What Pete and Jonny say-a lot of competition out there

[Pamela Jo]

#1 The Problem of Too Many Books (Part 1)

An agent talks about why you need an agent.

 

[RK Wallis]

That was a fascinating read. Do post part 2

 

[John G]

Interesting insight. Thank you!

 

[Brayati]

Maybe agents and publishers need to change their business model to better reflect the new world of publishing. It's time to move Beyond the Future (isn't that a movie by now?).
If the market is swollen by books that don't sell enough to keep their business afloat, and yet (a reasonable percentage of) indi authors make money, where does the difference lie?
It lies in the need for agents and publishers to find the unicorn - but without having to do too much to peddle it (financial restraints!).
Indies don't need a unicorn, just a following (advertising dollars to lure and good books to hook).
What does the unicorn look like? I certainly don't know, and I'm sure most agents and publishers find out only after the fact - Brandon Sanderson had his 'lucky to be in this place, at this time, with these people' story, but he also had the people behind him, the readers who gushed about his stories, the other writers who invited him to speak on subject matters, and his podcast with friends and cohorts. He built a following, and maintained it. He gives a lot, and gives them what they want. He created his following and feeds it lavishly.
Where is this happening with publishers? Why are they complaining about not earning enough if they don't do what's needed to lure and hook the 'customers' for their product (writer and books)?
All business models change with time and customer demands, so I'll expect some major changes in the next few years, shall I?
And there I go off into the sunset, cackling and cawing, knowing it will need to break before it can be rebuilt by those whose vision of the past doesn't see it paved with gold.
Personal opinion, of course, but I've worked for a few publishers in Australasia, sat at table with the visiting 'dignitaries' from the Big Five, and listened to the carping for too many years (40, to be exact).

 

[RK Wallis]

Maybe agents and publishers need to change their business model to better reflect the new world of publishing. It's time to move Beyond the Future (isn't that a movie by now?).
If the market is swollen by books that don't sell enough to keep their business afloat, and yet (a reasonable percentage of) indi authors make money, where does the difference lie?
It lies in the need for agents and publishers to find the unicorn - but without having to do too much to peddle it (financial restraints!).
Indies don't need a unicorn, just a following (advertising dollars to lure and good books to hook).
What does the unicorn look like? I certainly don't know, and I'm sure most agents and publishers find out only after the fact - Brandon Sanderson had his 'lucky to be in this place, at this time, with these people' story, but he also had the people behind him, the readers who gushed about his stories, the other writers who invited him to speak on subject matters, and his podcast with friends and cohorts. He built a following, and maintained it. He gives a lot, and gives them what they want. He created his following and feeds it lavishly.
Where is this happening with publishers? Why are they complaining about not earning enough if they don't do what's needed to lure and hook the 'customers' for their product (writer and books)?
All business models change with time and customer demands, so I'll expect some major changes in the next few years, shall I?
And there I go off into the sunset, cackling and cawing, knowing it will need to break before it can be rebuilt by those whose vision of the past doesn't see it paved with gold.
Personal opinion, of course, but I've worked for a few publishers in Australasia, sat at table with the visiting 'dignitaries' from the Big Five, and listened to the carping for too many years (40, to be exact).

The industry does need a shake up, for sure. Brandon certainly gave so much to the writing community for so long, there must be a lesson in there. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall for publisher meetings after Brandon's kickstarter went viral.

 

[Serra K]

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall for publisher meetings after Brandon's kickstarter went viral.

*Gets popcorn and settles in for the ride

 

[Hannah F]

One has to remember, Brandon's kickstarter was such an overwhelmingly brilliant success because he already has a huge platform. Interestingly, the books are going to become available to buy in the normal way in a year or two's time - without the swag bag of course.

 

[RK Wallis]

One has to remember, Brandon's kickstarter was such an overwhelmingly brilliant success because he already has a huge platform. Interestingly, the books are going to become available to buy in the normal way in a year or two's time - without the swag bag of course.

