Comments & Publishing Juno Editor/Paula Guran on 16 May 2007 09:45 pm
Publishing is not logical
Publishing, to anyone with a knowledge of *real* business, is not much of a business. The New York Times ran an article Sunday that explains a bit about how absurd it all is.
US publishing has antiquated economic model that pushes publishers to generate a small number of blockbuster hits…but no one really knows why a book sells well or doesn’t, so picking those blockbusters is mostly guesswork. Thus publishers ship an ever-increasing number of books to stores, hoping to hit the jackpot and, stores are sending an ever-increasing number back. More than one-third of adult hardcover books that publishers edit, print, distribute and market are returned.
This is a business where you manufacture a product, send it to the retailer, and, if the product doesn’t sell, the retailer sends it back for full credit.
And it is a business with a shrinking number of consumers. According to a 2004 National Endowment for the Arts survey, only 56.6 percent of adults had read any book at all in the 12 months through the end of 2002, down from 60.9 percent a decade earlier. And the amount of time devoted to books has declined, too: according to a report by Veronis Suhler Stevenson, a private equity firm serving the media industry, Americans will spend an average of 106 hours reading books this year, down from 123 hours a person in 1996.
Yet about 170,000 titles — new and reprinted — will be published this year. The Little Merry Sunshine versions of this is: “Oh! More books and more people getting published! Isn’t that grand?”
Well, no, it isn’t. All those books vie with one another for attention and shelf space and, over all, fewer books get sold.
One detail the NYTimes article brings up is the lack of demographic data and consumer-based input. This lack often comes up in discussions of genre. “Who reads horror?…or science fiction…or fantasy…?” No one knows because no one has ever invested the money in finding out.
Anyone who was really interested could probably pull data from somewhere about what I buy from week to week at the grocery store. (Way too much Dr Pepper…) Whenever I use that little plastic card to get my discount or have a check accepted, those numbers flow into that ever-accumulating mass of consumer data.
But books? Not only is there no high-tech data-gathering, there’s no effort to ASK readers what they buy, what they want to see more (or less) of, what they like or dislike, why they chose a certain book…
The single exception is in the romance genre, as the NYTimes article states: “An exception is the consumer research gathered by the Romance Writers of America, a writers’ association that publishes a regular market study of romance readers. It reports survey information on, for example, demographics, what respondents are reading, where they are getting the books and how often, and what kind of covers attract them. Romance authors and publicists use the information to create promotional campaigns.”
(Why don’t other writers orgs do this? Because they don’t have over 6000 members ans cannot afford to do it. Romance is also singular in claiming to listen and respond to readers. But it is also the only genre dominated by a near-monopoly publisher.)
Some contend feedback via blog, message boards, online communities, Amazon, etc. could be used to ascertain what book buyers wanted and why they wanted it. Has the Internet has made a difference in this? I don’t think it has. The “loudest voices” are “heard” rather than a typical cross section. Popularity can be manufactured. If anything, I think the opinions heard, at least among genre readers, may be atypical. Many authors have gotten the impression, for instance, there is a much larger market for their backlist than there really is. There’s been considerable online muttering among ex-fans of Laurell K Hamilton who swear they will no longer buy her books because they don’t care for the direction the author has taken. Yet her book sales are still mounting rather than flagging. What does that mean?
And what if publishers gathered information? Maybe they really don’t want to know. As that article tells you, publishing involves a lot of gut instinct. Every bestseller is a bestseller for a different reason. There are factors that up the odds, but nothing is a sure bet. Would “audience response” have predicted Harry Potter? If there is one thing “everyone knows” and has “known” for more than thirty years it is that vampire novels are not in demand. Could polls have shown there was a demand for a series of books about a psychic waitress?
What if it purple bookcovers had proven high appeal? Would most books suddenly have purple covers? Would purple covers be effective if most covers were purple? If cowboy-mystery novels were shown to be hot among 18-35 year-old males would publishers demand so many cowboy-mysteries the market would be flooded and thus killed?
