Stan Trollip has taken us on a marvelous tour of the big
five animals of the African wilderness.
We have a Big Five in the United States, too. The term here refers to trade book
publishers.
I put a lot of effort into trying to write a better lead
sentence for this blog, but it was impossible to do so without a play on words
like “beastly,” “wild,” “dangerous,” “jungle,” “extinction,” and “soul-chilling,” all of which Stan used in describing actual animals. See what I mean?
So here they are, the American BIG FIVE, almost none of
which are American, by the way. I’ll
start with my own publisher:
Macmillan Publishers
When people ask me, “Who is your publisher?” I answer in
different ways, depending on who is asking, and yet all the answers I give are
the absolute truth. My mystery novels
are published by Thomas Dunne Books, a subsidiary of St. Martin’s Press, but
the spines all carry the logo of the Minotaur imprint. My author page is found on the Macmillan website.
This is a result mergers and acquisitions. A Germany company—Verlagsgruppe Georg von
Holtzbrinck owns Macmillan. It has other subsidiaries in the US, namely
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Henry Holt and Company, Picador, and Tor/Forge . To say nothing of their other media and
entertainment efforts.
Unlike the Big Five of the animal world (no pun intended),
the other publishing big five companies are all pretty much like Macmillan:
Hachette Book Group
This is the elephant in the room, at least as far as size is
concerned. Based in France, it is part
of Lagardere—a media company. Hachette
owns Little, Brown and Company, founded in the US in 1837, which minnow was
eaten by the big fish Time Warner, which was subsequently gobbled up by the
leviathan Hachette. (I know, Jeff and
Everett, I am mixing marine life into a terrestrial metaphor here. Have it me for that.)
HarperCollins
Part of Rupert Murdoch’s empire, the American Harper
publishing house was founded in New York 1817.
NewsCorp (Murdoch) bought its descendant Harper and Row in 1987, and
then expanded its name to HarperCollins when they acquired The British
Publisher William Collins and sons.
Nowadays, in the States, they also encompass William Morrow, Avon books,
and a bunch of other less famous imprints.
Penguin Random House
This critter is a recent amalgam of what used to be five and
six of the big six. Another German
media company owns it (them?). The newly
wed company already has 250 “children”—imprints that span all of the categories
of book publishing.
Simon and Schuster
This company began in 1924 as a publisher of a wildly
popular crossword puzzle book. It is now
owned by CBS and comprises several imprints, most famously Scribner, Pocket
Books, and Touchstone.
The conglomeration of what used to be scores of companies
into these five has had a great impact on the publishing business in general
and on writers in particular.
Contentious relationships between publishers and authors most likely
started with the Gutenberg brothers. I
have heard many friends complain bitterly about the lack of respect authors get
from their publishers. They love their
editors, but not the huge corporations they work for. Having spent a lot of my professional life
working with large corporations and having run a small business, I am well
aware of the realities that motivate business decisions—including mergers and
acquisitions. I have always said that
the worst thing my publisher could do to be would be to go out of business. I can recite the lines on their budget. There is no point in my loving my editor if
the company she works for can’t pay her a decent wage, pay for benefits, her
computer, the electric bill.
It is also easy to see how the tsunami of recent change has
made the futures of even these giants hard to predict, much less ensure. Some are clinging to old wisdoms. Some are grasping at each new social media
straw as the best way to sell books in an environment of biblical clutter and
deafening roar. We want them to make our
books successful. But does anyone really
know how to make that happen these days?
One upshot of the merger mania has been the appearance of
new, smaller companies that seem to benefit from knowing exactly who they are
and what they want to do. Some of my
buddies on this blog are published and well-served by such stalwart, small
companies. Then there are rafts of
new-born tiny indie companies getting into the act, but writers never know how
much they can be trusted., even to stay alive
Consolidation costs writers.
Not just because there are fewer places to take a manuscript, but also
because companies that used to compete for books are now folded into a one
family and are not about to compete with people under the same corporate roof.
Homogenization of product is another outcome. You can hear the top executives. “Another beast just made a bundle publishing Fifty Shades of Grey. We need to jump on that bandwagon. Find me the next book like that.” And so forth.
Medium-sized companies that used to take a chance on a quirky book by an unknown
author are now answerable to the top brass in another country and afraid of
getting a pink slip the next time the corporate stock dips and costs need to be
cut.
Cookie cutter mentalities are not likely to foster
imaginative risk taking. Without risk
there is no art.
Mostly, I see being in this field right now as a sort of white-water
rafting. Someday, we may reach a point where the
river becomes calmer and easier to navigate.
In the meanwhile, hang on tight to your paddle, keep your eyes open for
rocks under the surface, and try not to scream.
