If this needs further support than Shirky’s piece, it comes in an unlikely form: Mike Shatzkin’s counterpoint, “Big Publisher Bashing Again with Fictional Facts.” I respect Mike a lot, but his response makes him look like a lock-step industry protectionist. I appreciate the nuances that Mike offers; the details are important. They are. And Mike has made a long career picking at those details, so I can’t fault him for doing what he knows. But nipping at the heels of giants while they battle it out will have no material impact on the debate.
Shatzkin makes a lot of good points, but also gets so deep into the weeds that it compromises his argument. For instance, no one cares whether “significant sales of ebooks” began in November 2007 or Christmas 2007. I urge you to read it anyway, even though his couching of Shirky’s article as “big publisher bashing” might tell you all you need to know.
Shirky sticks to the big picture, but makes clear whom he favors:
He [Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO] wants to increase access to ebooks in order to make money, of course, just as the publishers want to restrict access in order to make money. Bezos doesn’t love books (something his critics never fail to note, as if selling things designed to be sold is an atrocity) but his motivations are producing better outcomes than those of the dominant cartel. If we have to pick between two corporate strategies for making money, the one offering more access is better.
I don’t really care about two multi-billion dollar companies (Amazon vs. Hachette) fighting it out, except for how it affects authors. The simple facts are:
- Despite their “awful tactics,” Amazon is, for now, usually on the side of authors—especially independent authors. Don’t get me wrong—it’s not because they are altruistic or noble, but because it’s good for their bottom line. Amazon’s entire philosophy hinges on the long tail, which is usually more in sync with artists, not their publishers. Just like in any consolidation of power, Amazon is to be trusted only as far as their interests align with yours.
- Publishers charge too much for their “services” to authors, especially the ones they no longer offer. I’ve argued over and over that publishers are still valuable in today’s world, but print production is no longer required, distribution costs next to nothing, and publishers are in no position to do effective marketing for most of their authors. Why are publishers still charging authors 20th century rates in a 21st century environment?
The fact is, this will rebalance. The Defenders of the Status Quo will pout and protest, but it will happen in time. It’s just a matter of how quickly. And whether publishers will remake their own future—or let others do it for them.
—
For more on what I find to be a fascinating topic:
- Amazon: Friend or Foe to Authors? http://bit.ly/amazon-friend-or-foe (with links to great articles from David Streitfeld on NYTimes.com and George Anders on Forbes.com).
- Hugh Howey Offers a New View of Publishing http://bit.ly/howey-report (with a link to “The Report,” and Porter Anderson’s fantastic follow-up interview with Howey as well).
- A “Tentpole Tendency” in an Age of Abundance http://bit.ly/tentpole-tendency (on publishers’ refusal to abandon their 20th century philosophy).
- Elevating Indie Authors http://bit.ly/elevating-indie-authors (on celebrating the spirit of independent artistry).
—
Independent publishers: Your time is now! Let me help you re-factor your business and make the most of the New Rules.
—
Photo credit: “let’s get ready to rumbleeeee” by Sarah is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0. Unchanged from original.