Lately, it seems, not a day goes by without an article, blog post, or interview regarding changes the publishing industry is going through and likely will continue to go through for some time. These changes are affecting all forms of traditional publishing: Magazines are scaled-down versions of their once-robust selves. And have you noticed how thin newspapers are getting? Ad dollars are clearly moving online. Book publishers are scrambling to produce “books” in multiple formats–traditional, e-reader, audio, installment. And, obviously, self-publishing has had a significant impact on book publishing.
One topic that gets less press, but likely will have the greatest impact on reshaping traditional publishing (all forms) is the impact of having lots of creative content available on the web. I read many of the articles that discuss changes that are taking place in the publishing industry–it’s important to our business, because we believe we are part of the change! But there hasn’t been much prognostication about creative content on the web, I think, because it’s very unclear exactly what will happen. A recent essay in Time magazine (of all places) does a pretty good job of laying out a model for the role the web and publishers might play in the new frontier. What do you think?
2 Comments
Re newspapers: As other papers are slimming, removing their designated book/film review sections (folding them into other sections), etc., Rupert Murdoch is adding nine pages of world news to the Wall Street Journal to make it a stronger competitor in a NYC dominated by the Times.
I was part of a discussion just yesterday with some UK writers about vanity presses, and how the relatively low cost/risk of small runs via self-publishing or e-publishing effectively renders the old appeal–vanity presses’ perceived simplicity–void. A new model, which will be embraced more or less out of necessity by major and indie houses, alongside the self-publishers et al that already utilize it, is already here. Pay-up-front vanity presses (as opposed to honest self-pub services) won’t be able to keep afloat, because their business depends on unsavvy writers who don’t know any better, a demographic that, at least in my opinion, is quickly shrinking in size. (Moreover, VPs are built on the same bulk-production sand that has left major houses with warehouses full of remaindered books: just swap a warehouse for one’s living room.) As Michael Bhaskar says on The Digitalist, “Lets not wait for the future anymore; it arrived in about 2006.”
In response to Bhaskar’s assertion, I wrote, “It is true that ‘the future is here,’ and new forms of writing and reading, and technologies devised to such ends, have given the processes of composition and creation a more democratic bent. That will, in terms of lasting effects, be more significant than the forms themselves.”
Well, the Times article is in some ways distressing, particularly for those of us who would like to garner some kind of income from novel writing. Considering the hours and craft learning required to write long and well, there needs to be some form of compensation.
As a performing artist in my other life, I know the kind of endless hours done gratis or for minimal pay just to do what you love. I had hoped the writing may actually pay some bills! Maybe there is a deeper question here about the arts. ‘Anyone can write’ and ‘anyone can paint, sing, etc’, but there is value that can inspire the world when it is done exceptionally well. But who will bother to take the time to learn and do it exceptionally well when it’s so easy to starve while you’re doing so? Some will say the sacrifice is part of what makes the work so excellent. Has that been proved? Perhaps adequately paid creative people can do just as good or greater work than their impoverished counterparts. Rant concluded.
Despite that massive digression, the Times article doesn’t say anything we don’t already know it our gut. Of course publishing is changing. Life is change, and technology is changing everything at an increasingly rapid pace. But it also says, quite rightly, that publishing is not dead yet. Nor will it utterly die out. There may be a season when little or nothing is put in print, except on demand, but books remain around us. Digital versions cannot compete with the feel and smell of a book, and there will always be some people who want them. It may become as small a market as those who continued to prefer vinyl records over tapes and CDs for the last two decades, but then it may come back in vogue, with publishing houses once again, only with smarter business strategies.
I for one certainly hope so.