Publishing has always had the tendency to jump on a bandwagon. That’s about as close as the industry gets to survey-and-respond. Following a trend is usually condemned, but it is always done. It is often done with a certain amount of success, then it stops being successful and everyone jumps off that bandwagon and on to the next. Meanwhile, the “next big thing” is seldom predicted and often unanticipated.
Books aren’t widgets. Predicting what widgets will appeal to the largest number of consumers may have validity, but I’m not sure that it works with books. Buying a book is more emotion than science. You grow up thinking your ideal mate is tall, blond, and well-educated; then you fall in love with a short brunette with a GED. Or you find a tall, blond professor and discover after a few pages…I mean dates…she’s not at all what you wanted. After a few more blondes disappoint, you start looking for a redhead.
* * *
Nevertheless, in the interests of science. We present the Juno Books Poll! (See the sidebar to the right.) Participate! View the results! Be part of a new initiative to discover consumer taste! Spread the word!
on 16 May 2007 at 10:04 pm 1.Lila said …
I saw this article in the NYTs and had to put it down several times while I was reading because I was so unnerved. On one hand publishing seems like a house of cards, ready to topple at any moment, but at other times it seems like a massive machine, as steady and heavy as any car assembly line: unwieldy, but indestructible.
It is really horrifying that more American’s aren’t reading. I grew up reading and never lost the habit, so cannot understand how people can live without exploring all the lovely books out there.
I voted, hopefully my input does some good.
Lila
on 17 May 2007 at 8:49 am 2.Juno Editor/Paula Guran said …
I was talking to a New York editor yesterday and he said “Aiyee! That article! Now the whole world knows!”
American publishing is not going to collapse, but, like anything else, it is changing.
One major thing that has changed is the “real numbers.” Seven years ago I was in a meeting and the “business side” asked the “book side” of a new publishing enterprise, “How many copies did That Book sell?” What a silly question! No one has those figures (except the publisher, editor, and–maybe–agent and author). No one can get those figures. That is a Trade Secret!
And that was perfectly true. Numbers were basically something to be lied about.
That is no longer true. Now EVERYONE can track how many copies are sold. The figures are not absolutely accurate, but they are close enough. And getting closer.
Michael Chabon sold 21,881 copies of THE YIDDISH POLICEMAN’s UNION last week; 23,394 the week before; 45,388 total so far. He is selling strongest in the mid-Atlantic states (almost 11,000 in NYC metro area alone), Pacific states next. Eighteen copies in Oklahoma City. Since that is a hardcover from a major publisher, those are probably pretty close to accurate figures. Those are actual sales, not books shipped, from 70% or more of the bookstores in the US. (Figures for mass market paperbacks are not so accurate.)
Now, think of the impact of being able to know these figures in a world where three-four years ago the best gauge would have been the publisher saying (and usually exaggerating) the first printing of Mr Chabon’s was 200,000.
Even more — think of the impact on the little guy…and on the publishers making the decisions.
on 17 May 2007 at 9:18 am 3.December Quinn said …
Ebook sales are up, though. So maybe people are buying less paper books and more electronic ones?
Let’s hope so. I can’t bear the thought of a world where nobody reads.
Great poll!
on 17 May 2007 at 10:26 am 4.Jane said …
Just curious about who it is that has the monopoly in romance? I heard you were going to mass markets and that sounds exciting.
on 17 May 2007 at 10:55 am 5.Kalayna said …
I would imagine the monopoly publisher would be Harlequin.
on 17 May 2007 at 11:18 am 6.Carole said …
how do publishing companies in other countries measure sales?
on 17 May 2007 at 1:58 pm 7.Juno Editor/Paula Guran said …
Let’s get the quote straight “near-monopoly publisher”, not “monopoly”.
Although other publishers have made inroads on Harlequin in the US, “[o]ver 800 Harlequin titles hit the stands each month around the world. In 2005 Harlequin sold 131 million books worldwide, which equates to 4.1 books per second” according to Harlequin itself.
According to RWA, in 2004, romantic fiction generated $1.2 billion in sales, with 2,285 romance novels published.
