This weekend my wife read a
friend’s self-published book on Kindle. Yes, there were a couple of typos and a
couple of other mistakes one would expect a proof-reader to have picked up, but
she enjoyed it and found it well constructed. Coming from a lady who selects,
buys firm and then reviews and sells hundreds of titles and thousands of units
every month, this is a compliment. And she suitably gave the work a review on
Amazon.
When we read about the
debate about self-published versus traditional published works we often hear
the continued posturing over who makes the most money and also who is just
destined to remain in the ‘long tail’ of books and who can make something
happen just by their adoption, process and marketing clout that can go
automatically into the bestseller ‘short head’ of books. It starts to beg the
question, so what and are we looking at the situation and opportunity the right
way?
Today the blogs and
industry continues to debate the new breed of self-publishing alternatives. The
establishment viewpoint often remains the same as it ever was. It’s undeniable
that money can buy a hit and that the trade also can select their winners. Some
say it’s like a day at the racers and placing bets in a crowded field. Like all
gambles the bets don’t always come home or deliver the odds expected of them.
But there again, you wouldn’t expect to see a donkey in the Grand National, or
a thoroughbred steeplechaser on the beach at Blackpool. It’s about picking the
right horses for the right courses.
Too many times today we
hear consultants and industry watchers who have grown up in the old world,
supporting it, even when it would appear to contradict what they say about the
new world. Maybe it’s more a case of saying what the client wants to hear and
like many pundits on the course they keep their hands in their pockets.
Perhaps we should stop
thinking and talking corporate and start thinking and talking author. The
author profile is already being raised with literary festivals, writer’s
conferences and even though some of the higher profile events are being
corporatized, many are not. Self-publishing is just getting more authors to
question whether corporate suits them best, or whether it’s the right way every
time.
Much of traditional
publishing is outsourced with often only the money and control remaining
in-house.
Amazon, Wattpad,
Sourcebooks and many more are now starting to offer both the author services
and the channel to market and publishing has to take note.
Some publishing houses have
started ‘collection boxes’ for the great unpublished. Some have bought up
smaller operations who already do it. But have these forays into the unknown
been token gestures, or are they genuine initiatives to harness the growing
masses? Can the traditional publishers truly accommodate more, or is it
inevitable that they cut to the chase and limit themselves to only backing
their favourites.
Perhaps we should not be
focusing on the end delivery, the published book, but on the total author
relationship, development, communication and reward system. Is it good enough
to pay royalties after months when others pay after weeks? Is it good enough to
give someone one liners on a royalty statement and expect it not to be
questioned? Is it good enough to have only one development process and approach
and not offer multiple options? Is it good enough to buy and retain a wide
berth of rights and only use the minimal? Are non-compete and first nation
contract clauses the way to go?
There are many more
questions and some are applicable to some and not to others, but the questions
are increasingly more about the needs of the author and consumer and less about
the maintenance of the corporate machine.
No comments:
Post a Comment