy? Publishers are going under, financially, all the time.

It is a very competitive and risky business, perhaps now more than ever.

*Houghton Mifflin* I meant - sorry.

Wendy - Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has been owned by and merged with a number of different companies. For example, in 2001, under the name Houghton Mifflin, it was acquired by the French media giant Vivendi for $2.2 billion. In 2003, Vivendi sold Houghton Mifflin to the private equity investment groups Thomas H. Lee and Bain Capital for $1.28 billion. Recently, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt filed for bankruptcy in order to receive help in dealing with billions of dollars of debt that was about to come due and worked out a plan to have $3 billion of its debt reduced to zero. Here's information on it: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Files For Bankruptcy, Claims $3 Billion In Debt. Now, does this sound like the kinds of financial dealings agents or editors or other workers farther down the food chain deal with in their daily lives? I don't think so. And that's just a very tiny mention of all the mergers and acquisitions and financial dealings in which Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has been involved.

Thanks for that info, Anon. Very interesting, actually. Sorry if I'm splitting hairs, but according to Wikipedia this company is not strictly a publishing company but has - over the years - owned a diverse number of companies including MP3.com, Canal+ Technologies, Vinci Construction, Univeral Studies, etc. And also according to Wiki, in 2002 Viveldi was fighting to stave off bankruptcy, itself. I think your point is, though, that Viveldi considered that H.M. was worth purchasing at 2.2b so there must be quite some money to be made by this publishing company. However, maybe their assumption wasn't totally correct, because as you noted they sold it again, fairly quickly, for almost half of what they paid for it. But 1.6b is still a lot of money though.

Actually, in support of your view, Anon, I came across this article about Penguin Books U.K:

'Penguin UK had its best ever year in 2010 as parent company Pearson reported a profits increase of 21% to £857m.

For the year ending 31st December, sales at Pearson were £5.66bn, up 10% on 2009. Sales at Penguin were £1.05bn, up 6% on the previous year. Adjusted operating profit was up 26% to £106m. Pearson attributed this to an "outstanding" US performance, driven by a record number of bestsellers, increased market share and expansion in emerging digital platforms and formats.'

Apparently in 2011 there was a slight dip in profits, but in 2012 there was a big leap in ebook profits, worldwide for this publisher:

'E-book sales represented 12% of all Penguin revenue worldwide in 2011; in the U.S., e-book sales accounted for more than 20% of Penguin’s revenue. While overall revenues at the company were up 1%, profits were up 8%, according to a statement from the company, suggesting that e-book sales deliver a higher profit margin.'

It seems Penguin are doing alright, then *g* I chose Penguin because it's the most well-known and successful publishing co. here in Australia. If the figures for this company are anything to go by, then the publishing biz isn't going too badly.

I'm just tossing ideas around trying to fathom things out. I really appreciate your reply, Anon. Thank you.

Wendy - Fascinating information. Thanks. When people working away in the lower levels of these huge conglomerates get laid off, they're just being used to boost overall profit for those at the top. What I don't understand is when the struggling workers defend the conglomerate as though it's feeling the same kind of struggle rather than just experiencing a pause in steep incline of huge profit.

Anon 11:37. Thank you! I'm glad we agree. It was really nice to read your supportive comments. :)

Just to clarify, I'm not apologizing for my beliefs, but more for trying to bash Nathan over the head with them.

Part of the problem is that one way to put pressure on the people at the top is by putting pressure on the people inside by confronting practices. I'm still learning when and how it's best to do that!

Mira - so glad you contributed to the discussion!

The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite books as well, so I'm a bit skeptical. But the trailer looks interesting, and it's difficult to go wrong with Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire. :D

The trailer looks amazing, I can't wait to see it. I have loved this story since I read the book (way back when) and I think the casting is spot-on.

Enjoy your blog, Nathan. As a small press owner, I regularly experience the "lightning rod" feeling that Barry E. is feeling right now. Especially when I speak out about such beauts as the stunning mediocrity of much "Christian Fiction," and such. Wow. You've not seen a firestorm until you've wrangled with the religious. Dave Barry said something along those lines, but he mentioned machetes. :) Keep up the good work!

I used to tell my daughter (a few years ago, when she was just getting started as a writer) that fanfiction was fun for practice, but she should write original stories and characters if she ever wanted to be a professional writer.

And then of course Fifty Shades of Grey came along, and proved I had no idea what I was talking about.

I know a lot of people say it's terrible, and I haven't read it, but I have to echo something Nathan often says: she must have been doing something right.

It just proves there really is NO accounting for taste. It's demographics - which portion of the reading public is doing the most buying of the '50 Shades of..."? Women, men, certain age groups??

Fan fiction builds off the original creator's idea. Has any fan fiction been as good as the original?

The Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy has sold 10 million copies in 6 weeks. Holy. Crap.

Did you get your copy/ies?

The Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy has sold 10 million copies in 6 weeks. Holy. Crap.

Did you get your copy/ies?

I really like Carey Mulligan, so I'm interested in seeing how she plays Daisy. I'm also interested in seeing how her performance compares to Mia Farrow's performance as Daisy in the 70s.

Houghton Mifflin...didn't they reject Julia Child :)

As for the Gatsby film...I'm just having a hard time with LD as the lead. He's short and stocky with legs shaped like the letter X. I always imaged Jay as one of those tall, handsome, well-bred patrician types with strong bone structure. Let's just say LD is no Robert Redford. But he was a great J. Edgar Hoover.

My Side of the Mountain was probably one of my three favorite books as a child. If I didn't hate being cold, I would have dreamed even more of following in that boy's footsteps. Now I might have to go dig it out of a box and give it another go.

I don't think I'll read 50 Shades. It's not my cuppa. On the other hand, I said the same thing about a YA vampire series, so what do I know?

As for Gatsby, I admitted this to Sommer Leigh and have been waiting for black cloud over my head to start pouring: I don't get The Great Gatsby. I read it and wanted to like it, I really did. But I just didn't connect with any of the characters. I feel like I missed something.

Thanks for these awesome links, Nathan. Julie OF The Wolves sounds like a wonderful title. Sorry to hear you lost such a talented friend. So many incredible outcomes in these links: Houghton Mifflin over a bill. in debt?!? How can they ever work their way out of this? The passing of Ray Bradbury is very sad. He was a rare author in whose work I always found profound beauty and amazing imagination. Something Wicked This Way Comes was a favourite.

Haven't yet had an op. to check out all the links but will make time when I can. All a must read, I think.

Watched the Great Gatsby trailer. I thought it was intriguing and obviously the movie is going to be epic. I've not read the book, but the premise as shown in the trailer shows a lot of promise. Here in Australia 'Gatsby' is not on many reading lists. When I was studying writing at Uni level, the syllabus consisted of all Australian titles back then - which I loved and could identify with more than titles from other countries and cultures. If a book is in a genre that I love, such as fantasy, then I've no problem with its origins. Fantasy titles usually have their own culture and countries, anyway, which I enjoy.

My Side of the Mountain and October Country. So much lost. I read Gatsby once but when I think about it all I get is an empty mansion with filmy curtains blowin' in the wind. Or was that someone else? They had great cars though.

Wow! The movie looks great!

I won't lie, I groaned out loud when I read how much copies Fifty Shades of Gray sold/

I'm surprised I hadn't heard about the passing of Jean Craighead George, since this week was the death of the great author Ray Bradbury. I guess I'm also slightly surprised you didn't mention that as well, but I suppose Bradbury has been so well known that we all found out this week one way or another.

On a lighter note, I am really excited for the Great Gatsby movie.

50 Shades, huh? Well, there's no accounting for taste, I guess. And the trailer looks pretty good. Baz can either make a film spectacularly successful or a fantastic failure. No in between. let's hope for the former.

Thanks for all of the great links Nathan.
It's sad news about Ray Bradbury and Jean Craighead George.
I almost fell out of my chair reading about 50 Shades.
The Great Gatsby should be amazing. I can't wait to see it.

My reaction to the 50 Shades news is how a food connoisseur living off foie gras and caviar would react to the news that 10 million people went nuts over McDonalds.

"Um. Sure, McDonalds can be good... but it's not super great in large doses, and plus, have you TRIED other food?"

Wonderful links, Nathan. Very fun and interesting to browse them. Thank you so much!

Very sad about George and Bradbury. They will be missed!

I especially liked the links on Eisler and the independent bookstores - and the book generator - thank you!

And I have serious concerns that Leo was miscast as Gatsby. But maybe it's another interpretation....?

So, I'm reluctantly going to add that since you and I have been debating this, I have to say, regretfully, I don't think Shatzkin added any good reasons for opposing the lawsuit (the settlement is a different topic.)

He basically said the main thing others are saying which is: "Yes, they probably broke the law (wink, wink), but they had a good reason for doing it, so you should let them off.

I just don't think that saying publishers had a "good reason" excuses illegal, criminal activity. Most people acting criminally think they had a good reason for doing so. Not usually a good defense.

All of this stuff about the agency model is besides the point. The DOJ is not suing for the agency model, they are suing over collusion. And for corporations, who are supposed to be competing, to collude and make agreements that try to control the market is an illegal, criminal activity. Publishers are not, nor should they be, above the law. For any reason.

That's the way I see it anyway. And it seems to me that all the arguments against the suit dodge that point and talk about the agency model, which is frankly, irrelevant to the real reason for the suit.

I took my post down. I always feel so conflicted about arguing with you on your blog, Nathan.

Anyway, I really thoroughly enjoyed browsing these links.

And I think Leo was miscast.

And I'm sorry for the loss of George and Bradbury.

Thanks for taking the time to put these links up, Nathan!

I just want to say thank you for the link to the Malcolm Gladwell Book Generator.

I mean, I read and appreciated the more informative links, too, but that one made me smile :-)

My biggest concern: "There will still be a big difference between a book launched with a major publicity campaign and a book anonymously and quietly uploaded to Amazon." That is SO true.

In fact, one of the prevailing reasons to go the traditional publishing route is to get that amazing package of promotional and marketing services you mention. As someone who has uploaded and sold many things online (music, CDs, photography, articles) I know the prep drill but, as you mention, there is a true glut of product out there, much of it mediocre, and even if you've got the goods it's not easy pulling from such a huge pack. I know many excellent authors who are jumping up and down for attention and except for the very few who have something fabulously viral happen, most get minimal sales and lost in the crowd.

So that's the biggest obstacle for me. Putting in the Herculean effort required only to be left in the mosh pit of unknown authors all jumping up and down to be seen and heard. But...

When there are no other options because the gatekeepers are so selective only a few are let in the traditional door, you make that choice because it's what's available and within your control. So we go for it, do what we can, and hope for the best. Personally, I'd be happy to give up a few points for a little help from the marketing pros!!