Now, I don’t have statistics for 2004, but you can find them for 2002 (and 2001 and 2000) here:
Publisher release rates
Torstar (Harlequin, Mills & Boon, MIRA, Silhouette, Steeple Hill) –1,113
Kensington (Kensington, Pinnacle, Bouquet, Precious Gems, Zebra) — 219
Pearson (Berkley, NAL, Dutton, Jove, Onyx, Putnam, Signet, Topaz, Viking) — 153
Dorchester — 113
Bertlesmann
(Ballantine, Bantam, Dell, Delacorte, Doubleday, Fawcett, Ivy, Waterbrook — 110
Avon/HarperCollins – 104
BET– 62
St. Martin’s — 49
Pocket 46
Avalon — 32
Warner– 23
Questar Multnomah — less than 20
Bethany — 19
Other houses published one-to-nine romance titles, such as Genesis Press/Indigo, Tor/Forge, Five Star.
In the late 1970s Harlequin accounted for 10% of paperback sales in the US. When it proposed to take over Pinnacle Books, Inc., another mass market paperback publisher, it was blocked by the U.S. Justice Department on antitrust grounds, even though Pinnacle did not specialize in romance,
In 1984, Harlequin did receive Justice Department approval to buy its largest rival, Silhouette Books, from Simon & Schuster Inc. With this move Harlequin regained undisputed leadership of the romance novel category in the US, with a greater than 80 percent share of the [then] $275 million a year market.
Although I haven’t the time to look for newer statistics, I think we can guess that Harlequin probably still accounts for 50% or more of all titles published as “romance”. Is this a monopoly in the sense that they can control the market because they have no competitors? No, although they probably were that in the 1980s. (What would have bothered the Justice Dept back in the 80s is “significant barrier of entry.” Can other companies get into the industry to provide the same product as the company who is already dominant? ) Moreover, since price-setting, distribution, etc. are not solely a function of a genre but the publishing industry as a whole, Harlequin cannot be said to be a monopoly. In the colloquial sense of “hugely dominant” player, yes, you might still say that.
On a worldwide scale? The stats aren’t available, but chances are that Harlequin in a true monopoly in at least some regions.
* * *
As far as updating that list — yes, there are now more publishers and some have expanded, I would imagine. Tor, for instance now has a paranormal romance line of 18 books a year. Otherwise:
Harlequin acquired BET in 2005
Warner was acquired by Hachette in 2006 and has recently been re-named Grand Central Publishing
Avalon was acquired by Perseus on 1 March 2007 and, on 10 May, Perseus cut two of its imprints.
on 18 May 2007 at 11:40 am 8.Jane said …
In the colloquial sense of “hugely dominant” player, yes, you might still say that.
Are you saying that they direct the market in romance? I find it to be more reactionary than trend setting. I also think a different demographic reads those because I know many readers who read categories only read categories and many readers who read the mass market only read mass market and look down at categories.
on 18 May 2007 at 12:54 pm 9.Juno Editor/Paula Guran said …
No, I am not saying they are setting trends or directing the market. I am saying what I said: in terms of sales and titles they dominant. You asked who I was referring to as a monopoly. I responded by showing Harlequin’s impact on the market.
The original statement was: Why don’t other writers [than RWA] orgs do [reader research]? Because they don’t have over 6000 members and cannot afford to do it.
*End of sentence about demographics.*
*New sentence*: Romance is also singular in claiming to listen and respond to readers.*End of sentence about romance claiming response*
*New sentence*: But [romance] is also the only genre dominated by a near-monopoly publisher. *End of sentence referring to singular aspects of the genre.*
Yes, if anything, I would agree with you and think Harlequin is, these days, reacting to market pressures. They pride themselves on reader response, but they may no longer understand how to respond. As you say — category readers aren’t, in general “romance as a whole readers.”
They started losing substantial market share when readers went to single title women’s fiction, in response, they started Mira. That was in, I think, the early 90s? That worked out pretty well for them.
Other direct responses — erotica, for instance, or (as with Nocturme) dark romantic fantasy — were probably responses to what they see readers buying from other publishers rather than (or perhaps in combination with?) a response to demographics.
on 20 May 2007 at 4:38 pm 10.Lisa said …
Dr. Pepper is the nectar of the gods. You can never buy too much.