Big Publishing

John Scalzi, Science Fiction Writer, Signs $3.4 Million Deal for 13 Books

26 May 2015

From The New York Times:

John Scalzi, a best-selling author of science fiction, has signed a $3.4 million, 10-year deal with the publisher Tor Books that will cover his next 13 books.

Mr. Scalzi’s works include a series known as the “Old Man’s War” and the more recent “Redshirts,” a Hugo-award-winning sendup of the luckless lives of nonfeatured characters on shows like the original “Star Trek.” Three of his works are being developed for television, including “Redshirts” and “Lock In,” a science-inflected medical thriller that evokes Michael Crichton. Mr. Scalzi’s hyper-caffeinated Internet presence through his blog, Whatever, has made him an online celebrity as well.

Mr. Scalzi approached Tor Books, his longtime publisher, with proposals for 10 adult novels and three young adult novels over 10 years. Some of the books will extend the popular “Old Man’s War” series, building on an existing audience, and one will be a sequel to “Lock In.” Mr. Scalzi said he hoped books like “Lock In” could draw more readers toward science fiction, since many, he said, are still “gun-shy” about the genre.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden, the executive editor for Tor, said the decision was an easy one. While Mr. Scalzi has never had a “No. 1 best seller,” he said, “he backlists like crazy.”

. . . .

 He said Mr. Scalzi sells “a healthy five-figure number of his books every month,” and that he “hasn’t even begun to reach his full potential audience.”

Link to the rest at The New York Times and thanks to Karen and several others for the tip.

PG did a little arithmetic (always a dangerous thing).

$3.4 million is a lot of money, but divided between 13 books, it translates into an advance for Scalzi of about $222,700 per book after deducting his agent’s fees. Again, after agent’s fees, over ten years, he’s looking at $289,000 per year. Not shabby, but not breathtaking.

PG would have no difficulty naming a significant number of indie authors with higher annual incomes. Tradpub multi-book contracts typically divide a significant portion of the advance payments (sometimes all of them) into per-book payments as each book is published or accepted for publication, so, in terms of annual income, Scalzi is likely to average pretty close to  the $289K annual number over the course ten years of advance payments.

Tor says Scalzi sells “a healthy five-figure number of his books every month.”

Let’s look at a couple of possibilities for “healthy” and see how Scalzi would do if he sold a less-than-healthy five-figure number of books every month as an indie author.

If each of Scalzi’s 13 new indie books sell 1,00o ebook copies per month, that’s a total of 13,000 copies each month. (PG’s getting better at math all the time). Again, PG would have few problems naming a significant number of indie authors with much less name recognition than Scalzi who consistently average sales of more than 1,000 copies per title each month.

To make the math easier, we’ll assume that, instead of taking the Tor contract, Scalzi indie pubs his 13 ebooks and sells them on Amazon for $2.99 each.

At 1,000 books per title per month, these sales would generate about $327,000 per year in indie royalties for Scalzi (no agent necessary). If we increased the sales of these 13 books to a more-healthy five-figure annual total based on 2,000 copies per title per month, Scalzi would be looking at $653,000 per year in royalties. And, unlike advances, which will cut off after the last book is published, that $600K+ per year won’t fall off a cliff after ten years.

Now certainly Scalzi’s indie income would start smaller and serious indie income would be back-loaded while presumably the advance income he will receive from Tor will be more front-loaded with Scalzi receiving payments from Tor before the books are sold. Performing any sort of front-loaded vs. back-loaded analysis is definitely beyond PG’s meager math skills.

However, if “healthy five-figure monthly sales” are 40,000 or 50,000 or 60,000 per month, indie royalties blow past the Tor advance like a buttered bullet.

The Scalzi/Tor advance was big enough to generate an article in the Sunday New York Times, but compared to the earnings of similarly-talented indie authors, PG says it’s not very impressive.

To be clear, PG bears no animus toward Mr. Scalzi and wishes him the best of luck and booming sales with Tor. However, having recently discussed royalties with a number of successful indies who don’t have Scalzi’s name recognition, PG says the indie path is far more lucrative.

 

Writing by Committee

26 May 2015

From Kristine Kathryn Rusch:

I had a shudder moment yesterday. While researching something else, I read a New York Times interview on leadership with Gina Centrello, president and publisher of Random House Publishing Group. (No, she’s not the head of Random House. Just a section of it.)