The more complicated it gets, the expertise in the various stages of the process are necessary.
http://blog.submittable.com/2012/04/josiah-wedgwood-and-the-short-sightedness-of-self-publishing/

I wonder if this move to the electronic world does not also present an opportunity to 'update' the book-reading experience a bit.

Books contain words. Often, they contain an awful lot of them. And that's fine, great and to be expected. But in terms of extras, they're often lacking. Gone seems the day of the illustrated novel for example.

The iPad (allegedly - I don't have one) has shown that reading a textbook can be a much more entertaining and informative experience, with the addition of video, animation, audio, and all manner of extra content. Should the novel not also consider whether words alone are enough in the modern age?

Look at what J.K. Rowling has done with Pottermore as an example. She adds a layer (very much removed from the book) of detail on there - a bit more content, explanation of what her thoughts and inspirations were etc. Imagine if lots of books had that sort of stuff... built in. We could bring illustrations back in to fashion too! Of course, it would have to be done very carefully, and in a way that added to, rather than distracted from the text... but still...

Just a thought.

Great post, as always, Nathan!

And as I tweeted to you, don't forget the challenge of ATTITUDE by the industry. A big turnoff for authors is the arrogance of trad pubs/agents/editors treating them like 2nd class citizens, mocking them, niggling over arbitrary reasons why their MS isn't viable because it doesn't fit in the same box as 20 other books.

QUALITY VS. VARIETY: And the celeb authors don't always produce the best stuff--some keep producing "ditto" so the era of books to fulfill contracts for contracts sake is fading. If anything, the quality may go up. At least the variety/selection will, which is best for readers!

OUTSOURCING VS. HOUSE MODEL: The challenge growing for trad publishers & agents is to hold back their marketing & PR staff from doing direct biz with authors. As an indie author, with 10 yrs in marketing/PR & 25 in editing/writing/publishing, I don't need a house to get my biz done. I need a few pro contractors, not a house. So outsourcing, not houseboats, is the strongest model right going forward. Which leads me to...

PRICING: If an indie author decides they need an agent, it may be more on a "coaching" model, where there is no % taken, just fees for time. As for contracts with trad publishers, you can get an exp lit lawyer and pay per hour. There are too many agents doing NOTHING for authors, which has especially spoiled their overall reputation among indie authors. And I mean bestselling authors before they went indie who are now dumping their big NY agents and pub houses.

CODE OF SILENCE: But the biggest challenge of all is the openness of communication. The code of silence has been removed. Authors are dishing, and I mean completely. In trad publishing, if you were caught saying anything negative about your agent or publisher/etc, you were punished. Now, everything is fair game, and authors are comparing notes. That's more power to authors. And this is why they are so angry--there has been much abuse in this industry of the artist (I'm not just talking about the $).

Anyway, I think it's a better time for authors and readers to be closer and stop having so many middle men decide what can/can't be published. Quality is decided more than ever by reviewers/readers with online ratings, as it has been for years. But they are finally seeing the true variety of books that exist, not the edited version from NY, which doesn't always decide based on quality.

My 10 cents. But counting inflation...

Warm regards,
Christine M. Fairchild
http://editordevil.blogspot.com

Have anyone tried using Booktango????? It makes work very easy…….Booktango is a free Do It Yourself (DIY) publishing platform that allows authors to easily create, edit, design and distribute an e-book on leading e-reading devices including the Kindle, Nook, iPad, Kobo e-reader, Sony Reader and smartphones.More information on our services is available here http://www.booktango.com/Services/or go to www.booktango.com for more information

For authors, the challenge will be to exist as both an author and a mini-corporation (or a major corporation if you're JK Rowling or James Patterson). The days where you could write a book, send it to the publisher, and then watch (or pitch in a little here and there as you see fit) as it becomes a book in the world have gone the way of the dodo. Now the writer will either have to do everything themselves or pay (or beg) people to do it for them. The cost and the output of labor are falling back and the author's head.

Yes, this gives writers control and autonomy, but it will also bury a lot of writers. You work sixty hours a week to support your family? Finding time not only to write, but also to copyedit, do layout, find outlets, market, do the accounting might just be too much. There are only so many hours in the day. And the cost? What if you can't afford these things? Maybe a few will get viral lucky, but there is likely to be a class disparity in the do-it-yourself future. Books will be the playground of the middle class (maybe) and up. Gone, perhaps, will be the struggling writer who finally turns out a masterpiece. Success may hinge more on your martketing abilities and financial backing than it will on your writing. Soon all the books might be written by Jane Doe, Inc. or John Doe, Ltd. And, sadly, corporate taxes are a bitch to file - that alone might knock off a few writers.

Barnes and Noble has a really cool feature on their website. If you find a book that you want, you can check the pick it up in the store option and it will be waiting for you within an hour. No shipping charges or waiting for it to arrive. Almost instant gratification.

And if you're a Books-a-Million Millionaire Club member, on top of the discounts, you get free express shipping when you order from their website.

It's rather interesting the way our shopping habits have changed over the last forty years. From downtown to malls to big box stores to online. There seems to be a rejuvanation of the downtown areas as places to go, hang out, and shop in smaller stores. It seems cozier, more personal than the mall, big box, or online retail.

Your optimism is why you are Nathan Bradford.

Great points here -- I agree that a trusted brand can continue to sell books but it will look different online than in a storefront. Plus, the gatekeeper will be a mix of technology and human curation -- not either/or, it must be a mix of the two.

I don't think there's much confusion for readers.

As a reader, I go looking and find the books I like (word of mouth is still the strongest seller, and Amazon's referral program ain't half bad). And there are plenty of ebooks to buy -- there's no shortage. I can sample, and I do shop with price in mind (no way am I paying 7.99 or more for an ebook).

And once I find an author, I tend to stock up on all that author's work, so more work out is an advantage for any writer.

Authors probably have more confusion in that there are so many choices (which is the good news/bad news). And things change so fast.

We'll probably all look back in five years and wonder how simple it was actually--things do tend to like to get more complicated.

We'll get more readers, more formats, more options before it starts to streamline and then it'll expand again as new tech comes along.

It's all about the ride--hang on and scream loud and don't forget to laugh.

I am excited about this new era of publishing. As a reader, I have a plethora of choices from authors unafraid to jump genre guidelines and publish imaginative and innovative stories.

I'm not afraid of the giant slush pile. It gives me an opportunity to sample books I never would have seen had the traditional gatekeepers been present.

I can usually tell whether I'm interested by a 20 word tagline. If the blurb captures my attention, a quick read of the sample tells me if the work has been edited and brought to professional standards of storytelling. Is there a hook? Are the points of view clear? Is the work cleanly edited? Does the storyline promise to engage my attention?

That said, I do appreciate trusted reviews and organizations that vet self-published books and would like to see more policing done among the websites that promote and review indie books.

Thanks for the well written and succinct article covering all the bases of today's publishing challenges.

I think the scariest battles on the digital front will be around piracy, but they wilol not be enough to crush the industry, no more than cassette tapes were to album sales.

Other than that, publishing is in a transition state and that leads to fear of the unknown, which may cause people as individuals and en masse to act (or react) in irrational ways based upon perceived fears rather than objective reality.

And fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the Dark Side. So there's that, too.

Twitter: @rjdaley101071
My Blog: http://mydaleyrant.blogspot.com
My Book: THE MAN IN THE CINDER CLOUDS

I think the market for getting books from authors to readers took a huge leap in efficiency with Amazon and their marketing machine (and possibly now B&N with Microsoft weighing in). The "out of the blue" successes weren't just because someone had a great social network or paid $100k to a NY publicist. They were successes for the same reason as every other book - people wanted to read it and told all their friends. Now that just happens at internet speed.

As a reader, I love all my options. I love trying new authors when their first book is free or 99 cents. I've had no problem choosing between the trad. pubbed and self pubbed books. I read the sample and it's usually very clear whether I'll like the book or not. Sometimes it works out and the book is great - sometimes it doesn't. But that's the way it has always been even when I was just reading trad. pubbed books.

It occurred to me a while ago that maybe the core value proposition of publishers really is to absorb the loss on books that don't earn out what the writer got paid, and as of yet there is nothing to replace them in that role.

I'm finishing my masters in writing and also finishing a novel. Said novel is, broadly speaking, somewhere in the neighborhood of magical realism or sci-fi. What do you think someone in my position should do? Go traditional or go self-digital? Thanks!

What a great time to be watching the industry. It's the wild wild west, and I'm intrigued to see who the new tastemakers will be. As you pointed out, readers are overwhelmed, and it still hasn't been determined who is going to narrow the choices for them. Goodreads and the like will provide a voice of the people, major sites like B&N will probably still have a say, but I feel like there's room for something new in this particular disruption, and I'm looking forward to seeing what it is. Thanks for reporting from the front lines in this new frontier & for encouraging so many to voice such fascinating insights.

I'm not scared by any of it, and feel rather excited.

What is happening with books is what happened to the recording industry 10 years ago, throwing a lot of the control (but also the work) into the lap of the creative artist.

I self-pubbed the first of a 4 part rock and roll novel series in February, and while it has been a lot of work and effort for me and my hubby, who designed all the ebook versions (and accumulated lots of redeemable husband points), I've met all sorts of great people online and in real life as a result. It's a slow process to build up a readership, but I am delighted that all the choices (including the errors) will be on my head, and ultimately, I get to decide how to proceed. And, as much as it would be nice to have huge sales and financial rewards beyond measure, that is not ultimately why writers write and I really am just thrilled to be in it.

Bring it, I say!

Gimme some of what Double Rainbow guy is having!

This is right on the money, and I love the line about not all chances being equal. Ironically, it used to be authors with money and fame that were at the head of the pack. Those still have an advantage, but authors with an excess of time (though in the minority) are clearly at an advantage for building networks and grabbing attention. Someone who has 15 minutes once a week to blog between two jobs is going to find it harder to be heard.

Nicely posited.

In the authors section, I definitely agree but think you've got only half the story. Your assumed definition of success is based on velocity. But velocity applies to the old publishing views: short term measures of sell through.

As an author who has decided to go independent, and to quietly upload to Amazon (no time or money for a big splash), I don't define success by velocity. I am looking at a very distant horizon. My first book had 5,000 downloads in the first 100 days. Pretty good velocity (even if 95% of those were free). But here's where I choose to focus: If I look ten years down the road, I'll have a number of other books, and, hopefully, a much expanded following. Plus, I will still own all my rights. Those 5,000 downloads the first 100 days? Great! But call me back in ten years and I'll tell you whether I feel like I've succeeded or not.