I didn't buy the swag bag, just the ebooks.

 

[Pamela Jo]

I thi

Maybe agents and publishers need to change their business model to better reflect the new world of publishing. It's time to move Beyond the Future (isn't that a movie by now?).
If the market is swollen by books that don't sell enough to keep their business afloat, and yet (a reasonable percentage of) indi authors make money, where does the difference lie?
It lies in the need for agents and publishers to find the unicorn - but without having to do too much to peddle it (financial restraints!).
Indies don't need a unicorn, just a following (advertising dollars to lure and good books to hook).
What does the unicorn look like? I certainly don't know, and I'm sure most agents and publishers find out only after the fact - Brandon Sanderson had his 'lucky to be in this place, at this time, with these people' story, but he also had the people behind him, the readers who gushed about his stories, the other writers who invited him to speak on subject matters, and his podcast with friends and cohorts. He built a following, and maintained it. He gives a lot, and gives them what they want. He created his following and feeds it lavishly.
Where is this happening with publishers? Why are they complaining about not earning enough if they don't do what's needed to lure and hook the 'customers' for their product (writer and books)?
All business models change with time and customer demands, so I'll expect some major changes in the next few years, shall I?
And there I go off into the sunset, cackling and cawing, knowing it will need to break before it can be rebuilt by those whose vision of the past doesn't see it paved with gold.
Personal opinion, of course, but I've worked for a few publishers in Australasia, sat at table with the visiting 'dignitaries' from the Big Five, and listened to the carping for too many years (40, to be exact).

I think the answer lies in the shelves filled with their failures. Think of publishers as punters and agents as the bookies. Writers as the trainers and their manuscripts as untried horses. Both punters and agents want to hedge their bets especially when the old handicapping strategies dont work and winners are harder and harder to pick. I just looked at several agencies for commercial and literary books. ALL will not even look at a submission unless the writer comes with proof via social media they can generate interest. I do plan on doing that, but for me I might as well self-publish for a higher percentage of the take.

The reality is supply and demand. Most of us have only middle field horses and there is a glut of those as this agent says. There may be a superstar dark horse like Rowling hidden in the surging mass, but the bookies and punters have bet on a number being that and were wrong. The logical fallacy is that because Rowling did get published after being turned down 42 (48?) times, that any smash hit will likewise get caught and published. The truth is probably more that there are any number of authors out there as good who failed.

 

[Hannah F]

I thi

I think the answer lies in the shelves filled with their failures. Think of publishers as punters and agents as the bookies. Writers as the trainers and their manuscripts as untried horses. Both punters and agents want to hedge their bets especially when the old handicapping strategies dont work and winners are harder and harder to pick. I just looked at several agencies for commercial and literary books. ALL will not even look at a submission unless the writer comes with proof via social media they can generate interest. I do plan on doing that, but for me I might as well self-publish for a higher percentage of the take.

The reality is supply and demand. Most of us have only middle field horses and there is a glut of those as this agent says. There may be a superstar dark horse like Rowling hidden in the surging mass, but the bookies and punters have bet on a number being that and were wrong. The logical fallacy is that because Rowling did get published after being turned down 42 (48?) times, that any smash hit will likewise get caught and published. The truth is probably more that there are any number of authors out there as good who failed.

I never did understand horse betting. I have put money on a horse a couple of times purely because I liked the name - and won once!

 

[Brayati]

I think the answer lies in the shelves filled with their failures. Think of publishers as punters and agents as the bookies. Writers as the trainers and their manuscripts as untried horses. Both punters and agents want to hedge their bets especially when the old handicapping strategies dont work and winners are harder and harder to pick. I just looked at several agencies for commercial and literary books. ALL will not even look at a submission unless the writer comes with proof via social media they can generate interest. I do plan on doing that, but for me I might as well self-publish for a higher percentage of the take.