She mentions the importance of teamwork in the publishing industry. She’s running a huge section of a major company. Of course there needs to be a team, and of course, the team needs to work toward a common goal.

In the article, she says some of the right things about writers, like:

Authors are fascinating people, and as a publisher, your job is to make their work public

Okay, that’s simplistic, but this is an interview, and one thing about interviews is that the interview’s subject has to simplify major concepts to be clear.

But the article bothered me, not from a business perspective, or even from what’s on the page. Just based on some things bestselling writers have told me about working for Random Penguin. This paragraph bothered me in particular:

Our group is composed of a ton of stars, but they’re part of this bigger galaxy. If you want to be a solo artist, you’re probably not going to be happy in our group. If anyone doesn’t succeed here, that’s usually why.

Again, she’s talking about working inside the publishing company. When you’re dealing with that many employees and a division as large as the one she manages, having an outlier employee might be a problem. (It might also be a boon, but that’s another article.)

However, that line: If you want to be a solo artist, you’re probably not going to be happy… kept reverberating for me. Because novelists are by definition solo artists.

. . . .

I do read bestsellers—generally, though, I started reading these writers before they became bestsellers—and many of their latest works have become frighteningly predictable.

Some are predictable in the way that writers become predictable once you’ve read a lot of their work. I was the annoying twelve-year-old who read every one of Agatha Christie’s mysteries (in a month) until I saw the pattern: the killer was always the person with the little or no motivation to commit the murder. Murder on the Orient Express was the one that made me quit because… SPOILER…

I had this thought as I read, “No one has a motive. She wouldn’t have all of them do it, would she?”

Turns out I was right.

END SPOILER (although, really, if you don’t know this one by now, you’re clearly not a mystery reader or a movie fan).

All writers have patterns, and sometimes, if you binge-read, you learn what those patterns are.

Those patterns are unique to the writer, so if you only read a few of the writer’s works, you’ll never see the pattern at all.

The patterns that have been kicking me out of so many bestsellers these days aren’t unique to the writers. The patterns aren’t even unique.

They’re storytelling patterns—familiar ones. The kind that tell me if the writer does A, then B will follow. A writer’s job isn’t to move from A to B. It’s to move from A to M, then back to E, and maybe all the way to Z before ending with L.

A lot of these authors specifically thank their “team” for help with the writing experience. Most writers have trusted readers, usually unfamiliar names to the rest of us. These unfamiliar names are friends and family, people who may not be in publishing at all.

But the writers I’m mentioning? They thank their publishing team for the help with the storytelling.

Since I started the blog on publishing six years ago, a lot of #1 New York Times bestsellers contacted me privately to talk with me about indie publishing. Many of these bestsellers had “retired” and all of them, to a person, mentioned the lack of respect at their Big 5 publishing house.

It seemed to these writers that the Big 5 publishing team thought they knew what sold better than the writer did. As one romance writer said to me, “Maybe they do know what sells well. But I became a bestseller without their help, and they have nothing to add creatively. They just want me to dumb things down.”

That romance writer retired, left her publisher, and now has left retirement to publish on her own. Her fans are happy, and so is she.

. . . .

A bestselling mystery writer told me that his treatment the last several years with his Big 5 publisher was so disheartening he thought he’d never write again. Again, he was told he didn’t know what sold and that he had to write the way that the company told him to, so that he could sell his books. Like the romance writer, he got angry. He’d sold a lot of books before these editor/publishers had even had a career in publishing.

So, rather than deal with that, he retired.

But he couldn’t stop writing. Also like the romance writer, he revived his career and his passion for writing by self-publishing.

. . . .

Corporate publishing has changed the game. With the emphasis on quarterly profits, the decline in a real sales staff, and the lack of institutional memory (due to so many in-house layoffs), the folks who work in traditional publishing are trying to make a fast buck by selling sure-thing products.

The problem here isn’t just with the publishers. It’s also with the writers who acquiesce. I know how seductive it is to have someone tell you what to do with your writing.

Even strong personalities, like the writer whose work I just quit reading forever and ever, can be seduced with the right language.

Your fans expect you to have a strong romance

Your fans won’t like a graphic murder scene

Your fans read your work for comfort; this book isn’t comforting

And so on.

Writers in these situations will often say that they and their agent are partners or that they and their editor will hone the book into the best book it can be.