This will also help readers with the onslaught of crap. Crap writers will throw something up on Amazon, maybe even two or three somethings. But eventually they'll get bored and go do something else. Ten years down the road, those of us who are serious about our books will largely be findable by the extent of our full body of work. That's not a foolproof way of telling the good from the crap, but I think it gets readers a long way there.

I commend you on succinctly capturing the most relevant points in each category, though. Great post.

Great comment, Peter. On a similar note, you might like my Herd of Turtles post. :)

I mostly agree with you except for one thing: I think there is a huge deluge of crap out there, and I don't think it's going to get better. Most of the self-published stuff I've looked at is crap. However, that's not to say that most of the traditionally published stuff is not also crap, because it is. Some of it is even very popular crap.

I do hope one thing changes with agents: I hope they are forced, once again, to sell themselves to the author, not the other way around. The agent is supposed to work -for- the author, and they quit doing that (on the whole) a long time ago. It's time for the agents to start proving why we should hire them.

Publicity/marketing are the scariest parts, because as technology advances, it seems like authors have to do more of it. And on their own. And consistently. And while I think publishers will also start beefing up their marketing so that they become recognizable brands that readers trust, I don't think authors are going to be able to start slacking off. And that can be pretty scary for people who don't like putting themselves out there. It's something we have to accept, though; the days of the hermit author are pretty much over.

Nathan: I agree with everything you said.

Except, as authors have more opportunity to deal with publishers, and publishing, and readers, more directly than ever before--I think those middle-men and women, the facilitators, are going to be the ones who have to adjust most.

In other words, being an agent is likely to become more than the intermediary between publishers and authors. An agent will likely have to take part in the generation of publicity, and maybe even "managing" the author's "brand," to steal terms from the SEO types.

In other words, the literary agent may become a writer's publicist--handling and blogging on their "platform": website, twitter, facebook and whatever comes next.

I could be wrong. But I've suggested before that this sort of shock to even publishers isn't all that new, it just is for this generation's publishers.

At the turn of the last century, paperbacks--cheaply printed books--showed up in France. It is no coincidence that Paris became a literary center of the world. Writers (and other artists) frustrated with restrictions imposed by publishers, readers, and other authorities upon artistic expression, flocked to where others were already experimenting with everything from dance to music to language arts.

In that mix, a few with enough money actually bought physical printing presses. And began "publishing"--making copies of--their friends' works.

And regardless of how you or others rate James Joyce's booklength prose poem "Ulysses," it would never have seen the light of day anywhere else, if Sylvia Beach herself had not decided to publish it in Paris. And it is now considered, by many, a major leap in literary art, the equivalent (even more than Gertrude Stein wanted her writing to be) of Picasso and Braque discovering or deciding to try what became "cubism."

Yes, there is more and more access to "publishing"--putting information out for public consumption--than ever before. And it does mean there will be a glut of it, the same "slushpile" that agents and publishers have waded through looking for "gems" will now be what confronts readers.

They'll have to make their own decisions on what they think is appealing, to them, what they're willing to pay, and how much, for.

And writers will have to rely, more than ever, on their friends, or like-minded fellow artists, for help in either standing out from the rest in that slushpile, or in establishing a new marketplace.

That's the thing with art. It has value to the person creating it. But it has little value outside of its creator until someone else is willing to pay something for it. And once they are, it increases in value with the more people who find it valuable.

I just came from The Steins Collect, the collection of paintings from the salons of Gertrude, Michael and Leo Stein currently on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Once art patrons--particularly collectors--saw that the art the Steins were buying from the likes of Picasso and Matisse was valuable (appreciated enough to increase in value), even those friends' art became too expensive for the Steins to afford.

That's what publishers would like to maintain control over with the "Standard Pricing" model of 70/30.

Good luck to them, is all I say as an independent writer...:)

After buying our own printing presses, having our friends publish our writing, sell it, distribute it, talk it up, then finding the advent of ebooks, they'll naturally try to control the market. And something else will come along--maybe telepathy--and they won't be able to make money off of taking a minor risk with a popular writer. Or a major risk with an unknown writer.

But the writer will...

I absolutely love your techno-optimist attitude, Nathan, and just your positive attitude in general. you've really helped me understand how the publishing industry is changing, and made me feel pretty good about it. Thank you!

Really nice post, Nathan! I think you've succinctly taken a clear picture of what people are struggling with. This is really helpful because there's so much confusion and overwhelm right now.

I want to add something too about agents. In addition to needing a negotiator, many authors like a guiding companion - - it's a scary thing to put your work out there. I think agents fill some of that role now, and they may continue to find a niche in mentoring and supporting authors. Of course, others may come up to fill that niche as well.

In terms of the slush pile, I'm with you. I think the fears are overblown. You-tube is a great example of that. Thousands of videos, but the best find their way to the top.

Never underestimate the ability of a consumer to find a good product! Especially when that product has an unlimited shelf life, and word of mouth moves at internet speed, as Peter and Susan pointed out.

I agree with you, I'm very optimistic about this too! :)

Nothing is scary about the new era. When changes from hard copy to digital began, I was confused, not scared.

Literary Agents? Agree, but the hypothetical isn't a real hypothetical because culling the better written books, especially now, has to happen. Best selling authors will never share their pie with millions of other writers, because they are the best.

Some people will lose job, some will gain them along with new ways to distribute these books. In the meantime, venues such as the New York Times bestseller list will become even more valued.

Too much is too much, and these new millions of writers will wind up in the hypothetical slush pile.

This country, free, open, democratic market, the best rise to the top, no?

Sheila Cull

Hey! I'm not Anonymous. laugh out loud. I'm Sheila Cull.

I thought your comments about bookstores were particularly interesting because I think of them as going out of business alltogether except as a kind of antique/botique specialty thing. Only time will tell (but guessing is fun)!

I love paper books (as opposed to ebooks) and I always imagined my novels in that format, but as I get to the point of approaching agents and/or publishers, I find that I'm very confused by the ever developing situation. I really don't want to self-publish but so many people I know have. Maybe it's a case of horses for courses.

As long as printed books are still around, I have no problem with ebooks, with one exception.

Territorial restrictions - a step back. Unless every author self-publishes internationally, restrictions will stop people from reading what they want to read.

Great points, Nathan! As a writer, I think there are going to be a lot of exciting possibilities on the horizon. As a reader, I'm a little bit sad - I went to my local B&N this week and it really hit home that I can no longer walk in and hope to find the books I want on the shelves there.

I don't mind Amazon, but it's sad to think that the in-story book-buying experience is pretty much over. That's what I loved so much as a kid!

The biggest challenge is fear itself. Many industries, most pointedly the music business, fought digital tooth and claw. In the end, they caved and adapted. Publishing should embrace the great new tools and opportunities they have been given, put their energy doing and improving instead of fighting a rearguard action.

Great post, Nathan. We have to be able to separate the temporal from the eternal: the current method of creating and distributing stories will always be in flux, but stories will always be around, at least as long as there are people to tell them and to ingest them.

By the way, San Francisco is a beautiful part of the world. My family and I are on a 4-month cross-country trip and have been here for about a week. It will be difficult to leave.

Nathan,

Another good post, Nathan

I believe the only thing you can depend on is change. You are right about one thing: It is not always easy for cream to rise to the top, and it is unfortunate, readers will be the losers and incidentally so will be the hard working authors whom wish to make a contribution to the betterment of our society. #danielmcneet

I guess I'll echo a few previous posts here and say that one of the biggest changes will be in how books are marketed (particularly ebooks) are marketed. When you niche and micro-niche genres and thousands of new books pouring in, it's hard to take particular notice of any single book. I ultimately the author will have to take increasing responsibility for marketing both their books and their own persona.

Not to say that this is a bad thing. I love being able to browse through Amazon and find hundreds of books under $2 that I can read on my computer.

I find it interesting that you talked about the future of bookstores, but not about the potential change this represents for libraries. Perhaps a future post??

I sure would like to figure out how to get interest in my book (http://tinyurl.com/7tpwcxt) to go viral. It's nice to have good reviews and all, but it'd be nicer to know that people actually knew it existed. The liberation of authors from publishers is a sort of double-edged sword: you're free to be alone, very alone.

This is a perfect snapshot of the publishing world as it stands now. Thanks for putting it so well. Things are changing rapidly. Change is stressful. People feel like they're in the middle of an earthquake with nothing solid to hang onto. People who fear change are pulling back and burying their heads in moldering treeware and people who embrace it may be jumping in way too soon. But things will start to balance out soon. The important thing is to avoid either/or thinking and embrace the fact we have more choices than ever. (I'll be blogging about this on Sunday.) Great post, Nathan!

I don't think bookstores will ever go away. There will always be people who like to touch and browse with their eyes and hands and not the computer.

I like to think that a story's merit is going to propel it out into the world, and that will never change... and I hope to (intend to) stick to that idea even if my books don't go anywhere!! But I've been reading Donald Maass' Breakout Novel book recently, so it is quite possible that's where the sentiment is coming from. ;)

Nathan,

Another great post in the conversation about publishing changes.

Rather than being frightened, I think it's a fabulous time to be a romance writer! I was first pubbed in 2008 with Samhain Publishing, an ebook and print pub. The very next year they teamed with Amazon and the other big online stores, and suddenly the world was my marketplace, not just the smaller number of shoppers who knew of Samhain.

As a mid-list author who occasionally makes it to the best-seller lists, I appreciate being part of not only a quality book production process, but having a place in their 'storefront'.

Do I plan to self-pub? Absolutely. Some of my RWA chapter mates, of whom you've probably never heard, because they are in just one of the sub-genres of the huge romance market, are making great money by pricing their ebooks low and keeping 70% of the profits. I would never consider doing so without the expertise of a free-lance editor and beta-readers, but I will do it.

Will I stay with Samhain? As long as they want me.
Would I like a Big 6 contract? Hmm, not sure anymore. As I said, great time to be an author.

Thanks for sharing your expertise and vision,

Cathryn Cade
http://www.cathryncade.com

I'm not sure about the agent entry (though you would, obviously, know more about this.) Although I agree with you about the standardization element, you didn't address film / tv / game rights, estate management, or the variables of contracts (and IDK a lot about that, but there must be more possible than 70/30.) Who, for example, handles JK Rowling? And, while the split makes sense for genre, how does it figure into literary fiction?

Anon-

Agents will definitely be needed for that, but only really for the biggest authors.

I agree. I sell my eBooks direct from my own web site in all formats, but most people click on the Amazon or B&N link to buy them from the known entity.