The reality is supply and demand. Most of us have only middle field horses and there is a glut of those as this agent says. There may be a superstar dark horse like Rowling hidden in the surging mass, but the bookies and punters have bet on a number being that and were wrong. The logical fallacy is that because Rowling did get published after being turned down 42 (48?) times, that any smash hit will likewise get caught and published. The truth is probably more that there are any number of authors out there as good who failed.

There may be a superstar dark horse like Rowling hidden in the surging mass

Rowling: Not a superstar until 12 million dollars spent in advertising (the first run of 500 printed books barely sold (these first editions are now worth bajillions). The second run was 5k, but post advertising, and shortly thereafter, the third run was 50k and there have been many since, and still ongoing but maybe not in the same numbers now - except the eBooks, which still sell well).
This advertising campaign was after the reader group for the publishers (big name readers tasked with recommending a spend (led by Dave Farland)) voted. There could be more stories of the same calibre out there ... but only advertising will get them in front of big audiences (as with movies, it's advertising that brings things to our attention).

Maybe that's the basis for a new model - get some big name readers (who like/write) for the main genre and let them propose which mss to buy and promote. It must cost less than the hit-miss current strategy of 'we'll just give it a few weeks of in-industry magazine advertising and see what happens'.
Still, I'm a cynic, and I don't expect the stodge to shift anytime soon.

 

[RK Wallis]

led by Dave Farland

So sad to lose him this year Legend.

 

[Pamela Jo]

Rowling: Not a superstar until 12 million dollars spent in advertising (the first run of 500 printed books barely sold (these first editions are now worth bajillions). The second run was 5k, but post advertising, and shortly thereafter, the third run was 50k and there have been many since, and still ongoing but maybe not in the same numbers now - except the eBooks, which still sell well).
This advertising campaign was after the reader group for the publishers (big name readers tasked with recommending a spend (led by Dave Farland)) voted. There could be more stories of the same calibre out there ... but only advertising will get them in front of big audiences (as with movies, it's advertising that brings things to our attention).

Maybe that's the basis for a new model - get some big name readers (who like/write) for the main genre and let them propose which mss to buy and promote. It must cost less than the hit-miss current strategy of 'we'll just give it a few weeks of in-industry magazine advertising and see what happens'.
Still, I'm a cynic, and I don't expect the stodge to shift anytime soon.

Big name readers.... Sounds like literary critics.... I don't think that is going to find the moneymakers. I pretty much avoid whatever they recommend. I do think word of mouth is a pretty good indicator. As Pete said it's how readers feel at the end of the book that makes them recommend it. Word of mouth is a pretty good indicator of sales. Then we're back at social media status. I dont blame publishers for seeing Twitter et al as early marketing surveys.

 

[Brayati]

Big name readers.... Sounds like literary critics.... I don't think that is going to find the moneymakers. I pretty much avoid whatever they recommend. O do think word of mouth is a pretty good indicator. The revelation Pete had at his publisher luncheon. It's how readers feel at the end of the book that makes them recommend it. Word of mouth is a pretty good indicator. Then we're back at social media status.

Not lit crits, people who write in that field, who know the ground and the readers, and who read both within the genre and around it, and know all the newbies coming through the ranks. Lit crits are like agents - they have a job, but they're not the ones corresponding daily with readers, what they ask, what they want, what intrigues them about the world.

 

[Hannah F]

Big name readers.... Sounds like literary critics.... I don't think that is going to find the moneymakers. I pretty much avoid whatever they recommend. O do think word of mouth is a pretty good indicator. The revelation Pete had at his publisher luncheon. It's how readers feel at the end of the book that makes them recommend it. Word of mouth is a pretty good indicator. Then we're back at social media status.

Omerta. What's said in the huddle stays in the huddle.

 

[Pamela Jo]

So in

Not lit crits, people who write in that field, who know the ground and the readers, and who read both within the genre and around it, and know all the newbies coming through the ranks. Lit crits are like agents - they have a job, but they're not the ones corresponding daily with readers, what they ask, what they want, what intrigues them about the world.