But they’re wrong. And that’s why the books are starting to sound the same. The suggestion that the writer who is still with the Big 5 company received from her publisher  was so trite as to be the kind of cliché that movie-goers make fun of.

Big 5 publishers are patterning their business on the Hollywood model in a variety of ways. They want blockbusters, so they’re demanding that their writers produce blockbusters according to formula, even in original work. (Tie-ins are another matter; the writer is under contract to produce formula.)

. . . .

Last month, I spoke to a long-time bestseller who told me (like so many other bestsellers) that he doesn’t have time to deal with business or publishing his own work. He doesn’t deal with business now—his agent and his business manager do, so he can just write books.

I found myself wondering how much money his assistants helped themselves to over the years. But I’m too polite to ask questions like that in public. Usually I don’t say a lot to people when they tell me in person that they’re too busy as writers to handle things like finances. Sometimes I can’t shut up, though, as in the case last year of a writer who told me how much she adored the agency that represents her. It’s one of two that I caught embezzling from me.

. . . .

Some committees do work well together—a very creative writers’ room in a television series, for example—but most do not.

And no committee composed of business types can help on the creative end. That’s why the suggestions coming from the suits are usually mediocre and why suggestions based on an assumed fan/audience expectation are bad.

Audiences expect to be entertained, but the entertainment should be unique to the entertainer. That’s you, writers. I know it’s scary, but the best writers work without a net.

Many, many, many bestselling authors tell the sales force or the publisher/president to take a flying leap when the suits make suggestions that put the suits directly inside the creative process. Many of the bestsellers who “retired” did so because they didn’t want to deal with that ridiculous attitude any longer, and those bestsellers retired before indie publishing became an option.

Once it became an option, these writers embraced it. Their sales are at the same level (or better) than they were when the writers were with their traditional publishers, and the writers are making a lot more money.

Link to the rest at Kristine Kathryn Rusch and thanks to Linda for the tip.

Here’s a link to Kristine Kathryn Rusch’s books

PG says the consolidation of publishing into a handful of big conglomerates is death for creativity. The corporate mentality invariably runs to something like “Give me another Hunger Games” or “We’re looking for the next Fifty Shades.”

Whatever generated that big quarter last year is what the suits want to do again this year. In their perfect world, the publisher would release one huge book every quarter, quarter after quarter. Think of how much excess headcount you could cut with a business model like that.

 

BookCon Opens Its Arms to TV Stars, Erotica

23 May 2015

From The Wall Street Journal:

YouTube star Joey Graceffa, Hollywood personality Mindy Kaling, and best-selling authors John Green and James Patterson will mingle with fans at BookCon next weekend as publishers court their most dedicated readers.

BookCon made its debut in 2014 with a single day of activities aimed at readers of all ages and fans of all genres. This year, show organizer Reed Exhibitions, operating through its ReedPOP consumer group, has expanded to two days at New York’s Javits Center and expects to draw 15,000 to 20,000 attendees.

This is the literary cousin of New York Comic Con, which ReedPOP also oversees. Don’t expect people parading around in their favorite superhero costumes, but show organizers say there will be plenty of giveaways and early looks at fall titles. On Sunday, for example, show goers will be able to buy an advance copy of Judy Blume’s new adult novel “In the Unlikely Event” ahead of its June 2 publication date.

The publishing industry is betting that allowing a select group to get an early look will generate lots of online buzz. “Seeing a title pop up on a social network is how many readers discover titles,” said Paul Bogaards, a spokesman for Alfred A. Knopf, an imprint of Penguin Random House, which is publishing Ms. Blume’s book. “BookCon will amplify awareness for Judy’s book as well as her upcoming tour events.”

. . . .

The decision to expand the show to two days instead of one comes as publishers are increasingly using Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram and other social media to market their new titles. As the number of Barnes & Noble Inc.’s consumer stores continues to shrink—there were 649 at the close of its fiscal third quarter ended Jan. 31, compared with 663 in the year-earlier quarter—building stronger direct reader ties becomes more important.

. . . .

“Publishers are committed to improving direct contact but it’s a tough go,” said Jim Milliot, editorial director of Publishers Weekly. One challenge, he said, is that few readers actually know the names of the publishers of the books they read.

Link to the rest at The Wall Street Journal (Link may expire)

Authors Guild warns authors over contributing online articles for free

23 May 2015

From The Bookseller:

Writers are contributing to the fall in their incomes by penning free pieces for large companies in the hope that it will raise their profile and lead to book sales, Roxana Robinson, president of The Authors Guild, has told The Bookseller. She also said that Amazon was devaluing books and writing.