You're totally right. As wonderful as it sounds in theory, it's not for the average Joe. It's hard enough self-publishing as it is, but to put the extra pressure on yourself to draw customers to your own website would mean having to give up your day job. And we all know we can't afford to do that! JK is great though, for making this leap. I'm definitely cheering her on!

The thing is, publishers developed naturally in the marketplace for a reason. Booksellers developed naturally in the marketplace for a reason. "Power to the author" is a thrilling message to a certain extent, and there are certainly times and places that the publishing and distribution process could be improved, but do away with traditional publishers AND booksellers completely?

I just don't see it happening. People LIKE having others take care of business for them, and will happy exchange part of their revenue for the overall increase in sales numbers that come with traditional publishers and distributors.

You'll notice that, while Rowling is distributing Potter independently, she's still going 100% traditional with her adult book. I'm just saying.

I remember when The Beatles started their own record label, and then other bands did it, too.

What Rowling has done is super cool, but it was lightening in a bottle. First, she still held digital rights. No one else had the right to publish Harry Potter eBooks. That was a function of timing because publishers weren't negotiating for those rights when she started out so she had the ability to refuse them later.

A debut author won't have that kind of clout in traditional publishing. And a self-pub is very unlikely to have the kind of success that the Harry Potter books generated.

I'm sure it will happen, somebody else will pull it off, but it will be a ton of work and require some luck, too.

Oh, a vendor that makes it easy and cheap will emerge. It may take a couple years, but there will be a platform.

" and it's very easy to convert to the most popular devices."

And that's why this venture will fail. Rowling is an anomaly with a built in fanbase who may go to the trouble of converting.

(Pretty much) any other author won't. Nor should customers have to jump through any hoops whatsoever to make a purchase. Converting from one format to another? And put up with the inevitable formatting errors just so you can enjoy your purchase? 99% of people won't.

If you want to sell to people make it cheap, make it good quality and make it EASY.

Harry Potter is a life of its own so isn't a great example. No-one else will be able to sell a book and say "convert it to work on device X"

JK should open up her pub house and help other YA authors with same plan.

Stephen King should take on the horror and mystery genre with a pub house of his own... And so on!

The authors with enough money and manpower to do create a world where authors get more percentage back...wow. It would really change things.

Amazon's boots would be dust from so much shaking.

But actually, Craig, it isn't just "easy to convert" the Potter e-books; it's seamless. I didn't have to jump through any hoops. I just hit "download Kindle book" and I was good to go.

But JKR has the money and clout to hire people to handle this enterprise for her. That's what I see as the big difference between her and the rest of us. I barely have time to do the promotion that I should for my novel, and I'm signed with a traditional publisher (Simon & Schuster). The last thing I want is to branch into this end of the business--though I think it's fabulous that some writers can!

I think your post is spot on. The few people in the world who could sell their books completely on their own are Stephen King, Stephanie Meyer and J.K. Rowing. The list excludes even lots of people that have made the best seller list. I was at an indie store for the tour of Maggie Stiefvater's Linger which debuted on the bestsellers list. A guy at the store asked me why there were so many people here. I told him and he asked who Maggie was. So I told him. He hadn't heard of the book either. I recommended he check out another book she'd written. The point is if someone in the YA section of a bookstore hadn't heard of Maggie until this conversation, there is no way a mid-lister could survive without centralized vending.

10 points to Gryffindor? You know it was a Ravenclaw who came up with this! :D

Agree with Claire!

Wouldn't it be cool if JK decided to share her platform, and enter the publishing business as a more open competitor to Amazon? As an author herself, you'd think she would run her business differently, with a greater emphasis on helping authors and less on cornering the market.

Good, interesting post, fascinating topic, and I think you raise some really good points, Nathan.

I both agree and semi-disagree with you. I think in the near future, what you're saying makes sense. The infrastructure doesn't exist that would support authors striking out on their own unless they have a strong following and financial backing/support or personal funds.

But that doesn't mean such an infrastructure couldn't develop. Right now, sales are centralized, but that doesn't have to be the norm.


It is not out of the realm of possibility that authors selling from their own website could become the standard, with referral sites and other services to support it.

Referral sites are developing. Readers want to find good books, and places like Goodreads will continue to thrive in the digital enviornment, helping direct readers to books they want to read.

It's not that big of a step to then direct readers to the author's website to buy the book.

Whether it will happen or not is a very big question, and one I've wondered about. The internet is incredibly powerful. It gives authors much more autonomy than I think many people may be taking in, including those authors themselves.

If Amazon or others began treating authors in a shabby fashion, authors could choose to find other sales platforms, or even unite through the internet and create sales platforms of their own.

Someone above mentioned Amazon shaking in their boots. I not so sure. Amazon sells many items other than books. But also, Amazon appears to be smart enough to stop a trend like this by making their services too attractive to authors to pass up, if it happens.

But you never know! I could be wrong about all of the above. It truly is fascinating to watch this all unfold!

I really could have used this a month-and-a-half ago when I finished The Order of the Phoenix and had to wait a whole day to go to a local indie bookstore and buy Half-Blood Prince.

Not that I mind supporting the indie store, who stocks my book THE MAN IN THE CINDER CLOUDS, but I didn't want to wait a whole 14 hours to keep reading....

You know, I have wondered many times why, if the Big 6 don't like the way Amazon prices their book, they don't simply stop selling books through Amazon? Yes, I know, the answer is "Because Amazon is the biggest book-mover in the world." But it's rather a self-fulfilling prophecy, because they wouldn't be the biggest if the publishers stopped sending them books to sell. If someone wants James Patterson, and Amazon doesn't have it, they will go to whoever does have it. As Nathan pointed out, with the internet it's easy to find the products you want, wherever they may be sold.

So I could easily envision a book world where the Big 6 and maybe even other indie presses, create their own distribution system, bypassing Amazon (and anyone else they choose), and Amazon becomes the bastion of the self-published and other indie press authors.

But I do agree that most authors will not have the time, money, or inclination to be creator, publisher, seller, and everything else that comes along with it. Most of us already are stretched thin juggling the writing and marketing we are supposed to do now--oh, yeah, and the demands of our non-writing life, too. I know it's not what I would want to do!

This may not be the answer, but I bet it started a few wheels and gears turning. I can see this pushing new ideas and new innovations. People will riff on this and find new forms and models, I'm guessing. A really big butterfly just flapped its wings.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the effect of this on MG e-books in particular. Of course, there are lots of MG kids reading ebooks already. Will this boost e-reader usage amongst MG readers? Will that have a salutary effect on the bottom line for traditional publishers of MG e-books? What about self-pub MG e-books? My feeling is that yes, it will boost e-reader ownership amongst the kidlets, but that was coming anyway. And I don't think it will have much impact on self-pub MG ebooks until the kidlets themselves start browsing and discovering e-books on Amazon (vs. through parents, teachers, librarians, and other gatekeepers).

Thoughts?

In my opinion, we authors are overlooking the most important key to selling books independently on a massive scale. Like Nathan said, we need to find Time Turners.

I think we're overlooking two fundamentals. One, Laurel has mentioned: JKR holds the digital rights to all of her books. And, two, which is the more important thing, she wrote a story that has inspired and captivated the imagination of nearly half a billion readers; with new readers are on the way.

It will just be time before this series is pirated, unfortunately. I visited a relative this last weekend and he's an intelligent man who loves his iPad and couldn't wait to tell me his latest find, 5000 full text contemporary books of his favorite authors...he's a spy thriller guy.. on one CD to upload to his iPad, pirated! I expressed my displeasure in defense of all those authors whose royalties were also pirated and told him to keep the CD because I wasn't interested in defense of writers. And anyways, I still like paperback books to highlight, write in, dog ear, and share with someone else.

I think the big deal is when all the best selling authors walk away from their publishers and do this.

What will publishers think if James Patterson does this next? Stephen King has already played in this pool. Will he go back and try again?

If the big publishers bread and butter authors walk out the door because they have name recognition, what will the big publishers do? Will they start appreciating their mid-list authors? Oh, wait, they have moved onto self-publishing.

The dominoes can topple pretty fast.

Of course, authors can also do print on demand to create print copies to go along with their eBook distribution channel.

To be picky, Rowling didn't "build an entire distribution platform ... that is compatible with different e-book formats." She wrote a check to OverDrive to have her e-bookstore hosted on their MIDAS system.

The point still stands, though. Few authors are in the position to do that, and they'd still need to pull readers in to their personal sites.

Heck, even the big publishing houses don't bother to have dedicated e-book stores. There are few titles that have enough pull to get readers to bounce around the Web to buy them. The e-book stores still provide a useful intermediary service.

I'm new to the writing business, having yet to be published, but I was an active stock investor and trader back in the 1990s during the internet bubble. I see direct parallels between the internet stocks then and the publishing world now.

Back in the day, it seemed like a new technology and/or a new company was bursting onto the scene on a weekly basis. Some of those "great idea, can't miss" ideas and companies survived. Google, Amazon.com, Yahoo! and the like survived. But for every success story I estimate there were 100 great ideas that sizzled, then fizzled.

It became almost comical to watch investors scramble from one great idea to the next, to the next, to the next, convinced that each one was a sure thing.

The publishing business seems to be shaking out in the same way. One week it's Amanda Hocking going straight to self-publishing, the next it's authors giving away ebooks for free in order to generate sales of other books. The next week it's a race to zero with ebook prices to see if there is a reasonable minimum price that can be established. Etc., etc.

Now JK Rowling is doing an end run around Amazon.com. Will she prevail? Will other authors follow her lead? Will book buyers stay with Amazon.com? Or will something else come along even better?

Maybe ebooks and ereaders aren't even the end of the continuum. Who knows, some tech genius might invent reading glasses that actually project text onto special lenses so one won't even need a Nook or Kindle. You might turn pages by voice command or looking from far right to far left.

All the new developments are interesting and exciting to consider, but I for one won't be in a rush to decide which technology, sales method, platforms, or marketing schemes will still be around in 10 years. After all, didn't everyone use to think that MySpace would revolutionize social media? Where are they now?

Chris

For decades time stood still in publishing, nothing changing. Then the quantum shift in the industry opened the exciting potential for writers to become publishers. I was so excited to be involved in a fledgling indie press but found out quickly how much it sucks to be a publisher. Now, after doing it for a few years, I realized that it really, really, really sucks. Managing websites, email mailing lists, formatting, editing, it all sucks. I would love to be just a writer again with a pen and a yellow legal pad. Unfortunately, this is what it takes to be a writer now.

I often wondered why we hadn't seen more big name authors bail on publishers and do it all themselves. Even in the old school printing press technology, someone with the resources of Stephen King could easily be their own publisher. I think it comes back to the universal truth, being a publisher sucks more than being a writer. Even indy star, Amanda Hocking, went the big pub route citing the luxury of having people to do all the publishing BS for her.