So influencers. Which is why they are making so much money.
"Show us you are a good influencer and we'll take a chance on investing what little money we have available to us on publishing you." It's not unreasonable. Personally I'm willing to bet on myself. I hope to find the right hybrid publisher who agrees. The higher the risk , the greater the return usually holds true. And not just in horse-racing.

 

[Brayati]

So in

So influencers. Which is why they are making so much money.
"Show us you are a good influencer and we'll take a chance on investing what little money we have available to us on publishing you." It's not unreasonable. Personally I'm willing to bet on myself. I hope to find the right hybrid publisher who agrees. The higher the risk , the greater the return usually holds true. And not just in horse-racing.

I think this comment missed the point I was making. Dave Farland isn't (wasn't) an influencer, and they weren't publishing his book. He was paid as the lead reader/recommender of new books to push for the year (Scholastic, from memory, regularly gets prominent writers to do a round-robin of mss with potential to get a rounded view on what's worth spending money on. Dave didn't read it for a while, but his kids did, his wife did, and they kept talking about it, so he read it and 'discovered' the readability, relatability, and fun of a potential unicorn).
If the comments relate to Sanderson and his following, I'd recommend you read one of his books and see how well the stories are written for both story and flow. If he misses the mark, the readers tell him, and if he wasn't that good, all the followers in the world wouldn't buy his books. People don't spend money (at least, not a second time) on a thing that's disappointed them. Sanderson never disappoints, he gives his time and advice freely, and keeps on giving the best he's got - all the time.
I'd also recommend looking up how Sanderson got published the first time.

 

[Hannah F]

I think this comment missed the point I was making. Dave Farland isn't (wasn't) an influencer, and they weren't publishing his book. He was paid as the lead reader/recommender of new books to push for the year (Scholastic, from memory, regularly gets prominent writers to do a round-robin of mss with potential to get a rounded view on what's worth spending money on. Dave didn't read it for a while, but his kids did, his wife did, and they kept talking about it, so he read it and 'discovered' the readability, relatability, and fun of a potential unicorn).
If the comments relate to Sanderson and his following, I'd recommend you read one of his books and see how well the stories are written for both story and flow. If he misses the mark, the readers tell him, and if he wasn't that good, all the followers in the world wouldn't buy his books. People don't spend money (at least, not a second time) on a thing that's disappointed them. Sanderson never disappoints, he gives his time and advice freely, and keeps on giving the best he's got - all the time.
I'd also recommend looking up how Sanderson got published the first time.

He also gives great lectures which are on youtube.

 

[Peyton Stafford]

Rowling: Not a superstar until 12 million dollars spent in advertising (the first run of 500 printed books barely sold (these first editions are now worth bajillions). The second run was 5k, but post advertising, and shortly thereafter, the third run was 50k and there have been many since, and still ongoing but maybe not in the same numbers now - except the eBooks, which still sell well).
This advertising campaign was after the reader group for the publishers (big name readers tasked with recommending a spend (led by Dave Farland)) voted. There could be more stories of the same calibre out there ... but only advertising will get them in front of big audiences (as with movies, it's advertising that brings things to our attention).

Maybe that's the basis for a new model - get some big name readers (who like/write) for the main genre and let them propose which mss to buy and promote. It must cost less than the hit-miss current strategy of 'we'll just give it a few weeks of in-industry magazine advertising and see what happens'.
Still, I'm a cynic, and I don't expect the stodge to shift anytime soon.

Is there any chance of going directly to these big names if you are an unknown name?

 

[RK Wallis]

Scholastic, from memory,

Correct

 

[Pamela Jo]

I think this comment missed the point I was making. Dave Farland isn't (wasn't) an influencer, and they weren't publishing his book. He was paid as the lead reader/recommender of new books to push for the year (Scholastic, from memory, regularly gets prominent writers to do a round-robin of mss with potential to get a rounded view on what's worth spending money on. Dave didn't read it for a while, but his kids did, his wife did, and they kept talking about it, so he read it and 'discovered' the readability, relatability, and fun of a potential unicorn).
If the comments relate to Sanderson and his following, I'd recommend you read one of his books and see how well the stories are written for both story and flow. If he misses the mark, the readers tell him, and if he wasn't that good, all the followers in the world wouldn't buy his books. People don't spend money (at least, not a second time) on a thing that's disappointed them. Sanderson never disappoints, he gives his time and advice freely, and keeps on giving the best he's got - all the time.
I'd also recommend looking up how Sanderson got published the first time.