Annamaria - Monday
Jeff is a (mostly) land animal, and I have it on good authority (pun intended) that he eats more than his fair share of seafood, so I had no trouble at all in swallowing your string of metaphors.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the biggest problem (for authors) with "traditional publishing" (the Big Five) is that the publishers consider books to be "fresh produce." If it doesn't sell immediately (within a few months, and better within a few weeks), it's "off the shelf" and new produce is brought in. It's rarely intended to stick around (stay in print) for more than a handful of months (as long as it's selling in LARGE quantities).
Authors, on the other hand, want their books to have extremely long lives (longer than their own), to be in print forever, and indeed, will continue to earn money forever, building a larger and larger audience with each book they write (as new readers go back and read earlier books).
But today, with traditional publishing, that rarely happens, because it's all about the next quarterly report, and if today's books don't sell in large quantities, cut bait and move on, because there's an infinite supply of bait.
Two conflicting models. But, for authors willing to go the indie, self-published route (which takes more work, time that could be spent writing), today's technology (e-books, print-on-demand, etc) allows authors to be in bookstores as well as Amazon, B&N, etc, keep ALL of their books in print continuously, and earn a larger cut of their royalties, bypassing the Big Five and their produce model.
It's not the end of publishing, but it IS the end of publishing "as we knew it," which really has ALWAYS been in a process of changing. It's just changing MUCH faster today than ever before.
Everett, I believe that everything you say here about publishers treating books like produce is true. And, undoubtedly, for authors with a following, self-publishing can increase their share of the selling price. But I still think there is value for me in being published in the traditional sense of that word. This may be ego on my part, but it means to me--and I hope to the book-buying public, that my book has had to measure up to a standard and that it has been through a process that increases the chances of it being worthy of their time and lucre. Certainly there are MANY worthy books whose writers have given up on running the gauntlet to publication by a traditional publisher: getting an agent, waiting for word from publishers, etc. etc. I understand why they go to self-publishing rather than let their work molder in a trunk in the attic. But self-publishing has also given the market a tidal wave of dreck. I recently saw a chart that said that hybrid--self and traditionally published--authors do a bit better than just the traditionally published when it comes to income, but that those who are only self-publisehed make even less money.
DeleteI do think this white-water period will pass. I just hope it does before I do.
I should have included the disclaimer that indie self-publishing certainly isn't for EVERY author, by any means. Merely that it is opening up the playing field and providing alternatives to what has become a tightly controlled monoculture. And I agree with you on the hybrid front. The smart...er...successful (or both? :-) author will take advantage of every opportunity, not just the traditional and not just the new.
DeleteSounds to me like we are, once again, of a like mind. Better thee than Jeff...
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments EXACTLY, Stan.
DeleteThis was great, Annamaria. Interesting, too, how your top five share similar predatory instincts with Stan's.
ReplyDeleteJeff, At first, every lead sentence I wrote came out making that point in a way that would have set you and Everett groaning.
ReplyDeleteThis is excellent material, Annamaria, and I would urge you to reprint most of it on your other blog at Crime Writer's Chronicle. There are many American writers who would love to know a lot of what you tell here. Thelma Straw in Manhattan
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like every writer is treading in shark-infested waters. I sympathize.
ReplyDeleteFriends have turned to self-publishing, and barely earn back enough money to pay for the printing of their books. And then they have trouble promoting their books, while authors signed with publishers would see much more promotion. Even so, some authors complain that publishers are not promoting their books as they should, and their books may sit in boxes somewhere, not moving.
And then there's the 50 Shades ... issue. A friend who actually read the first to, as she said, "have an opinion," said it was "drek," and badly-written "drek" at that. I trust her opinion.
And the darn books stayed on the best-seller lists. What is the world coming to with this phenomenon? I shudder to think. If this is what millions of people are reading, the mind boggles.
And then there are the territoriality issues, which are unfathomable. How is it that a reader in the U.S. could not purchase a book from the Book Depository that was published by Random House Canada? (I saw the formal notice from Book Depository about this banning these sales.)
Yet, the office of that company is an eight-hour drive from my city!
I think the tendency for the tentacles of each publishing octopus to reach out and grab more companies to get even bigger will continue. And then what will they publish? Will there be any good books left?
Kathy, Every writer I know shares all the concerns that you raise here. Some write best sellers, but not mega hits. Only one has successfully quit his day job before he qualified for social security. In publishing as in other sectors of our economy, there is the 1% and the 99%. The median annual income of traditionally published authors is $9K. Most of my friends who write full-time are living on money they earned at previous day jobs or have spouses with lucrative professions. They write wonderful books--not drek or dreck, as autocorrect would have it in English. My only optimism comes from the fact that you could not stop us from writing with a howitzer pointed at our heads. For us, it's the story that counts. Human beings will ALWAYS want and need stories. That is why the novel will never die.
Delete