There is a great reward to finding a manuscript, making it into a book and bringing to the people. I know there are publishers who enjoy the work. I don't.
I just want to write.

I know a commercially publisher writer who is leaving her publisher to self publish. It was not just a money issue but a service issue. Royalty payments were chronically late, the pub had more books than they could effectively promote and support. The author had built up some name recognition so she was already on the shelves of the stores. Despite the extra work, she made the decision to strike out on her own. Like so many choices in life, it comes down to what sucks less.

I agree with you. Personally, I find all the changes and brand new choices in publishing quite exciting. And I'm delighted that there are now HARRY POTTER eBooks!

Hey, so I just went to Pottermore and bought the first three books. I wanted to share my reaction.

I noticed that I loved buying the books from J.K herself. It made me feel close to her. I was totally willing to give her my money. And I usually worry alittle about my credit card, but I found myself thinking, J.K. would NEVER mess me over and steal my card.

Huh.

That's not usually how I feel when I buy on Amazon. Just thought I'd share that.

I think this is a wise approach. Business is business, if I were JR, I'd go exactly the same way. I appreciate her crative work because these are only her books and free crossword puzzle maker that can make my kids sit still

Haha! That cracked me up! Good answers.

Let me say one more thing about the showing of more emotion in writing. I think often when someone asks for more emotion or interiority, they don't mean find different ways to show the emotion, they mean tell me why s/he is having those emotions.

For example, and this is completely hypothetical, let's say there is a scene where essentially a girl gets raped. Sure the girl is going to feel angry and sickened. But saying "Anger flooded through me is telling."

"I wanted to scratch the man's eyes out" is showing good anger, but it still doesn't tell us anything deeper, just that she is angry.

"How could anyone who ever called them self my mother let this happen to me?" Takes us deeper into why she is angry. We're like, oh, she hates the man and wants to scratch his eyes out (completely justified IMO), but it goes deeper, she is angry and feels betrayed by her mother for giving her to this guy.

Hope that helps, Bob.

Julie,

Portraying emotion in writing is almost as complicated as understanding real-life emotions. People who can do it are a huge step ahead of most people who write, even some of the famous ones. There are some good books about characters and emotions, but even those aren't enough. This is an aspect of writing that requires a lot of work. But it's worth it.

Ha! Okay, this was brilliant. I looooooooved it.

Great post Miss Rose. :)

Ditto here! It's exactly the writing break I needed today! Now back to the grindstone ;)

That last one is so funny! And so true...

It's OK with me if Readers are the winners. After all, we want them to keep on reading!

I so appreciate being educated on how all of this works by this post and your previous one about the agency model.

I also think the decline of print is inevitable, and while it makes me sad in some ways (who doesn't love an indy bookstore?), I'm optimistic that the benefits of ebooks (esp to the environment) will make up for the loss of print.

One of the things that's been fun for me about ebooks (and, I admit, Amazon in particular) is the rise of the self-pubbed author.

Don't get me wrong, I still LOVE traditional publishing. There's no doubt there are many, many advantages to it, for the reader and the author. But I also love that someone can write a book--especially one with a niche market--get it out there, and make some money.

Any ideas on how this decision will impact self-pubs?

I prefer Publishers stick with their Agency pricing because, as Mike Shatzkin notes, as an indie author it gives me great leverage to price my eBooks between $2.99 and $4.99.

The reality is, print will continue to shrink and Turow does not represent the majority of authors, but rather those privileged few that are treated like royalty by publishers. That is why the term "authors guild" is an oxymoron. The Authors Guild no more looks out for the majority of authors than publishers do.

I knew we could count on you.

Personally, I think good books are worth more than what they often cost (as e-books) right now. For example, I would always be willing to pay more for a good book than I would for the price of admission to a good movie.

The trouble is, how do you know for sure if a book is good before you pay? That's part of why the 0.99 and 2.99s are so tempting.

Let this retarded agency model die. Readers pay more. Writers make less. And publishers get to gloat over messing with Amazon's pricing. Cut the agency model's head freakin' head off.

Yesterday, I went looking for a Neal Stephenson book to buy for my Kindle. They were all priced way too high, around $10 a book.

Tomorrow, I'm going to a used book store to buy one of his books. I really have a hard time spending $10 on an eBook.

They've colluded for decades. They seem to think they can fix prices, royalty percentages and all be HQ'd in one town and somehow it's not collusion.
I don't mind paying $9.99 for an e-book, when it rises above that, it begins to chafe. I can lend a book. I can donate it to my library, or sell it at a used bookstore. When I buy an e-book I am licensing the content and due to DRM and I can rarely lend it. And the majority of books will be read once. So the e-book, in exchange for convenience, gives you less than a physical book. It should be priced lower than a physical book.

The mass market paperback is being phased out so they can charge $12-18 vs. $8-10, when the books (according to a friend who works for Macmillan) cost the same to make, whether it is hardcover, trade or mass paper. There is a cost savings with e-books, even though they do cost money to properly design. This should be reflected in the price.

I want the big publishers to survive and thrive. To do that, they will have to enter the 20th century, maybe the 21st. They are fighting change tooth and nail.

Example- I'd buy more hardcovers if I got an unlock code for the e-book with it. Even if it had DRM. (As long as it's not that Adobe Digital Editions crap, and I can read it on my e-reader.) That's one easy way to get me to pay $15-30 for a book, publishers.

Vinyl records often come with a CD or a link to a free digital download. Wise up.

This may be the first post where someone has claimed that readers will be the winners. Most arguments for or against [agency model|self publishing|Amazon|etc] start off with, "Who's going to suffer? Readers!" No one ever really explains how readers will suffer, beyond vague claims of decrease in product quality.

Regardless, from what little I understand of how publishers pushed the "agency model" on Amazon, it's essentially price fixing. Which, as I understand it, is illegal.

I think I agree with most of your analysis and conclusions. It seems we both believe that, ultimately, innovation-friendly markets lead to better consumer experience.

I think my biggest worry is the future for authors. If authors make less and less per book, at what point do we start losing authors who decide that spending years on a book, only to receive pennies on every sale, is no longer worth the effort?

Certianly, most authors already have a day job as well as write. I don't see this changing as the prices fall. Falling ebook prices will also favor those authors who have the time, money, and talent to be tremendous marketers.

I worry that economic pressure will push those authors who today are midlist authors but not natural marketers out of the market altogether, leaving us with the powerhouse marketers/authors and those publishing for "fun" who don't really care how much money they make.

I guess I'm in the minority as someone who is deeply concerned about the potential monopoly developing with Amazon, and who thinks that consumers - and readers - should define "choice" as more than just "cheap." What is going on now is a truly disturbing consolidation of power in our literary culture, and I'm disappointed at how many in the tech press seem to think this is no big deal.

Well, I never accepted an e-book should cost more than a paperback. They cost the publisher less, I cant get them signed, & I cant donate them when Im done. I wont pay more than $10

Competition is not the same as low prices. And tactics aren't the same as strategy.

Using low prices as a tactic in order to destroy competition is a powerful strategy. Do we really want to have Amazon be the only e-publisher and the only e-bookseller? What do you think will happen to prices once that happens?

For the traditionally-published mid-list writer, Amazon's "$9.99 bestseller" pricing was a big problem. Who's going to buy a $15.99 e-book written by a relative unknown when they can pick up a Big Name bestseller for $9.99?

There are way more aspects to this issue than "publishers raising prices". And there is, of course, no solution that optimizes everything.

Fascinating topic, and I completely agree that this is a big deal!

Thanks for pointing out the benefit to the reader! That's so true! Great point.

However, I disagree with the point about writers, Nathan.

I guess I think indie writers will be able to continue their pricing strategies. Indies are giving books away for free or discounting them to a dollar as a marketing tactic. Legacy publishers would be smart to consider doing the same thing, but their pockets aren't deep enough to compete on the same level, so I believe indie authors will still be able to stand out.

In terms of authors being impacted by the shrinking pie, it's true that authors who are locked in with traditional legacy publishers at low royalty rates will suffer, but - this is an intense thing to say, but I think it's true - they are suffering anyway.

Honestly, I'm frustrated with authors who sign up with traditional publishers and just take the terms offered to them. Where is our backbone as writers? We need to advocate for ourselves, and instead we just sort of roll over and let publishers run all over us. Enough already.

So yes, legacy authors will lose if publishers lose, but from my perspective they're not getting much to begin with, so they're not going to lose much more. Writers need to stop turning over their power, and if they continue to do so, they will get breadcrumbs no matter what system there is.

That's what I believe anyway.

In terms of publishers, it is simply not okay that they are trying to slow down the transition to e-books by these tactics. It's understandable that they are trying, but it's illegal for good reason. Corporations should not be allowed to tell the consumer what the consumer can and can not buy.

Finally, in terms of deep pockets, Apple has much deeper pockets than Amazon, and I really see Apple as Amazon's primary competitor.

I don't usually say this when the DOAnything has to get involved, but -- Yaay.

Yaay because if the media does its job, Publishers and Booksellers both, will have to respond to other matters of the public's confusion and dissatisfaction.

If and when (closer to the latter) I buy a reader, I want to be able to shop any bookseller -- there's a lawsuit I'd like to see.

Okay, I googled it. Random figures on the net state Amazon is worth 98 billion and Apple is worth 380 billion.

Googling "how much is CBS worth" yielded no results, so I assume the amount of zeros made it impossible to caculate.

So, some of these parent companies of legacy publishers have a few bucks and could concievably compete with Amazon as well.

I'm not for anything that helps Amazon with its monopoly attempt, but I'm also not for big companies price fixing. I'm for free market and consumer choice.

As an indie author, I'm a bit concerned about price lowering for the 'big' guys that could make indies less competitive. On the other hand, if they price lower, it makes us look more on the same scale when we price low. There's a little chip in the human brain that says cheap equals lower quality, so indies who price so cheap are saying they aren't worth as much. Often that's true. From what I've seen, too often it's true.

If indies want to be competitive, they should worry more about book quality and less about pricing cheap.

Amazon is the Walmart of stores. *shrug* Many people will go there for cheap while others will go elsewhere for appeal. We don't all have kindles, or want one. We don't all have iPads and such that can use a kindle app. That means we buy elsewhere. (I only buy ebooks I can put on my Sony Reader, and I will not spend $10 on an ebook that I can wait and get in paperback for $7-8 or less. I sure won't pay $15 or more!) Those booksellers who want to compete will open their formats to make it easier for readers to read their ebooks on whatever they please. That's their advantage. They need to grab it.

