 |
Short-sighted Publishers
8 Nov 2005, 4:29:35 pm
2 Comments
Since I work directly with authors, discussing contracts, I hear a lot of author concerns.
Concerns authors have generally are to protect themselves, their works & their rights to their works, as well as to know that we, as publishers, will do everything we can, within reason, to sell that book.
In discussing their concerns, along with my own experiences with publishers, some strange images of publishers emerge...
Publishers that will not allow an author to list on or in their book a list of other works if they are not from the same publishing house. Do these publishers imagine that a reader finds this new book on the shelf at B&N, and upon reading the jacket, discovers that this author has another book (book A), will look for this other book, and then decide to buy book A rather than this new book? Are they more concerned about this potential 'loss' of a book, as compared to the benefits (sales) of printing the author's credits (and increasing credibility)? How shortsighted is that?
Publishers suing Google Print. You can read more about this issue at Kottke. Here again, publishers believe that either 1) that reading online is a replacement for physical books (and if they believe this, they are in the wrong business), or 2) that folks are going to be able to get past Google's limits & print out the whole book (as if that would actually be cheaper?).
Publishers imposing a short shelf-life on their own works. Publications & reviewers request review copies of books, only to hear from the publisher that they are no longer promoting that book. It's not out of print, it is, in fact, 'laying about the office here,' but publishers will no longer send out review copies or make press pushes when the author/topic seems popular. I'm sure this started for some practical reason, but to refuse promotions & press on a book in your backlist is nuts. If reporters/reviewers are just discovering the work, you can bet there are plenty of readers who have yet to discover it too.
If these are the laws that govern successful publishers, I wonder, how do they define their success?
. . . . . . . . .
User Comments  On the third point (only because I've got to get to bed, it's late here), I noticed that Macmillan in the UK is like this where they've basically requested for new writers to submit novels but they also remind the writer that the promotion will be minimal. Everything is a risk in life, sure enough, but there's also a saying that one (usually a company or entrepreneur with plenty money) needs to spend money in order to make it (or make more of it).
I have say I found it suprising that Macmillan stated their policy on minimal (absolutely minimal) promotion, considering they're not a cottage industry company. Posted by Ana, 01/03/2006 09:40:18 |
|
|
