In Defense of Traditional Publishing
Why I still love this imperfect, beautiful business model
Several people have shared with me Elle Griffin’s now-viral post, “No One Buys Books.” I obviously disagree with the assertion in the title, but I really appreciated her summary of the stats from last year’s PRH vs. DOJ trial. Here is a recap of the most sobering numbers:
In a sample of 58,000 titles, the DOJ found that “90 percent of them sold fewer than 2,000 copies and 50 percent sold less than a dozen copies.”
Publishers spend a fraction of the amount spent on the advance on marketing books. They rely primarily on the author’s platform and promotion to sell books. (We already knew this, but now we have data.)
“Out of every 100 books published, 35 are profitable.”
“Our backlist brings in about a third of our annual revenues.” - Michael Pietsch, Hachette
With these depressing numbers, Elle and many readers are asking the question that I posed in the following newsletter - which I wrote about a year ago and originally published on my website.
What the heck are traditional publishers good for, anyway?
In light of the current conversation stirred up by Elle’s post, I thought I would reshare this as my own response, in defense of the traditional publishing space that I love so much. Enjoy!
I live in a small, unincorporated town outside of Chattanooga, TN. We’re close enough to the city to have all the amenities we need, but wander three minutes from our house and you’ll find sprawling acres, rolling hills, and cows grazing. Especially for a girl from Los Angeles, this is The Country.
Our town is also home to one of the largest industrial producers of snack food and baked goods in the U.S.: McKee Foods. If you’ve ever eaten a Little Debbie Nutty Bar or a Sunbelt Bakery Granola Bar, then you’ve had a small taste of Tennessee. McKee Foods is one of the largest employers and land owners in our area. You can’t go far here without running into something owned or operated by McKee. (Fun fact: our neighbor is good friends with the Little Debbie herself!)
Because of their large scale of operations, McKee Foods has a small number of brands, like Little Debbie and Sunbelt, that specialize in the production of certain baked goods. They mass-produce these items and ship them all over the world to grace grocery store aisles and hospital vending machines. As you can imagine, McKee has the production of these goods down to a science: precise recipes, finely tuned machines, and a wide network of people to keep everything running. McKee serves a worldwide market of moms and kids who want reliable and cheap baked goods.
But down the street from the McKee Foods factory, tucked in between a Papa John’s and a nail spa in a little strip mall is The Bakery in Ooltewah. Owned and operated by a Puerto Rican baker, they offer a wide variety of delectable treats handmade from scratch every single day. Every pastry is a little different; some sweet rolls are bigger than others, some have a little more frosting. All, of course, are delicious. You can’t buy their baked goods at an Albertsons in California or a Whole Foods in New York. You can’t even buy them at the Publix down the road! You have to go directly to The Bakery to get what you’re looking for. As you can imagine, they have a small but loyal and passionate audience of people who want a more customized and specialized, maybe a healthier, experience.
Guess where I’m going with all of this?
You can think of traditional publishing like McKee Foods, and self-publishers more like The Bakery. They’re designed to serve different audiences and they have different purposes. This analogy only goes so far, so let’s not overthink it, but it’s a useful illustration to make the point: Traditional publishers and self-publishers simply operate on different levels, for different reasons.
Is one model better than the other? Yes; they’re each better depending on what you’re trying to accomplish. Your goals as an author should guide you toward the best model for you.
But the value of traditional publishing has, no doubt, been called into question in recent years. With the rise of our cultural value in small businesses and the individual entrepreneur, the ease with which people are able to self-publish, and the tightened gate-keeping of traditional publishers, many people are asking:
What the heck are traditional publishers good for, anyway?
Last week, I was interviewed about this on a self-publishing podcast, and my friend Molly and I have been having a back-and-forth conversation about the same topic. Plus, the rejections for my own book (with my co-writer and podcast co-host Liz Morrow) have been pouring in. So, this question has been on my mind.
I truly believe that neither model is better for authors than the other; they’re simply different, so “better” is going to depend on your goals. With that in mind, let me try to give a little defense of traditional publishers.
How did traditional publishing become a “thing” in the first place?
The value of the traditional publishing model has been a foregone conclusion since the mid-19th century, when several technological innovations coincided to make it possible for once small-scale printers, like George Routledge or Scottish brothers Daniel and Alexander Macmillan, to rapidly accelerate their operations and begin mass-producing books with better binding, better quality paper, and more uniform pages and typesetting. Books were suddenly affordable and we saw a boom of new publishers, authors, and even the first literary agent toward the end of the 1800s.
Higher sales creates a precedent for future books; now they have a higher standard they need to meet in order for business to continue growing. The acquisitions editor was born to help meet those demands and ensure that publishers were taking on the best books to continue growing the business. In the U.S., where the publishing industry was so new and there were so many immigrants, republishing beloved foreign authors was also a massive part of a publisher’s business. Agents and editors played a vital role in helping assess, translate, and otherwise repurpose foreign works for the new American market.
All of this (and much more—some further reading listed below!) has led to today’s “traditional” publishing climate, which is characterized by a handful of key features:
Acquisitions editors and editorial teams who operate as vetters, deciding who and what should be published
Literary agents who advocate for prospective authors, driving up the cost of advances, making large-scale publishing a much more costly endeavor
Large-scale print runs (often in the tens of thousands of books produced)
Worldwide distribution and sales networks
In-house teams of professionals to guide the book production process
The transfer of the copyright for the book (not the ideas—an important distinction!) to the publisher for management
The short of it is that traditional publishing operates on a massive scale, and the systems and “rules” they have in place are designed to help perpetuate that scale.
With any business model, I think the question to keep asking is:
How does it benefit the end user? (i.e. How does traditional publishing benefit the reader?)