Just one point about the "deep pockets" comment. The player in this game with the deepest pockets is not Amazon; it's Apple.

I predict that any change to the current pricing mess will ultimately drive technical innovation in the publishing industry. Not necessarily innovation for the end-user, but innovation on the back end.

The reason I suspect that print publishers are clinging to their current business models that support print publishing is that they have no (or little, or insufficient) back-end infrastructure to support ebooks. Servers, system administrators, software to support the b-to-b needs (distribution, etc), technical support staff. I think the reason why Amazon scares publishers is because they already have much of this in place.

Granted, I'm a software engineer who has worked for 15 years (gulp) in engineering and IT, designing and configuring this kind of thing for other industries. When I started writing fiction and learning about publishing, I was horrified to hear that many editors want paper printouts of manuscripts (sometimes in Courier font). That edits are sometimes done by hand. In ink. That you should "never" use italics in a manuscript because a typesetter (presumably a human typesetter) can easily miss them.

The business process changes needed are huge, and probably cost a lot at the outset. For a start-up digitial-first publishing "company" of just a couple of people, its not a big deal. For a corporation of hundreds (maybe thousands) of employees and existing processes and business culture, its massive.

I sympathize with the publishers, although I don't agree with their choices the past few years. In the end I think the winners will be the ones who embrace change, not the ones who fight it.

Thank you for providing a description of the process that's easy to understand for those of us not versed in legalese. I'm also pleased (I guess?) to see somebody agree with my thoughts that readers would probably benefit, at least price-wise. Given my interest in publishing, though, I'm not sure how worth it this will be overall. It'll be interesting to see what happens. It's something of a scary time to be a writer, but every era is filled with its uncertainties.

I posted about this on my blog, but it deserves comment wherever I see it.

I believe the loss of agency model will have some serious effects, spoken of already. Readers and Amazon are the only winners here. Authors across the spectrum will lose to varying degrees. Publishers will lose. Bookstores will lose.

No matter the winner, I have a difficult time supporting anything that benefits Amazon's predatory pricing practices. More annoyed the DoJ isn't going after them as well, because beefing up Amazon's ability undercut every bookseller out there is the last thing we really need to be doing. This isn't free market competition, it's a financial behemoth using it's massive resources to destroy competition.

And my biggest issue with this is that Amazon doesn't give one iota about books, whereas booksellers do. Amazon is not in the business of selling story. Amazing literature or total crap, it's all the same to them. Books are a meaningless widget to them, a sale item to get the consumer in the door. It's a gateway product, meant to entice you in to buy other things. I imagine they could discount books down to zero and still come out ahead due to the money spent by consumers drawn in through books.

I read books, and I like to spend as little as I have to, but I'm also an author, and seeing my work, the hours upon hours work, pouring my creativity into a story get turned into a meaningless item to wave at consumers, really, really bothers me.

Don't get me wrong. I want as many people to read my stories as possible. I like having people read them. It's very satisfying to know that my work is appreciated, that I can bring a few hours entertainment to several thousand readers. But I don't want to do it at the expense of the art of storytelling. Art is far to significant a cultural element to be relegated to the bargain bin at the dollar store. It's worth more than the cup of coffee bought to sip on while reading it.

So, regardless of who benefits or what those benefits might end up being, these economic forces that are driving book values toward zero are just wrong.

I nominate JDuncan for Comment of the Week.

"Art is far to[o] significant a cultural element to be relegated to the bargain bin at the dollar store. It's worth more than the cup of coffee bought to sip on while reading it."

Doug, I like Jim and think he's smart, but I think both of you may be misunderstanding something here about authors and money.

Let me give it a shot.

First, Amazon pricing something at 9.99 is not giving it away for free, and that's what Amazon was doing prior to the agency model.

Second, self-publishers are the ones pricing their books for free or at a dollar cost. Most do this temporarily as a marketing tactic. In addition, more money is made this way due to Volume of units sold. The concept behind lowering the price of books is to sell more and therefore make more. For example, Amanda Hocking sold her book for about a buck, sold a million of them, and made a million (details not accurate, but close enough).

Also, in terms of predatory pricing, Apple is well able to compete with Amazon and lower their prices as well. They will, if the agency model is over-turned.

In terms of bookstores, I agree with Nathan in the post, the decline of print is inevitable. It has nothing to do with Amazon or Apple, and everything to do with the e-reader itself.

Finally, if you are interested in making money as an author, it is really important to examine royalty rates. Legacy publishers lock in e-book royalty rates at 17% whereas Amazon offers royalty rates at 70%.

I don't know if legacy publishers really care about books or not. I also don't know if Amazon cares about books or not - just because they price them lower doesn't mean they disdain them. I think these are assumptions.

Although if you do use price as a measure of caring, I think it's safe to say that legacy publishers, with their outrageously low royalty rates, couldn't give a fig about the authors on their list, with the small exception of best-selling authors like Turow.

Currently, choice is also influenced heavily by price, not necessarily solely by taste. Publishers were keeping the price of ebooks artificially inflated. Why should an ebook ever cost more than a physical book, when ebooks have no printing or distribution costs? Right now price swings toward physical books, but if the DOJ wins their case, consumers driven by price will be more likely to buy ebooks--which only makes sense. Physical books and retailers will remain but economically they should cost more and cater to those who want to pay a premium for a physical book. Publishers have been afraid of the future (and so have I) but you can't stop the inevitable, and the inevitable is economics.

Also, I'm no fan of Amazon either, but I'm not sure why people believe Amazon would be the only beneficiary of this change. I own a Nook, and I think a plethora of third party ereaders are in the market now. Yes, this will hurt physical bookstores, but I think a lot of internet companies may benefit.

Maya, people say Amazon will be the only beneficiary, because it's the only company with the resources--and the proven desire--to eat losses on every ebook they sell to move more ereaders.

(Apple has the cash reserves to do so, but gauging by their entire history as a corporate entity, they have no interest in using loss leaders to push their products. Apple isn't Dell, and doesn't want to be Dell. And they have the numbers to back up that approach.)

If the agency model is disassembled, Amazon will go back to crushing all competitors with cheaper prices, and all those 3rd party e-bookstores and ereader manufacturers won't be able to match the prices Amazon can squeeze out of publishers.

Ereaders only became competitive after the switch to the agency model. Prior, there was the Kindle, and a swathe of niche readers with no penetration.

Thanks for explaining it all. Personally I really like the printed book. I enjoy reading them and the fact that I can share them with others. That is a huge plus for me because I love sharing books with my daughter and giving them away on my blog.

And lots of kids who are poorer are not going to buy e-readers or e-books. So it's going to limit their choices of books.

I hope print books do not go away for those of us who like them. I'm willing to pay a bit more for them so I can share them legally.

I'm sorry, Nathan, but your argument that price will become a factor in ebook purchases ignores the fact that price has ALWAYS been a factor. That's why Amazon did the $9.99 price in the first place.

This is yet another discussion based on on erroneous premise, which is that ebooks didn't exist until the Kindle appeared. Which is absolute rubbish. Hard Shell Word Factory was selling ebooks in 1996, and Ellora's Cave, the biggest publisher of ebook erotica and erotic romance in the US, started in 1999. And ebooks were priced between $3 and $8. And money was made by both publishers and authors, who received 40-50% of net sales.

Amazon knew this, because unlike the latecomers who followed them, and the traditional publishers who sneered at ebooks until they didn't dare to anymore, they did their homework. They had staff on Yahoo Groups and other places where ebook readers gathered, and they LISTENED when those readers said they wouldn't pay hardcover prices for ebooks. Ever.

So, the traditional publishers crying that selling ebooks for $10 and under will devalue the merchandise are just making up another excuse to cover up the fact they screwed up and ignored reality for nearly a decade. By which time, the value of ebooks had already taken root in the minds of many, and will not be dislodged because they once again are determined to bail out bookstores instead of letting them succeed or fail like any other business.

Because bookstores, too, could have set up to sell ebooks ages ago, but they, too, sneered and insisted nothing would ever take the place of those lovely pages and that wonderful new-book smell. Until it did.

Wow, Elizabeth, strong words. That's why I said the "modern" e-book era - sure, there were e-books for sale but they weren't being sold in large numbers. There were quite a few people trying to sell e-books in the years before the Kindle, but e-book sales were a tiny, tiny fraction of print until the Kindle.

Mira, I do understand the economics of it. There is money to be made the way things are now with some luck, perseverance, skill, resources, etc. We see stories all of the time about the rise out of obscurity for an author who didn't or couldn't get in through the legacy path. It's entirely possible I could be relegated to following that path. Some authors who weren't making it now are. This is a good thing as far as that goes. Writers deserve to be compensated for the work that they do, the stories they bring to people.

My issue is what the change is doing to the perception of books. My concern is that the future is driving public perception to believe that months worth of work, of creative enterprise, of several hours worth of sparked imagination, is only worth a buck or two.

It doesn't really matter to me that we can sell more copies and make more money selling at $.99 on our own over 17% royalties from a publisher. I'm not lamenting the loss of traditional publishing. There's problems for authors there too. What I am lamenting is the fact that this new environment is eroding the value of story, and Amazon is doing us no favors in this regard. It's not that I think Amazon disdains books. I just don't believe they see them as stories, of something valuable in and of itself, but a mere means to the end of drawing in consumers to buy stuff they will actually make money on. If they cared about making money on books, you would see an entirely different focus on how they go about selling them. You might actually see them attempting to cultivate an environment that makes consumers actually value them more, not less.

In the long term, I honestly don't see this change working out well for anyone. Because as the perceived value degrades toward zero, the creators of the product will lose interest in making them actually have any value. The art of story-telling will die a slow death.

I'm being a bit extreme here to make my point, but not by much. This DoJ thing is just the start of whole chain of issues that go nowhere good. Doom and gloom I know, but I don't see much positive here for the vast majority of authors.

I don't see any difference between the big publishers and Amazon besides the fact that Amazon chose to innovate and the big published didn't. They are both in business to make money.

As for all the nonsense about Amazon being the big bad monopoly, I haven't seen any antitrust charges filed against Amazon. However, we did the DOJ file against the big publishers.

At the end of the day, Amazon pays authors more and wants to provide readers merchandise at good prices.

The big reason why print books cost so much is because the big publishers cannot manage their costs. Why should authors pay for bad management?

Amazon isn't the big, bad wolf. Stop letting the spin doctors make you think otherwise.

Fight the battle worth fighting: demand larger advances and larger royalties or move on!

I took down my first two posts, because they were harsh and a reflection of my troubled mood this morning. Sorry, Nathan.