Robinson right, a novelist and short story writer who has also written a biography of artist Georgia O’Keeffe, has been president of The Authors Guild—the US equivalent of the Society of Authors—since March 2014. She said that “it is clear that writers’ incomes are declining”, claiming a drop in the number of people reading books and “struggles over royalty and prices” were among the reasons for lower incomes.

“Amazon discounting book prices means that there is a movement toward devaluing books,” she said. “And I think that has an impact on the way people look at writing. If Amazon keeps pricing e-books at very, very low prices, people start feeling, ‘well, actually, writing isn’t a valuable product’.”

. . . .

Robinson said The Authors Guild would not advise any author to stop writing for publications, but argued that an article by an author on a website may not lead to book sales. “I don’t know that anyone has figures on sales that result from this kind of writing (for free),” she said. “Everyone says, ‘get your name out there’, but does that really translate to connecting to the hard mental presence of the book? We want writers to recognise what is happening, to be aware of this trend, that writers themselves are contributing to the idea that their writing doesn’t deserve to be paid for.”

. . . .

Reflecting on the 2014 dispute over terms between Hachette Book Group (HBG) in the US and Amazon, which led to books by HBG authors not being discounted or available for pre-order, Robinson said it was “interesting, if a little disappointing” to see a split between authors.

“Independent publishing is an increasingly important option for authors,” she said. “The Authors Guild embraces and supports any published writer who wants to join us, including, of course, independently published authors. We do not like to see a split in the author community between self-published and traditionally published authors, but the Amazon/Hachette dispute did show a divide—at least from a group of independently published authors who distribute through Amazon—and that’s kind of problematic.”

. . . .

But Robinson conceded that for some authors the Amazon experience can be positive, although she warned writers that she thought the online retailer was not “in the business of supporting independently published writers”.

Link to the rest at The Bookseller and thanks to Dave for the tip.

.

Major Publishers Are Not Listening to Authors

23 May 2015

From GoodEreader:

The dream for many aspiring writers is to be picked up by a major publisher. This is often seen as the key to international distribution and being able to attain a fat advance in order to write a single or series of books. According to a recent report, there are many problems with traditional publishing and is driving authors to self-publish instead.

One of the big problems in the traditional publishing industry is that the major publishers simply don’t have time to talk to their authors. They are more concerned hyping up the next big novel and making sure the business is making money.

The average traditionally published author has found it difficult to love their publisher. A recent surveyconducted by Harry Bingham and Jane Friedman polled 812 writers in the UK and US. It found that 75% of responding authors said they have never been asked for feedback from their publisher and 28% said communication from their publisher before, during, and after publication was inconsistent, confusing or always poor.

. . . .

“It’s odd, isn’t it? You buy a book from Amazon and it’ll ask you to rate the packaging. You publish a book with a major publishing house . . . and no one asks you to rate anything. According to our stats, 74% of authors aren’t asked to give feedback at all, while only 16% felt that they were asked for feedback in a manner which allowed them “to communicate freely”.

Link to the rest at GoodEreader and thanks to SFR for the tip.

Amazon’s U.K. Contract With Top Book Publisher Penguin Random House Set to Expire

23 May 2015

From re/code:

Will Amazon’s contract negotiations with the last of the “Big Five” consumer book publisher be its toughest?

The e-commerce giant’s deal to sell books on its U.K. website published by Penguin Random House, the world’s largest book publisher, is set to expire by the end of the month, according to an Amazon source. If the two sides don’t come to a new agreement by the deadline, Amazon could pull all Penguin Random House print and e-books from its U.K. online store, Amazon.co.uk.

Such a move would be costly to both sides. The publishing house accounts for about 40 percent of all consumer book titles sold worldwide, according to industry experts. Amazon’s book selection in the U.K. would look a lot thinner if it pulled all of those titles.

At the same time, Amazon is by far the biggest sales channel for e-books for the “Big Five” book publishers, so a ban in the U.K. of Penguin Random House books by the Seattle retailer would inflict pain. The contract between the two sides related to Amazon sales in the U.S. is set to expire later this year, the source said.

Link to the rest at re/code and thanks to Joshua for the tip.

