"No One Buys Books"

 (Sincere thanks to Gabino Iglesias for bringing this to my attention. The summer will include several posts similar to this, all thanks to his insights and willingness to share them. If you’re not following his Substack, you really ought to.)

 

It has become almost a mantra for me on Facebook. A friend posts an item about a publisher and I reply, “Every time I hear something else about the publishing industry, the less I want to be a part of it.” Sometimes I go on at greater length, depending on the initial post.

 

I have reasons for this distaste, but the core has been eloquently summarized  by Elle Griffin in her article for The Elysian, “No one buys books.” It’s long but well worth your time if you’re a writer or aspiring write, as all professions should be viewed in the hard, cold light of day.

 

The purpose of Ms. Griffin’s article is to describe what was made public by industry insiders at the anti-trust trial resulting from Penguin Random House’s attempt to purchase Simom and Schuster for $2.2 billion. Keep that figure in mind, as much of the testimony revolves around the idea there’s no money to be made in publishing.

 

I should probably leave well enough alone, as I cannot do justice to Ms. Griffin’s piece in the space I have here, nor can I match her ability to distill the evidence from a long trial into an article. She took a year to read the book that broke down the trial; I’m not going to do that. (You can read the book if you want the gruesome details.)

 

What I’ll do here is describe the sense of what a writer with a borderline career thinks about all of this. Consider or ignore my comments as you see fit. As always, please feel free to comment either here or on social media.

 

I’ll list the headings from Ms. Griffin’s piece, with my thoughts inserted, along with a few salient quotes.

 

Bestsellers are rare.

Q. Do you know approximately how many authors there are across the industry with 500,000 units or more during this four-year period?

A. My understanding is that it was about 50.

Q. 50 authors across the publishing industry who during this four-year period sold more than 500,000 units in a single year?

A. Yes.

— Madeline Mcintosh, CEO, Penguin Random House US

 

I think we all figured something like this, but god damn. Fifty over four years?

 

Big advances go to celebrities.

Top-selling authors were defined as those receiving advances (i.e., guaranteed money) in excess of $250,000. Far fewer than 1 percent of authors receive advances over that mark; Publishers Marketplace, which tracks these things, recorded 233 such deals in all of 2022.

— ken whyte, Publisher at Sutherland House

 

This was a safe bet, too. More on this later.

 

Franchise authors are the other big category.

Q. Putnam typically publishes about 60 books a year. Correct?

A. 60, 65, sort of on average… I will say of those 65, though, a good portion of those are repeat authors… franchise authors that we regularly publish every year, sometimes twice a year.

— Sally Kim, SVP and Publisher, Putnam

 

Can you say “James Patterson” or “John Grisham?” Not only are they getting all the money, they’re squeezing the rest of us out of the available publishing slots. I don’t hold this against either author – I’m in favor of anything that gets an author paid, keeps people reading, and doesn’t involve AI-generated content – but how can publishers be that lazy or timid not to want to keep trying to develop more writers for their stables?

 

Publishing houses want a built-in audience.

In some of the cases, the reason they are paying big money is because the person has a big platform. And if that platform is there for the advertising, then the spend might be lower.

 

— Jennifer Rudolph Walsh, former Agent

 

I can’t blame them for this, but I’m also aware most corporations take it as the cost of doing business to build audiences for their products, whether we’re talking about cars  or dish soap.

 

A big audience means publishing houses don’t have to spend money on marketing.

Well, duh. Of course, that doesn’t mean they won’t spend a bunch to paper buses, subway stations, and other easily visible locations with ads when one of the big boys drops a new one, when all they’d have to do is let the word out through social media and the fans will line up to buy the book..

 

Publishing houses pay for Amazon placement.

Q.  Penguin Random House has hired data scientists to try and figure out these [Amazon] algorithms so that its books get better presented on Amazon than its competitors’ books?

A. One of the many efforts that we pursue, correct.

Q. And Penguin Random House pays Amazon to improve its search results?

A. There is something that is available to our publishers, it’s called Amazon Marketing Services, AMS, and all publishers can spend money and give it to Amazon to have hopefully better search results.

 

— Markus Dohle, CEO, Penguin Random House

 

We all know publishers pay independent bookstores for placement. (Cover out, front table, special displays, etc.) It’s also not improper for Amazon to feature the books it thinks people are most likely to buy. That’s what they do, sell books. Paying to juke the stats that feed the algorithms cuts the legs out from the smaller publishers and independents without Amazon acknowledging the search results that are ostensibly tailored for each reader are artificially skewed. Every day I’m one baby step closer to sending my books out free as PDFs to anyone who sends a request via social media or e-mail.

 

But even celebrity books don’t sell…

Just because the publisher pays $250,000 or $500,000 or $1 million for a book does not guarantee that a single person is going to buy it. A lot of what we do is unknowable and based on inspiration and optimism.”

