Re: Our "publish then filter" future...

Elizabeth K. Burton wrote:

> Jon,
> 
> I have to disagree. The model you describe is what makes it extremely
> difficult for non-mainstream publishers to place their books in venues
> where the people most likely to want them will find them: i.e.,
> bookstores, etc.

There seems to be a disconnect here. It would appear that you (and Ms. 
Gropen) want to have quite a different discussion that what Mr. Noring 
has proposed. I tend to agree with what you posted, but none of it 
contradicts Mr. Noring's suggestions, and most of it is only 
tangentially relevant.

Forgive the blatant over-simplification, but I read your post as saying, 
"creation of literary works (and here I include the entire range of 
effort from first draft to printer's proofs) is hard work, costs money, 
and is rarely done well."

OK, I can buy that. But I fail to see the relevance to the question at hand.

Theodore Sturgeon is created with pointing out that 90% of everything is 
crap, and Geoffrey James (author of one of my favorite books, "The Tao 
of Programming") has recently suggested that in the world of business 
books "the number is 99 percent, if not 99.9 percent." And this is for 
wood-pulp books which have gone through the process of being vetted by a 
publisher.

Setting aside the producer perspective (for the moment), and turning to 
the consumer's perspective, if 99% of all books written are crap (I'm 
assuming that 90% of what's published is crap, and 99.9% of what goes 
unpublished is crap), The consumer is faced with a very difficult 
proposition: how do I filter out the crap so that what I actually buy 
has a better than 50/50 chance of being not-crap?

Mr. Noring suggests that in the "old model" much of this filtering 
occurred at the publisher level. The filtering was two-fold: in the 
first instance, publisher's would not publish that which they believed 
they could not sell, forming a kind of first-tier quality control. 
Second, publishers tended to produce books in their particular niche. 
You could not get me to buy a Harlequin book no matter how good the 
writing; I just don't have that profound an ability to suspend my 
disbelief. This is good for both me and Harlequin: I know what to avoid, 
and those whose tastes differ from mine know where to go.

This filter was enforced by market forces. The capital costs of 
publishing (i.e. actual capital outlay, and not mere expenditure of 
effort) was high enough to be a barrier to entry to the amateur 
publisher, and to keep the professionals honest in their opinion as to 
quality (no "throw it against the wall, and see what sticks").

This is how the stigma attached to "Vanity" publishing came into being. 
By making the author totally responsible for entire capital costs of 
publication, the market forces which enforced the filter were obviated. 
We consumers want a judgment by an independent third-party with "skin in 
the game," because that's the only way we can be sure that the judgments 
are impartial.

Unfortunately, technology has caught up with the capital costs of 
publishing. With e-books it is now possible to "publish" a book with 
virtually no capital expenditure, and given POD technology even 
dead-tree books can be produced economically in lots as small as one. 
Further, maintenance of an e-commerce site is an order of magnitude less 
expensive than a single brick and mortar bookstore, and several orders 
of magnitude less expensive than maintaining a world-wide chain of 
bookstores.

This technological advance affects both sides of the capital equation. 
Barriers to entry for publishers have been reduced to a point where 
almost anyone can be a "publisher," and almost anyone can be a 
"bookseller." And because the new cost reductions apply equally to 
existing publishers, it becomes much more tempting for publishers to 
take the "spaghetti" approach to filtering. The net effect is that the 
traditional filtering methods that we have become accustomed to are 
becoming increasingly unreliable. From the consumer's point of view, 
/all/ publishing has become "Vanity" publishing. This is the "new" model.

Consumers are left in a quandary. How do we filter out the crap from the 
not-crap if we can no longer rely on publishers to do that for us?

Thus, Mr. Noring's quest for post-publication filters.

As I read the tea leaves, the biggest problem with the "new" model is 
that it is not necessarily better, but that it is inevitable. Ms. Gropen 
asserts that in the new model, "There will undoubtedly be a huge flood 
of dreck." She's right, of course, just as she's right that some gems 
which the "old" model would have saved will be lost in the flood. But 
that doesn't mean that the flood won't come. The economic props that 
supported the "old" model are no longer in place.

Clearly, traditional publication houses can play a role in the "new" 
model. I think that the best way for traditional publishers to retain 
their relevance is to re-cast themselves as bastions of quality. "When 
you buy a book published by ABC Publishing, you're guaranteed a good 
read." "Books from XYZ Tech can always be relied on to be clear, 
concise, and complete." This means both a change in the message and a 
recommitment to quality. (O'Reilly books are usually pretty good, Sams 
Publishing is iffy, at best. The value of reputation in the "new" model 
cannot be overstated.)

But we consumers know that we can't depend on traditional publishers to 
filter out all, or even most, of the crap. So we have to invent new 
filters. If those filters are so good that we can forgo the help of 
traditional publishers, so much the better.

One of the most intriguing post-publication filters to me are the social 
networking sites, such as LibraryThing (http://www.librarything.com/). 
If six of the books in Walter W. White's (not a real person) list of 
favorite books are also in my list of favorite books wouldn't I want to 
read some of the other books in his list?

One of the most interesting phenomenons I've seen is how requests in 
e-book newsgroups for e-book versions of popular (non-fiction) books 
spikes after the author has appeared on "The Daily Show with Jon 
Stewart" (sorry Stephen, you don't have the same draw as yet). And we 
all know the effect of Oprah's book club. Talk shows are obviously 
already a post-publication filter.

And speaking of e-book newsgroups, they are one of my favorite 
post-publication filters. When someone likes a book enough to scan, 
proof, and post it to a newsgroup it is probably a good enough book to 
deserve my attention, as are other books by the same author.

Blogs will probably also become a good source for post-publication 
filters. This could be an opportunity for Google: "Search for 
recommendations by bloggers (no booksellers) for a good mystery." It's 
possible that a book-review blog, supported by non-book related 
advertising, could even make a few bucks for its contributors (provided 
they can maintain their reputations).

I wonder about e-bookstores as filter mechanisms. Fictionwise allegedly 
rejects publications from individuals unless they have already published 
a certain number of books. I'm guessing that this is an attempt to 
maintain some sort of quality by relying on a supposedly impartial third 
party to determine viability (in the case of individuals, that impartial 
third party is the market itself). But what about internal reviewers 
that can label books for sale as meeting a certain standard? "If you buy 
a book from Fictionwise's Editor's Choice list you can be assured of a 
quality product." Presumably, this kind of choice should give an 
e-bookseller a competitive advantage.

Returning, as I promised, to the producer's perspective, writers have to 
ask the question, "how do I get past the filters?"

Of course, first and foremost is the requirement to produce a desirable 
product. If your writing sucks, you are beyond hope; deal with it.

Beyond that, get help wherever you can. If traditional publishers offer 
to carry you, that's great; but be sure you understand the cost/benefit 
tradeoff, as well as the risk/reward tradeoff, as Mr. Jeremy has discovered.

But most importantly, understand the filters and work with them. 
Self-publishing and trying to generate good blog-buzz may be more 
effective than trying to become a writer in Ace's stable.

And, of course, if anyone has some ideas about how we can profit from 
the new need for post-publication filters, feel free to share them with me.


------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Post a message:   ebook-community [[at]] *
Unsubscribe:      ebook-community-unsubscribe [[at]] *
Switch to digest: ebook-community-digest [[at]] *
Switch to normal: ebook-community-normal [[at]] *
Put mail on hold: ebook-community-nomail [[at]] *
Administrator:    ebook-community-owner [[at]] *

(* == yahoogroups.com)
-------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:ebook-community-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ebook-community-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/