Within the context of a digital distribution model, it’s hard for readers to see the value a publisher adds to the process of getting a book from an author to market, which explains, to some extent, the reading public’s reticence to swallow the current baseline of new-release eBook prices. I can’t say I blame them. Publishing’s problem is the same as most creative arts; the value-add comes from intellectual property rather than raw materials. There’s nothing to show in return for their cut of the cover price.
For, um, ever… publishers have maintained this image – a faceless institution, it’s inner workings only revealed in aspirational sit-rom-coms from the US whose leads need a “serious” profession – and it’s mostly been a successful position to take. Now, though, I think it’s holding them back from evolving into the new age of publishing. In a global market in which customer loyalty is closely tied to brand, publishers have no tangible entity upon which to build a brand. Their product is branded based on the author name on the cover or the characters within, and their employees – the editors, typesetters, salesmen, marketers, designers, etc. that represent the true worth of the company – are unseen. Could you name a single editor working for one of the big six? Could someone browsing Amazon with no interest in publishing beyond the books under their mouse pointer?
Could you name a record producer?
I can name a few. They stand just behind the band when it comes to claiming responsibility for the quality of an album. Some would say they deserve more credit than that.
So why don’t book editors – their literary counterparts – command the same respect? No one, no matter how vehemently they champion the self-publishing cause – can deny the benefit of the input of a good editor. But the people working within publishing houses, specifically the big six, aren’t good editors; they’re great editors. They’re literary surgeons working at the top of their field. They can make a good book great, and a great book legendary. So who the hell are they?
As the deluge of content that self-publishing has permitted lands on eShop shelves, people are looking for curation to filter that flow. Crowd-sourced filtering will be the primary mechanism (recommendations and reviews) but there’s still a need for champions – people to identify and promote good writing. I’m not talking about tastemakers (oh, how I hate that term); I’m talking about authoritative voices. People whose opinion is established, tested and trusted. That’s the kind of value you can hang a brand on.
Yet the publishing houses still seem reluctant to open their doors – just a crack – to show us the inhabitants and workings of the chocolate factory. As marketing budgets for new books shrink, the money available to market the parent company seems tighter still.
Or is the publishing industry hiding its stars on purpose? If an editor could make an eBook a hit by offering their patronage, and a mega hit by working with a vetted, paying author directly, what’s left for a publisher to do that a freelance cover designer couldn’t?
With the need for a publisher already being questioned by many authors, what use for them would an independent, respected, branded editor with an impressive cv and an overflowing list of potential clients choose?
Tags: Amazon, EBook, Editors, Marketing, Publishers, Self-publishing
Perhaps. But that’s assuming an editor can/has the time to perform the roles of publicist, marketer, production manager, and royalties manager. Or that the editor knows enough about art to pick the right designer.
@Ben: many of us editors already do all these things (and more!), whether we have the time to or not. These are the new skill sets every (good) editor needs to have, even in limited capacity. Without baseline knowledge of how these functions work, you can never truly succeed at being the champion for your authors and your books, especially in today’s market. Knowledge of the process and the skills is essential. And with today’s shrinking budgets and hiring freezes, everyone needs to take a more hands-on role.
Hi Ben. Thanks for the comment.
I was being a bit flippant in my supposition – just following the thought for a while – but now I read your comment, there might be more to it. I’d hope an experienced editor does know enough about book covers to retain a good designer, but aren’t the roles of publicist, marketer and royalties manager something that could, way down the line, be picked up by an agent as their roles in the new market evolve? As for a production manager, I’m not sure what that would entail in an electronic market. As I write, I’m taking a break from converting a Kindle book (converting it properly – not just uploading a Word file to the DTP page) and I can’t see anything a conversion house couldn’t achieve with minimal management from an editor.
Hi BatterBrat. It’s that flexibility and oversight that makes me think that editors could become the substance that is missing from publishing brands. I think my analogy with music producers holds up: they know what the market wants to buy, they understand the technology and how to deal with artists, and they probably play an instrument or two to the point where they understand the art of performance as well as the business of production. Yet despite the similarities, the different attitudes towards the two professions is curious: I don’t know who edited the latest Douglas Coupland, but I know that people will at least listen to a track just because of who produced it.
Yes, the music producer analogy was a good one. I wonder why I don’t see more editors in social media, for example, talking about the projects they’re working on or helping to build the hype for their books. Aren’t more readers curious about the role editors play and the relationships they have with their authors? As an avid reader, I know I am.
I’d be really interested to hear how other editors are finding their roles change. For me, the scope of my job has grown to cover marketing, publicity, production, design, management, brand strategy, etc. in ways that I couldn’t have imagined. And that’s not to say that those in those roles already aren’t doing their jobs, but that the landscape has changed so much and so quickly that in order to effectively grow and manage our list, we have to work more collaboratively.
This post originated from thoughts I had as a reader, not a writer, so there’s at least one other who shares your curiosity.
I think some of the mild animosity towards publishers – especially from self-publishing authors – is due to the faceless way that publishers operate – apparently churning out content with the sole justification of “it will sell”. I’d really like to see one person within a publishing house stand up and say “we’re publishing this book because we love it, and here’s what we did to make it great enough to justify the money we’re asking for it”. Just that human touch that says the book’s existence wasn’t a result of a sale algorithm or a corporate policy. To me, publishers feel like overseers – detached from the process of artistic creation; I’d like to see them more visibly involved, and I think the natural starting point is editors. Good editors and good writers form a partnership to produce a great book – much like a good director coaxing a better performance from an actor. That cinematic relationship is fascinating and a compelling reason to by a ticket for a film (Ridley Scott directing Russell Crowe, Martin Scorsese directing Leonardo DiCaprio as two examples), so I don’t see why the literary world can’t capitalise on the editor-author relationship in the same way. Actually, thinking about directors and scripts, this analogy could run and run, so I’ll leave it alone for now…