I didn't give enough credit to this post. You do an extremely nice job of presenting complex material in a very understandble, balanced way. I completely agree with your conclusion that readers are the big winners, and I really appreciate your point that this is such a big deal. It is. And it's easy to miss that.

But if the agency model falls, everything will change, and I hadn't really thought about that before you pointed that out. So, thank you!

Jim - I think I understand your point. Let me know if I'm wrong, but it's not really about making money for you, it's the idea that a writer can work for three years on a story that then sells for a dollar.

I get it. I don't want that either.

But I guess I'm alittle more optimistic that as things fall out, there will be price scaling. In other words, a new author might charge a dollar for a book, but a well-known, sought after author could demand higher prices.

I also have faith in the corporate desire to make money. They may be willing to price a song at a buck, but to make that the default price for a book? I guess I don't see Amazon or anyone doing that. Good books are not as plentiful as good songs. They take tremendous skill to craft, and that skill is rare. I just don't think it would make sense for a corporation to devalue books to that level. They'd lose money.

I could be wrong, of course.

But again - it's not Amazon that's charging a dollar for a book. It's self-publishers. They are experimenting with pricing as a means to draw customers. Once they have a customer base, they tend to raise their prices.

I'm not going to argue about Amazon not valuing a story because they use business tactics - I still don't see how you get that conclusion, exactly, but what I do think Amazon doing is letting the writer take the driver's seat, which includes pricing their own books.

So, I appreciate the discussion because I respect you, Jim. One more thing, I guess sometimes I feel as though I just want to cheer people up. I think this is a wonderful time for authors and cause for celebration. And I like to convey my optimism about it. :)

I really have no idea what the future of books is going to look like, and that is both exhilirating and terrifying. What will we gain? What will we lose? It's a bit like playing Russian roulette for a million dollars and literary immortality. I just don't want to be the last one with the gun in my hand...

I just came back to read everyone's comments, and was particularly interested in some comments from people who were wondering about what the future of books will look like.

I think the original Star Trek series had it right. If any of you recall, in the episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," Gary Mitchell, played by Gary Lockwood was reading books on a monitor. Bingo, there is it.

BUT...

In another episode, "Court Martial" the lawyer who represented Kirk in his court martial trial was an old-fashioned dude, and he had no use for computers or reading books on monitors. He only read books that were real books, and he made that point very clear.

So, I think that digital formats are the future,like Star Trek envisioned in the sixties, but print books will still be available for those of us who prefer them.

And for that, I am grateful.

Interesting. Eisler isn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Apple IS destroying the personal computer market with its introduction of the iphone and ipad. It makes me wonder what else he's got wrong...

The wholesale model doesn't make sense when it comes to electronic products because there isn't a physical product taking up warehouse space. The agency model makes much more sense with the sale of electronic products because there is no warehouse storage space limit on the number of ebooks you can sell.

Amazon uses the agency model to pay authors who self-publish through the Kindle Direct Publishing branch. Why would they complain about publishers asking for the same thing for their authors?

Great conversation. Here is a letter from Scott Turow, head of the Author's Guild, addressing the situation:

http://blog.authorsguild.org/2012/03/09/letter-from-scott-turow-grim-news/

I've always thought that if publishers wanted control over the retail price, they should be selling retail instead of wholesale. Nothing was stopping them from being a vendor to Amazon's customers instead of Amazon - like the gazillion indy and small presses have done, upload it and price it themselves.
It's a bit like shooting yourself in the foot to prohibit your distributors from promoting your product with discounts and such when it doesn't cost you a thing.

I say, sign me up too :)

Understand that Amazon's purpose in pricing some books (primarily major bestsellers, certainly not all books) at $9.99 was not to sell more books. It was to lower the toughest barrier they had to get people to decide to buy a $300 device to read books: the fact that you still had to pay about the same amount for the actual book as if you hadn't bought the Kindle in the first place.

The "pricing war" was and is, in the case of both sides, about sales in a secondary arena.

The main point has nothing to do with readers winning or losing. It's about justice. The main point of the DOJ investigation is whether or not *they* colluded and if anything illegal transpired. There are, and always have been, laws to protect consumers from things like this. And if the DOJ finds that it did happen, it's going to bring more than a few people back down to earth. Martha Stewart went to jail over nothing compared to this. I know small businesses that colluded in the same way to fix prices and they were fined heavily. If the allegations are true, someone needs to pay for it.

Sadly, I think this type of thinking is really short term. Returning to a wholesale model might benefit publishers and readers and authors in the short term, but it will consolidate the pricing power over the e-reading market into the hands of just a few key players. Once Amazon controls both the pricing on the content and the method of delivery, they will be able to force the publishers to accept less favorable terms. They'll be able to poach authors for their own publishing arm, thus turning their war on bookstores into a war on publishers. When they control most of the content and delivery systems, they'll systematically raise prices again.

I think that taking away a retailer's ability to price books as they see fit is the correct solution either, but any scenario that provides an avenue for one or two major players to eliminate the competition is bad for consumers in the long run. All you have to do is look at the telecom industry if you need an example. Because we lack real competition between the major wireless and internet providers, we lag behind many countries on price and speed. Allowing Amazon to control the pricing of the content so that they can dominate the delivery system will create that same kind of stagnation. Maybe not right away, but it will happen. History proves it.

All makes sense except for the Amazon part. If Amazon is losing money on their pricing of books, they will end that pricing at some point. For a while, the taking the loss was logical, while they tried to lock people into the Kindle. I don't think there's much further to go with that. There are too many other readers out there, and the iPad.

Hi Nathan, thanks for the well-reasoned piece, and salute for focusing on what matters most: readers. One of the interesting things about arguments like Turow's is they all boil down to, "Sure, Amazon's low prices, high royalties, and high volume are good for readers and authors today, but we have to discard all that because if legacy publishers weren't around to thwart readers and mistreat authors, Amazon might do it instead!"

Which is a pretty strange way to look at the world. A species of "the devil you know" argument, I guess.

Anonymous said, with regard to my suggestion that if Amazon is "destroying" book selling, Apple must also be destroying computer selling:

"Apple IS destroying the personal computer market with its introduction of the iphone and iPad."

I guess that's one way to look at it -- that Apple is "destroying" computer selling by inventing innovative new products that consumers demonstrably want even more. This is in fact pretty close to what Turow is accusing Amazon of doing, though of course he can't say so plainly, because "Amazon is destroying traditional paper book infrastructure by inventing new ways to distribute and read books that consumers demonstrably want even more" just isn't a sufficiently scary sounding call to arms.

"It makes me wonder what else [Eisler] got wrong…"

As wrong as that? Pretty much everything, I hope... :)

"Amazon uses the agency model to pay authors who self-publish through the Kindle Direct Publishing branch. Why would they complain about publishers asking for the same thing for their authors?"

It's not Amazon complaining, it's the Department of Justice, and not about the agency model as such, but about collusion, instead.

BTW, Joe has an epic follow-up to a recent interview Turow did with Salon, an interview which made no more sense than did Turow's Authors Guild blog post.

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/03/presumed-inane.html

Let's stop throwing Amazon to the fire.

Really. Are the big publishers spin doctors so good that their fearmongering has you convinced to throw Amazon to the fire?

It's classic redirection. They pay you less or spread your advances out and then tell you that Amazon will destroy publishing. Instead of being angry at the publishers for paying you less, you start blaming Amazon for your pay cut.

If Amazon is the big great monopoly, a term that gets thrown around a lot from publishers and crazy writers, then where's the antitrust lawsuits?

Also, think about what Turow is saying:

"Our concern about bookstores isn’t rooted in sentiment: bookstores are critical to modern bookselling."

Does this really make any sense?

It's like saying the horse and buggy are crucial for travel while the automotive becomes more promising every year. Eventually, people switched. Innovation happens.

If the publishers wanted, they could sell their books for more to Amazon, but they don't. Has anybody asked why?

All of this craziness makes me think of one of those conspiracy shows about disinformation. I feel like I'm in the middle of one waiting for someone to get a clue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation

I'm going to put on my little tin hat now and watch how many authors fall for the bait.

No matter the format the e-book is read in they should cost a fraction of the hard copy price. Once the author or publisher had created and formatted the file and put the e-book on a server there are very few costs in selling or distributing those copies. There is no paper to buy or type to be set or presses to be run. There are no boxes to fill with hard copies that then need to be shipped to bookstores.

Publishers and writers need to understand that the great percentage of the reading public is under the assumption that most popular writers are like John Grisham and are rolling in their royalties. I've learned that's not the case due to contact with independent authors on facebook but I have yet to buy a book from an indie author that I thought was overpriced.

There's a book I want being released on Amazon on the 27th and the e-book is priced a about $1.50 less than the hardcover price. I think that is highway robbery. And as disgruntled as I am I'll pay that price cause I'm hooked on the book series. I will look at future purchases though and will avoid that publisher.

Authors are worth their weight in gold and deserve the fruits of their labor. Maybe they should all go indie.

I wonder, though, about the effect of libraries. If print declines to nothing, and the publishers try not to let libraries loan e-books,
does that mean the end of libraries? I love libraries!

First, I suspect the motives of anyone who refers to "legacy publishers."

Second...my thoughts may be somewhat tangental to the discussion here, because they are largely about the whole notion that eBooks will reign supreme and print books will experience a huge die-off.

I may be wrong.

But things I've been reading lately, about discoverability, and more to the point, about the resistance to eReaders that has increased as the devices have become more popular, have me wondering if the future of books really is all about the screen.

I hate to analyze by anecdote, but here's how I've come to use an eReader: I generally buy books that are cheap (free) or unavailable in print format. If there's a book I really want, I almost always buy it in paper. If I have a choice between reading a book on my Kindle or a paper book, I almost always chose the paper book.

i am far from a Luddite. I work on a computer all day. I may be inappropriately attached to my iPhone. I do all of my writing on computer and my editing too. I never print out a paper copy and only work with one from the publisher at the very end of the process. But for those reasons, I tend to associate work with screens. I associate a paper book with relaxation. With being able to escape. (in part because I feel like if I'm reading something on a screen, I should at the very least be editing it). I focus better on paper books. And I don't think this is purely generational (I know people a generation older than I am who love their Kindles and Nooks and iPads).

My guess is, and this is based on intuition as much as evidence, that as more and more of us lead more and more of our lives on a screen, paper books will be seen as an alternate form of entertainment that have value because they are not on a screen.

I read an interesting editorial, I think in the WaPo, that said this whole DoJ lawsuit was a matter of picking your monopoly. That whatever collusion occurred between the Big 5 and Apple encouraged competition, because it enabled Barnes and Noble to regain its footing and helped prevent Amazon from using predatory pricing to gain even more market share and driving out competition.