No, Not Anyone Can Write a Good Book

21 May 2015

From The Daily Beast:

I went into book publishing for the same reason I suspect most people are drawn to the field: I loved books and dreamed of one day writing my own. I started as an editorial intern and transitioned to publicity in academic publishing, small independent presses, and finally the big leagues: the Random House Publishing Group.

By day I’d stuff galleys (or advance copies of a book, in industry-speak) into envelopes, craft press releases, and leave prattling messages while trying to hide the tremble in my voice to newspaper editors who deliberately screened calls from book publicists like me. By night I’d scribble pages toward a novel turned memoir turned essay collection and back to a novel again—a racket that went on for five years before I finally quit publishing to pursue my MFA (and had to scrap that nebulous manuscript and start afresh).

It’s not uncommon to see industry professionals making the leap from publishing to published. Toni Morrison famously edited Random House authors before becoming one herself.

. . . .

“There’s a sense of solidarity in the work that remains the same today, though the business has changed enormously in all sorts of ways. But it’s still absolutely Us Against the World.”

But the same impetus that led me to publishing was the reason that I decided to leave. In an interview on The Days of Yore, Harrison says, “When you work in publishing, you can spend an endless amount of time working. You take work home. After I had been doing it for about six months, my husband said, ‘This is really stupid. You spend all your time working on other people’s writing, but you’re not getting any done yourself. I want you to change that.’”

. . . .

Former Vintage and Columbia University Press editor Peter Dimock also describes the moment he vowed to go full-steam with his own writing—no matter how long it took. After a phone editing session with one of his authors, he suddenly felt “a surge of bitterness and resentment that came close to rage. I realized I was jealous because no one was doing for me what I was doing for him—and that was what I most wanted.”

Having worked in the business made me think I knew how the sausage factory was run, but in continuing with this oft-used publishing metaphor, I knew nothing about raising the pig from which the sausage was made. As difficult as it was to publish and promote books in a shrinking market, I soon learned it was that much harder to write one in the first place.

. . . .

I found the writing life to be lonely; it requires large blocks of time and depletes your mental reserves. You no longer have the security—or prestige—of an office job, nor the benefits that come with a steady paycheck. For years I took odd jobs carved around those writing blocks with nothing to show for my glacial novel progress, while I watched my publishing colleagues rise through the ranks. I’ve even bagged the groceries of some of them, which I’ll admit is a bit of an awkward experience.

It’s rather surreal for me now to be on the reverse end of the process, as a published novelist. I have a deep appreciation for the efforts of my publicists at Pamela Dorman Books/Viking, but I also recognize the irony of becoming the annoying author who sends them ten emails a day. I remember when I was once in their place—fielding those pesky messages, venting over drinks with colleagues. I hope I’m nothing more than a cameo in those happy hour conversations.

Link to the rest at The Daily Beast and thanks to Des for the tip.

My personal list of what should be top-of-mind for publishers around digital change today

20 May 2015

From veteran publishing consultant Mike Shatzkin:

What are the most important digital change issues publishers face?

. . . .

1. Ebook pricing. Publishers get anywhere from 50-to-70 percent of the retail price from most ebook retailers. Unlike the print world, where price-setting must take place before the book comes out and is, because the price is printed on the book, very hard to adjust, ebook prices can be changed quickly and frequently.

Pricing variation has historically been the province of the retailer. In the physical world, markdowns were almost never shared: the retailer voluntarily gave away part of their margin to gain market share or to build customer loyalty.

In the agency world that four of the Big Five have now created (with Penguin Random House almost certain to follow on), pricing is not only mostly controlled by publishers, they are the direct beneficiaries of higher prices and lose margin if prices are lowered.

It is true — and the indie authors who like it better when Amazon is in control rather than the publishers often point this out — that publishers have almost no experience with pricing and the impact of changes. But it is also true that the retailers, who do have more experience with it, have different objectives than publishers. Retailers want a competitive advantage against other retailers and, as part of that, they want to build customer loyalty. Publishers want to maximize revenue for each SKU, build awareness of authors, and use one book by an author or in a series to sell other titles under the same brand.

Publishers are starting very near zero on knowledge. How does discounting one title in a series affect the audience’s likelihood of getting started with it and then buying other titles at higher prices? If a book is in the news, is the right strategy to raise the price (to maximize revenue) or to lower the price (to get better market penetration on the back of the news). And is the strategy the same if the story is about the book, rather than the book being about the story? Do pricing strategies need seasonality rules, and how is that different across genres or topics?

