By Edward Nawotka
Earlier this year we covered the new trend of “cause publishing” and in today’s lead story, we have an example of it: 100 Stories for Haiti, an anthology sourced via Twitter of stories from around the globe with proceeds going to Haitian earthquake relief. What’s even more remarkable is the fact that the book went from idea to finished manuscript in three weeks. The writing was crowd sourced from Twitter and the editorial work was provided on a volunteer basis. Granted, we’re still waiting to see what the finished product ultimately looks like.
Last month we discussed how “speed to market” was becoming increasingly important for publishers who want to compete in a fully digitized world. And traditional publishers have demonstrated an ability to work in haste: just last year at BookExpo America, publisher Perseus put on a show of producing a book in a single 48-hour period, and doing so in all available formats (of course, this was a rather simple book of altered first lines from classic literature, again, crowd sourced from the Internet).
So, all this begs the question: If competing against digital is the most pressing and urgent problem the legacy publishers are facing, why can’t they work faster? What’s holding them back? Is it traditional models of sell-in that requires an in-person visit from a sales rep six-months in advance of publication? It is an existing backlog of titles that have yet to hit the market? Is it inertia, or lack there of?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below or via Twitter using hashtag #ppdiscuss.
7 Comments
From where I sit, the cause is mostly systems that are already in place by our distributor, the wholesalers, and trade publications. We crashed a title in 6 weeks last year, much to the chagrin of our distributor, and have sold 20,000+ copies so far. We got no trade reviews (no galleys 3-4 months pre-pub) and virtually no mainstream media coverage. The sales have come mostly from online retailers and the publicity from bloggers. Maybe this is the way of the future? Works for me.
Legacy systems, processes and business cultures are major barriers to speed. Changing them takes time and money, neither of which is in oversupply for most publishers in the current environment.
Interestingly, startups have an advantage, at least with regard to speed. As an example, OR Books, a company founded in late 2009 conceived, acquired, developed, edited and produced GOING ROUGE (the loyal opposition’s ‘companion’ to Sarah Palin’s GOING ROGUE) in less than six weeks while developing a huge and very effective marketing and publicity program for the book which led to very nice direct sales and then a ights sale to a traditional print publisher for sales through bookstores.
New models are necessary for speed, but they involve working across the entire publishing and distribution ecosystem. It’s hard work, it’s expensive, and it’s uncertain whether the financial rewards are commensurate with the risk. On the other hand, it’s probably more risky to do nothing.
An interesting point. Had the Perseus book required 20 complex process color pages of art requiring a proofing system, a choice of paper not on hand, press-checks, bindery issues (let’s say there’s a two page throw-out in the middle), I doubt they would have finished the book in 48 hours. Legacy presses could offer a limited choice of materials, format sizes and binding types to accelerate the workflow. Digital printing (Indigo machines, etc.) rather than traditional offset would be required and at that point the press would be emulating Print On Demand choices which are extremely limited.
So, it seems to me, that it depends on the type of book. If a 230-page J.M Coetzee novel arrived this morning in a printer’s FTP site as a PDF file, won’t the author or publisher still have to proof the galley? I’ve seen PDFs fail. It will be interesting to see what compromises are made and I will be curious to see which long run production will take the honor of missing Page 27 in an effort to place the book quickly.
I’ll also be interested in how all of this plays out with U.S. publishers who have used Chinese or European printers. Will we stay more regional with our need for speed? Our last book, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey in Greek and English took a half-year to proof, color match (there were over 50 color illustrations) print, bind and deliver. If the market holds up for these kinds of books (and so far, so good) then legacy printing will have its place. Coetzee’s novel? Well, short of the eBook, 48 hours might be possible even for an extended run. 100 pages of Maxfield Parish that the publisher wants to place in the Met. Museum of Art gift shop? Grab a cup of coffee.
James mentions the delays caused by the printing process but what about the editing and proofreading processes which both take time? From the number of emails from prospective freelance editors that publishers are inundated with weekly, I’m sure you could find someone to turn a 400 page illustrated history book around in a day or even overnight, but I don’t rate the chances it’ll be quality work. And there’s the authors, who have to agree with the edits (which can involve long debates, rewriting and more research/fact checking), who also check the galleys (usually once but sometimes twice) and who sometimes have a shaky grasp of the concept of deadlines. There’s a lot of checking, chivvying, handholding, begging, and Dealing With Difficult People in pulling a book together. Of course, if the publisher has total control – sources the content and is therefore doing their own approving and agreeing with themselves, as sounds the case in the internet-sourced material above – then it would be much simpler. Like every consultant I’ve ever known says: We’d get things done so much faster if there were no clients.
As a self-publisher I must do all those things, and manage sales and promote. I can take a completely proofed manuscript and publish it in 25 minutes. I can produce a decently formatted PDF in ten. I have to rework the epubs, which take about an hour, and create one from scratch in ten seconds. BUT I then have to wait a week while the physical proof comes back from the printer, so all that Speedy Gonzalez stuff does not work in this conventional atmosphere. Nevertheless, the editing, proofing, changes, and other fluff do take time and sometimes dadlines are pushed back. Quality demands that it take time. You can’t just shove stuff out the door and expect to have it come back perfect. However, I balk whenever a publisher declares that they are “holding back” a particular format of a book because they don’t understand their true clients the customers. People want it now.
Speaking as a small publisher, what keeps me back is the fact that I do everything myself in collaboration with my authors. I could conceivably get a book produced in 3 weeks, if a manuscript came to me with no need for editorial input, and I wasn’t trying to work with my authors to create book covers they love.
It’s interesting to note that at least some print publishers can work faster if they really want to. Just consider all the books on O.J. Simpson that suddenly blossomed on bookstore shelves like dandelions in the sidewalk when the trial was going on.
In fact, any time there is any big newsworthy event, there is a veritable explosion of sudden books about it.
Food for thought, isn’t it?
One Trackback
[...] ➻ Edward Nawotka asks If They Need to Compete With Digital, Why Can’t Publishers Work Faster? [...]