For all of these reasons, I hope the DoJ's suit fails. Yes, traditional publishing needs to change and to adapt, but they have all kinds of incentives to do that now. The agency model is only a temporary dike against an onrushing flood, but one that gives some shelter to paper books and to brick and mortar bookstores while some of these larger issues get sorted out. I think it's worth it, for the health of the book business, for publishers, book stores, authors and ultimately readers. Because I think at the end of the day, we may have come to the conclusion that physical spaces and paper books have some real value that eBooks and online markets do not.

Also, what JDuncan said.

Huh.

"First, I suspect the motives of anyone who refers to "legacy publishers."

Well, Lisa, since I'm the only one on this thread who used the term "legacy publishers", I can only assume you're talking to me....?

Which is a darn shame, because I was hoping to get away with it. But darn it all, you caught me. My motives are dark and devious indeed. Terrible, furtive happenings in the night, and who knew it would all be revealed by the phrase "legacy publishers."

This should be a lesson to me, one can not hide forever. All dark secrets will come into the light.

Although...I'm not exactly sure what my dark motives are exactly, but I use that phrase ALL THE TIME, so they must be just awful. If you ever want to let me know what this all means, I'd be grateful.

Take Two:

Actually, Mira, no, it wasn't you. I didn't even notice that you used the term. But it is something that has bothered me for a long time. I think the people who use it tend to see traditional publishers as eeeevil dinosaurs who need to go ahead and die already, and the sooner the better so they can dance on their graves. I think a lot of people using it are angry and resentful about traditional publishing, whether because they were mistreated by it or excluded from it.

I realize that not everyone who says "legacy publishing" feels this way, but I think it's very loaded language.

I think there are a ton of problems in traditional publishing and in the business model and all of that, and I have my own list of suggestions/grievances, but referring to an entire industry as being outmoded and largely irrelevant (which is the inference of this term) does a huge disservice to a lot of really great and dedicated people working in the business, who are publishing a lot of great and worthwhile books.

As a further clarification, I think without "legacy publishing," we'd have no brick and mortar bookstores, at least not until some new channels of production and distribution have sorted themselves out. As per my earlier comment, I think it's more than worthwhile for us as a culture to preserve these actual physical spaces, where people go to discover, buy and discuss books.

I am published by what I guess you'd call a mid-sized publisher in the States, one that's a true independent but that's big enough and has enough infrastructure to get its books out there and into the larger public eye. I'd love to see more smart, nimble publishers emerge who are able to get their books into bookstores and whose books also help support bookstores. I mean, I would love it if a lot of the imprints that were bought up by large corporate entities were independent again and able to compete in the marketplace. I just think whatever needs to be done to cushion the blow of this transition, to make sure that the important parts of the infrastructure and ecology aren't destroyed, we ought to think very carefully about that. Because I really do believe that people still want paper books and that they will continue to want paper books, and that there's a value in physical spaces to distribute them.

It's sort of like, well, the US largely dismantled its steel industry. Literally dismantled plants and shipped them over to China. As oil prices and the cost of transporting goods across oceans continues to rise, and the implications of not having a thriving manufacturing sector and what that has done to middle class wages becomes clear, a lot of people are saying, we need to start doing that stuff in the States again. It would make sense. But we no longer have the infrastructure or the expertise to do it, and if we want to do it, we're going to have to rebuild all that.

I'd rather preserve the useful parts of the infrastructure for when we want/need it again.

Just a quick thought on the term "legacy publisher." I don't mean it to be pejorative; I just think it's dead-on accurate. Here's Wikipedia's definition of "Legacy System:"

"A legacy system is an old method, technology, computer system, or application program that continues to be used, typically because it still functions for the users' needs, even though newer technology or more efficient methods of performing a task are now available. A legacy system may include procedures or terminology which are no longer relevant in the current context, and may hinder or confuse understanding of the methods or technologies used."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_system

Whatever you want to call it -- traditional, Big 6, New York, mainstream -- old-style publishing still works and is still used, even as more efficient means have become available. This is the very definition of a legacy system, and that's why I use the term.

Lisa, thanks for the clarification. I realize now that Barry used the term "legacy publishers", too, so, despite my usual assumption that everything is about me, you might have been more referring to Barry or others, etc.

First, I appreciate Barry talking about why that term has been coined. I would add that I partly use the term "legacy publisher" as a shortcut for the Big Six. Not sure if that's accurate, but I don't include independents in my mind when I use that term.

However, in terms of underlying motives, you're right. My stance toward the Big Six is pretty much what you said. I was abit surprised by that. :)

But I am definitely one of those people who would toast marshmallows as the New York corporations burned to a crisp. I believe that the Big Six are manipulative and exploitive in their business relationship with the writer, and I can't state that too strongly. So, I would feel great joy at seeing that power structure either dissassembled or (even better) morphed into something responsible and worthy of power.

That is different from wanting harm to come to the people who work in publishing, who are most likely wonderful, talented people. My concern is with the company they work for and the way it deals with writers, not them.

In terms of the future, we may need to agree to disagree, because I believe the decline of paper is inevitable.

So, I don't quite see this as industry outsourcing so corporations can save money, but more a transition to a new industry, which will involve a new infrastructure. All of the wonderful, talented people will find jobs in the new infrastruture - and I have no personal knowledge of this - but I have to wonder if those might be better jobs. I'm not sure if the Big Six treat their employees much better than they treat writers. But I don't know.

So, I see movement of resource rather than loss of resource, to a new infrastructure where the writer is treated with respect and compensated appropriately. And I will be very happy to see that happen.

And if we disagree, that's okay. I know that people have great stake in the future, which can make this emotional, but ultimately, we're all facing the future together. :)

In the end, I think the big loser is everyone except the online retailers that manage to control the majority of the market (aka, Amazon or perhaps Apple).

Only a tiny group of readers consume enough books that price is a significant factor for them, and in the current system, anyone who is price-constrained can go to this place where they have lots of books available for free, the library.

What readers lose is quality writers who have been able to make a living writing who will no longer be able to do so. One of the "inefficiencies" of the traditional publishing model is supporting mid-list authors because nobody can predict who will be a big seller. That system keeps many writers who have spent decades honing their skills creating novels.

I don't see the winnings for readers if their favorite authors can no longer afford to write.

For years, Amazon took losses on their experiments with innovating. They still do when they decide they should lose money in order to invest in innovation. It’s boggled my mind for years that brick-and-mortar bookstores and publishing houses haven’t invested in the digital age and set competitive prices. No one stopped them from hiring inventors to develop their own eReading devices. No one stopped bookstores from setting up cozy reading areas for customers to read eBooks on eReader devices. Bookstores were willing to add coffee shops to their buildings and celebrity books to their shelves, but invest in the inevitable digital revolution? No, they couldn’t do that.

In regard to the deep pockets of Amazon, Amazon’s deep pockets are nothing compared to the deep pockets of the umbrella organizations that own the big publishing houses. The big publishing houses have repeatedly said they can’t compete with Amazon’s deep pockets, but that’s complete and utter nonsense. Rupert Murdoch and Bertelsmann AG own a huge number of the big publishing houses. In 2011, News Corp. and all the businesses it owns were worth between $62 billion and $72 billion. I searched online, couldn’t find the net worth for Bertelsmann AG, but did find that from January through September 2011, their revenues were $10.7 billion. According to Forbes, as of this month Jeff Bezos is worth $18.4 billion and is $300 million richer due to the Kindle.

The weird thing is that the big companies own nearly all traditional book publishing and news outlets, so they can get a near mantra going for things it’s in their best interests to have the public believe. I cannot tell you how many places I’ve now read that Jeff Bezos’s deep pockets will take down and destroy the entire world of publishing and literature. The same thing in the realm of politics – there is an incredible amount of false information circulated as truth every single day in the news. If a handful of billionaires own all the traditional news outlets and it’s in their best interest to have the public believe something, it’s very easy for them to just print it up in multiple news sources. For example, 97% of reputable scientists report that global warming is real. However, despite rising seas, obviously warming temperatures, and tornadoes wiping entire towns off the map, the public at large kind of believes that the research on global warming is completely inconclusive.

DISCLAIMER: I’m published by Amazon’s KDP Select Program (and am very happy with both their royalties and the seriously respectful way in which Amazon treats their authors).

I just finished reading everyone’s comments, and am so sorry I didn’t discover this discussion until today. I hope the discussion hasn’t ended.

I wholeheartedly agree with Barry Eisler and Mira. Also, I’m truly baffled by so many people complaining that Amazon’s low prices will convince readers that books are worthless. It seems to me that people don’t understand how Amazon is experimenting with digital sales AND (gasp!) how they’re actually allowing authors to run a lot of their own experiments. For example, authors who sign up with Amazon KDP Select are only required to sign up for 90 days at a time; and within each 90-day period, they are entitled to five days on which they can price their book as a free giveaway. KDP Select authors whose books are "purchased" like wildfire during the free days are added to popularity lists on Amazon which offers higher visibility to those books, but only for as long as the book continues to sell. Authors can experiment with changing their book covers, changing their prices, etc. any time they choose in order to see if that sells more books. When three of my books were downloaded thousands of times for free and then started selling at 99 cents each, I raised the price to $3.99 each, and am now selling more copies at $3.99 each than I did at 99 cents each. And there’s incentive to price books higher. Whereas Amazon only gives authors 30% royalties on 99-cent Kindle books, they give 70% royalties on higher-priced Kindle books. Do the math: 30% of 99 cents vs. 70% of higher prices, and a number of authors have reported selling more copies at the higher prices. I’m not sure how any of that translates into Jeff Bezos lowering the true value of books. He’s experimenting with sales offers, not unlike my neighborhood bookstore having bargain bins or the low price of mass market paperbacks that publishers used to sell. People hardly think of music or computer games as worthless now that digitally downloaded music and computer game apps are so cheap.

And Jeff Bezos hates books? Oh, please. He’s a graduate of Princeton University. He gives away a lot of his money to charity. He’s also established Blue Origin, a company that’s developing new technology for spaceflight, in order to pursue his lifelong interest in space travel. NASA has actually invested $22 million in Blue Origin. Bezos is hoping to offer paying customers the opportunity to travel into space. Is it wrong that this could conceivably, if the price of spaceflight eventually becomes manageable for the average person, cause the car industry or the cruise ship industry to lose customers?

Colluding to keep prices high is against the law. Period. Laws may be changing to protect big businesses and special interests, but thank God many laws still protect consumers. That’s why the Big Six are being sued, but Amazon isn’t. I agree with Nathan that Amazon is a dream come true for customers who love books.

Nathan,

What is the picture? Is that a type of e-reader?