. . . .

7. Allocating effort across a large backlist. The biggest opportunity and the biggest challenge for publishers, as they have historically operated and as they are currently structured, is maximizing their opportunities across their backlists. The big houses are dealing with many tens of thousands of titles. We advocate techniques that require some human application so scale techniques have to be used to pinpoint the titles worth an effort.

Although we are developing tools to help digest the external cues that might affect where the focus should be — cues from the news and social graph — each publisher has to start with a combination of knowledge of the list, intuition, and a sense that sales can be improved to pick those titles worth reviewing for better audience understanding and descriptive copy improvement. Almost certainly, titles that are more than a couple of years old will need work for several reasons: the house knew so little about SEO when copy was written; time will have changed the search terms that matter; and reviews and awards and other things from the book’s experience in the marketplace might need to be incorporated.

Link to the rest at The Shatzkin Files

Will Author Solutions Case Go Class Action?

19 May 2015

From Publishers Weekly:

Federal judge Denise Cote could soon decide whether the ongoing case against self-publishing service provider Author Solutions will go forward as a class action. In the latest round of briefs, attorneys for the plaintiff authors argue that a common question sits at the core of the case, and merits action class status: “Did [Author Solutions] engage in a fraudulent scheme to sell authors worthless marketing services?” But in a reply motion filed last week, Author Solutions attorneys claim the case is without merit, and falls short of the requirements for class certification.

Notably, the latest round of briefs details an evolving case, including a “shifting roster” of author plaintiffs, and a narrowing of the case from the the initial complaint. First filed in spring of 2013, the initial suit alleged that Author Solutions misrepresents itself as an independent publisher, luring authors in, and then profiting from deceptive and fraudulent practices, including “delaying publication, publishing manuscripts with errors to generate fees, failing to pay royalties, and up-selling ‘worthless services’ to authors.”

. . . .

 At the heart of the case is an alleged “deceptive” scheme to lure authors in with promises of sales and marketing exposure, when the “primary goal” is not to sell books, the plaintiffs argue, but to “sell services and books back to authors.” In filings, attorneys for the authors paint a picture of Author Solutions “consultants” with little or no publishing experience, selling “worthless” services to unsuspecting authors. “[Author Solutions], as part of a company-wide policy, hides from consumers that it is a telemarketing operation,” plaintiff attorneys argue, “with no stake in the quality or retail success of its authors’ books.”

Link to the rest at Publishers Weekly

Royalties and industry image debated at PA a.g.m

15 May 2015

From The Bookseller:

Publishers should start to spread money from the sale of e-books fairly between themselves and authors, and not make assumptions when they start to experiment with new channels that “an author is going to be thrilled with it”, Association of Authors’ Agents president Sam Edenborough has warned.

Speaking at The Publishers Association AGM on Wednesday (13th) on a panel about changing the perception of publishing, Edenborough said that authors often viewed publishers, no matter what their size, as “massive, implacable things they can’t really deal with”. To change that perception, publishers needed to communicate more frequently with authors.

Edenborough added: “I think that the best way to keep authors happy as publishers is to be fair in the way you deal with them.

“What we’re seeing at the moment as agents is publishers wanting more rights and to take more of the author’s property and to try and put it in as many different places as possible, but they want to pay less money and don’t necessarily want to increase the royalties in certain areas. And I think unfortunately, and I know you’re sick of hearing this from agents, but it’s a massive problem. And it’s not just an agent’s problem, it’s an author’s problem.

“It’s been a long time since now you started publishing e-books and we’re not seeing a shift in how the money is being spread around.”

. . . .

“The other thing is don’t make assumptions when you start to experiment with new channels that an author is going to be thrilled with it,” Edenborough said. “It’s a really good idea to ask first then do it later, rather than just assuming you probably have those rights and it would be alright probably to bung the book into a subscription service or into a library.”

. . . .

Alice Bonasio of Elsevier, who is a member of The PA’s communications task force said that a “major challenge” in publishing was “that in such an established industry people have perceptions of what publishing is, what it stands for, how it operates”.

“Whether they’re true or not doesn’t matter,” she added, saying that there were good stories about innovation in publishing, and that more needed to be done to get these stories heard.

Link to the rest at The Bookseller and thanks to Diana for the tip.

Next Page »