— Michael Pietsch, CEO, Hachette

 

I told you we’d come back to the massive celebrity advances. There are a lot more quotes in Ms. Griffin’s article, but the gist of it is the publishers have no idea what’s going to sell. Frankly, they seem to have little idea what they’re doing. As I have said for years, publishers will freely admit they don’t know what will sell, only what won’t. And your book won’t.

 

Books don’t make money.

About half of the books we publish make money, and a much lower percentage of them earn back the advance we pay.

 

— Jonathan Karp, CEO, Simon & Schuster

 

Yet PRH was willing to pay $2.2 billion for S&S. If that’s not a prima facie case for people who

a.    Don’t know what they’re doing;

b.    Are at best disseminating about the money to be made;

I don’t know what is.

 

Oh, wait a minute.

 

It’s all about the backlist.

I would actually expect a book that is selling 300,000 units in a year is probably going to sell at least 400,000 or 500,000 over its life once you get backlist in there too.

 

Our backlist brings in about a third of our annual revenues, so $300 million a year roughly, a little less.

 

— Michael Pietsch, CEO, Hachette

 

Also known as the “long tail.” It doesn’t take Paul Krugman to figure out this is a good sales vehicle, given the primary decision factor when buying a book is author name recognition. The long tail would also benefit what used to be called the mid-list if publishers could be bothered to deal with the mid-list again, but they’d rather go the same route that has so badly damaged the film industry and bet the bank on bestsellers they already know are at best fifty-fifty to recover their money.

 

Amazon is the biggest threat to the industry.

Q. Are you concerned that Amazon will favor Penguin Random House Simon & Schuster in terms of promotion and distribution and discoverability?

A. Yes.

 

— Donald Weisberg, CEO, Macmillan Publishers

 

Because they’ll pay more to juke the algorithms. Just as Macmillan could do, and almost certainly does at the expense of smaller publishers.

 

A “Netflix of Books” would put publishing houses out of business.

We all know about Netflix, we all know about Spotify and other media categories, and we also know what it has done to some industries… The music industry has lost, in the digital transformation, approximately 50 percent of its overall revenue pool.

 

— Markus Dohle, CEO, Penguin Publishing House

 

Yet movies still get made and music produced. Maybe the publishers might want to look into a business model that provides for this. It’s harsh – and likely a death knell for small, independent booksellers – but any entity with $2.2 billion to buy a competitor has the wherewithal to adapt to the times.

 

Authors are getting more independent.

I think really from the advent of online—really, once the internet became popular, you know, we heard the phrase disintermediation. And I don’t understand why that wouldn’t be a possible prospect for any best selling author, to just disintermediate, to go straight to the internet and sell directly if you have a following… Colleen Hoover has published with both Amazon and Simon & Schuster. And her Amazon book was on the independent book sellers’ best seller list. So what that says to me is that a Rubicon has been crossed.

 

— Jonathan Karp, CEO, Simon & Schuster

 

Gee, I wonder why. How many of us have gone to conferences and heard how even the top sellers are regularly badgered by their publishers to write more books quicker, do more promotions, and fudge what they write to suit the publisher’s perceived audience? Who needs that bullshit?

 

Another publishing house bites the dust.

After the Judge denied the merger, Penguin went through a massive round of layoffs and Simon & Schuster was sold to a private equity company instead.

 

Private equity tends to have one game plan: buy a company, load it with debt, wring out costs to improve its financials, sell at a profit. Dealing Simon & Schuster to private equity, The New Republic warned at the time with some slight hyperbole of its own, would mean “absolute devastation and wholesale job loss.”

 

— ken whyte

 

Private equity firms are evil incarnate, cannibalizing companies and destroying jobs for the short-term profit of a few investors with no regard for an industry, or the economy. This is not unique to publishing. If these vultures didn’t see a way forward to make money from publishing, they wouldn’t buy the companies. There’s a cognitive dissonance here someone should be able to exploit at some level.

 

#  #  #

It’s a shitty situation, but it doesn’t have to be the nuclear winter of publishing. Baseball analyst Bill James once wrote that if Major League Baseball as we know it were to fold overnight, professional baseball would be resurrected inside of a year. Different teams in different cities, but there are too many people willing to pay to watch young men play baseball for the enterprise to disappear.

 

There are also too many readers willing to pay money to read for books to go away. The business model may change – it almost has to – but books will always be around in some form because there will always be people willing to pay to read them. To those who say the reading public is aging out, I say there are more old people on the way, and old people read more as other, more physical activities are denied them.

 

We’re living through an historical sea change, and history is never as clean, or inevitable, as books make it sound fifty or a hundred years later. It’s messy, it’s uncomfortable, and it’s a little like wrestling with a pig: you both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

 

But that doesn’t mean you can’t come out ahead if you stick with it.