As authors, I realize that traditional publishing doesn’t always serve our needs and desires, and that’s frustrating.
But it’s not supposed to.
Traditional publishing ensures quality control.
Debates about censorship and freedom of speech aside, traditional publishing ensures that readers regularly enjoy a consistently high-quality reading experience with information they can trust. The vetting from an editorial team helps to stop the spread of disinformation, plagiarism, and inaccurate information. And the finely tuned production process ensures that books are sturdy, long-lasting, and physically enjoyable to read. Plus, traditional publishers have the means to make books more accessible for those with disabilities by offering more format options (like large font editions and audio).
Traditional publishing raises literacy rates.
I think we can all agree that a literate society is a good thing. The rise of traditional publishing has played a vital role in also raising our national literacy rates in the last couple hundred years. Having more books physically in existence means more people are reading, and that’s an incredible gift to humanity. Furthermore, traditional publishers often partner with schools and educational institutions to make sure that high quality books are made available for students at cost-effective rates.
Traditional publishing enables the longevity of books.
Not only does traditional publishing increase the number of physical books available; it means they’re available for longer periods of time, too. If a self-publisher or individual author can no longer support the sale of a book, it will simply disappear from existence, except in the resale market—if you can find it. Traditional publishers have the means to ensure that books stay in circulation for much longer periods of time.
Traditional publishing provides greater variety in books.
Traditional publishers offer a broader range of books because they employ larger teams of people who can provide expertise in multiple areas. This means that readers can more easily find reading material to suit their interests and pursuits. I was wandering in Barnes & Noble the other day, simply taking in the broad diversity of the books available. Bookstores, and publishing houses, are a fascinating microcosm of humanity.
Traditional publishing exposes the general public to new ideas.
Traditional publishers also have the means to take risks on new authors and new ideas, and to mass-distribute those ideas to readers. To me, this is one of the greatest benefits of the industry, and the primary reason I’m so passionate about what I do. Nearly everyone I know has read a book that changed their life—I certainly have. And I bet you, 9/10 times, that book was traditionally published because an editor took a chance on it.
Traditional publishing also ensures that ideas are given time to incubate.
One of authors’ greatest complaints about the traditional publishing space is how long it takes to produce a book. Often, books are published two to three years after they were written. How could that possibly be a good thing for anyone?!
There are downsides to the long timeline, but that long timeline is part of what helps ideas incubate and form. I know so many books that have benefited from a longer development time, as they’ve gotten better and better with each successive iteration. Again, it’s likely that the books you love most went through multiple drafts and lots of hard-hitting questions to pressure test the ideas and the writing.
Books are almost always better for the extra time that is put into the development process.
Traditional publishing protects copyrights.
This is indisputably a good thing for authors, but it’s also a good thing for readers. Copyright protection encourages greater creativity and innovation and incentivizes creators to produce more new works. It also helps to prevent piracy and the illegal distribution of books, which actually works in the long run to limit access by making it impossible for publishers to afford to produce those books.
I’m sure there are more reasons you could argue for the existence of traditional publishing. All of the ones I’ve listed are the reasons that I, personally, have felt a high moral calling to serve readers through traditional publishing.
But I’m well aware that traditional publishing is not perfect, and we are right to continually question its existence to make sure that it’s still truly serving readers’ needs.
Further Reading on the History of Publishing:
“History of Publishing” from Brittanica
Max Perkins: Editor of Genius by A. Scott Berg
The Book: A Global History edited by Michael F. Suarez and H.R. Wooudhuysen
A History of the Book in America, Vol. 4: Print in Motion: The Expansion of Publishing and Reading in the United States, 1880-1940 edited by Carl F. Kaestle and Janice A. Radway
Tips & Tidbits
In Defense of Self-Publishing
Ever the fence-sitter, I couldn’t help but write a defense of self-publishing, too. I always try to honor both sides of the debate. :)
Please Stop Bashing Book Publishing
If you’re interested in this conversation, you should also read Kathleen Schmidt’s response to Elle’s post: “Please Stop Bashing Book Publishing.”
https://substack.com/home/post/p-143951267
Upcoming Events!
April 30: Your Bestselling Book Idea Webinar (completely free!)
May 7-June 4: May Map Your Book Cohort ($499)
What’s Bringing Me Joy
My best friend has come to visit all the way from Denver, and we’re treating ourselves to a girls’ spa day. Plus, I’ve been overwhelmed by some of the small kindnesses shown to me lately by friends all over: a bouquet of flowers, a box of cookies, a surprise coffee + hug visit, dinner at an amazing restaurant, the perfect book gift. These expressions of love have meant so much to me and bolstered me through a couple rough weeks. Thank you - you know who you are.
Wishing you lots of joy (and traditionally published books) this weekend,
Ariel
As a self published author, my sense is that trad vs self boils down to three things:
1. Who takes the investment risk and who reaps royalty rewards.
2. Who ensures the quality of the book (quality is related to how much money gets invested).
3. Distribution and marketing. As I understand it, with rare exceptions, distribution IS the marketing boon provided by traditional publishers (and some hybrids) but there are some books that get more marketing attention than distribution alone— though not many.
There are some very attractive advantages to traditional publishing—less financial risk, experts to ensure quality, and distribution. But the hoops that need to be jumped to get in the door are formidable and there is no guarantee of success. Every time I think about it seriously, I decide I’d rather spend my energy (and money) on creating a great book rather than trying to convince someone else to help me do it.
Loved this! Great piece, Ariel.
Also: Nutty Bars are my favorite thing that Little Debbie still makes.
When we lived in Chattanooga (1982-1985), some of my parents' friends worked at Little Debbie; and we benefited from discounted inventory. My favorite thing they made at the time was carrot cake. So good!