I think when investing money on any unknown writer it still comes down to making a bet on a horse. I understood you to mean that publishers should hire people who understand readers, the market etc. They do. That is the person reading your query. Young, social media-immersed, tuned in to readers also over-worked and underpaid. Many like Lucy Foley go on to write and be published. Your examples are still unicornism and by definition unicorns are rare and not easily reproduced. I disagree that it was massive advertising that sold the Harry Potter books. They didn't take off until they hit the international publishing fair in Barcelona when the Americans and other countries got involved, but it was zeitgeist that made them a phenomenon not a huge budget. The same with Sanderson. I would say the only way to harness zeitgeist is to be born lucky or to be that media savvy person that you say publishers should hire and listen to. Basically that is what most agents you submit to want a writer to be. I've just read 2 pleas from agencies begging writers to stop sending them stuff that is not ready and to be realistic about what they can sell. Don't look to them for validation. They just want to pay their rent and put food on the table.

 

[Hannah F]

And then there's luck: the lucky break. Anyone can get lucky - it's not necessarily a merit-based award - but luck tends to come most to those who try the hardest and to those who are the most persistent in their efforts (which brings us back to both J.K. Rowling and Brandon Sanderson).

 

[Brayati]

I think when investing money on any unknown writer it still comes down to making a bet on a horse. I understood you to mean that publishers should hire people who understand readers, the market etc. They do. That is the person reading your query. Young, social media-immersed, tuned in to readers also over-worked and underpaid. Many like Lucy Foley go on to write and be published. Your examples are still unicornism and by definition unicorns are rare and not easily reproduced. I disagree that it was massive advertising that sold the Harry Potter books. They didn't take off until they hit the international publishing fair in Barcelona when the Americans and other countries got involved, but it was zeitgeist that made them a phenomenon not a huge budget. The same with Sanderson. I would say the only way to harness zeitgeist is to be born lucky or to be that media savvy person that you say publishers should hire and listen to. Basically that is what most agents you submit to want a writer to be. I've just read 2 pleas from agencies begging writers to stop sending them stuff that is not ready and to be realistic about what they can sell. Don't look to them for validation. They just want to pay their rent and put food on the table.

Maybe it should be experienced readers/published writers rather than interns. That was my intended statement. People experienced and highly skilled in the craft of writing.
Barcelona - what does it cost to get a book on the table at that fair? Last time I went to one (Frankfurt), it cost more than six figures for each book (and that was a tiny table jammed at the back of the bigger players, and many years ago), and that's not counting the ancillary costs. Money does work, because money gets the product in front of buyers even if it's a chain process. The Potter books were taken to all the big fairs, which would mean a huge cost and part of the financial strategy. I don't know how they staggered it, but even if it was spread over a couple of years, it's a lot of money (and I wonder if some of that reason was the rights sold to the publisher - which included film rights, where a lot more money flows from - if the book is a winner, on-sell the film rights. It's just smart business).
And, yes, luck plays its part as long as the skill and craft are spot-on. Rough mss may occasionally be lucky but unlikely to ever become a unicorn.
Validation comes from sales, not publication. I don't know who said it, but 'any fool can write a book, but it takes a genius to sell it' (Ballard?).

Nevertheless, the passion of writers will ensure they continue to pursue the dream as far as the fold in the universe allows.

Edited in later: Ah, sorry. The interns read the slush pile and then pass on anything interesting. The round table then goes on to assess the value of spending money on the submission. This round table is where I'm thinking there should be more professional, experienced writers with a successful row of books in the market.