Comments - Clash of the Titans - CrimeSpace2024-03-28T23:00:40Zhttp://crimespace.ning.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=537324%3ABlogPost%3A225995&xn_auth=noJon, on the question of level…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2010-02-03:537324:Comment:2261132010-02-03T21:45:20.717ZNeil Nyrenhttp://crimespace.ning.com/profile/NeilNyren
Jon, on the question of levels, we use a number of different criteria: our experiences with the author (if we've published him before), our experiences with books of a similar nature, other publishers' experiences with books of a similar nature, and then a host of other factors, including timing, special hooks in the book, special hooks in the author's bio -- anything that might make a difference. Several months before publication (for instance, we're busy planning Fall 2010's titles now), we…
Jon, on the question of levels, we use a number of different criteria: our experiences with the author (if we've published him before), our experiences with books of a similar nature, other publishers' experiences with books of a similar nature, and then a host of other factors, including timing, special hooks in the book, special hooks in the author's bio -- anything that might make a difference. Several months before publication (for instance, we're busy planning Fall 2010's titles now), we have a series of meetings and all the departments get together -- editorial, sales, publicity, sub rights, promotion, etc. We pool our knowledge and, based on what I've described, we settle on where we think the book is likely to come in.<br />
<br />
That doesn't mean that figure is graven in stone, though. A lot can happen between those meetings and publication -- publicity breaks, great advance reviews or quotes, feedback from the accounts -- and so we keep reviewing where we are and often that means adjusting the get-out higher (or, sadly, sometimes lower). And then when the book is actually pubbed, we keep a constant watch on what's happening, to be able to take advantage quickly of any movement. These days, the keys are flexibility and rapid-response.<br />
<br />
That isn't to say that we're always right, of course, even with all that. When I speak at writers' conferences, I often regale them with stories about high-profile books that went storming out into the market and then promptly fell flat on their faces; and other books that crept up stealthily and astonished everybody. Because that's one of the things I love about this business: It's still unpredictable. No matter how many business people and conglomerates enter the picture, there are still things that can't be computerized. Each book is still a separate product, each purchase a separate decision, and except for certain guaranteed books and authors, which are always with us, what a reader will buy is sometimes still a mystery. People will buy pure tripe while ignoring works of art. They will also ignore strongly-hyped so-called commercial books while making marvelous writers into bestsellers. There is still the capacity to surprise, and who would want it any other way?<br />
<br />
Dana, briefly (because I've already gone on too long), I probably shouldn't have said "nonexistent," because in truth every book, no matter how small, has something. They're given a spot in the catalogue, they're sent out for review to all the appropriate places (which these days includes online), and on the pb side, solicitation jackets are made up. But if a book's going to have a small printing, that doesn't throw off much money for promotion -- we budget book by book. Just because someone thought it MUST be published doesn't mean it necessarily has a big market. So the emphasis will be on review coverage and word of mouth (whether print or online) and whatever can be done cheaply, with the goal being to try to establish enough of a base, so that the next book can start off larger. Pearlstein's chat has ended;…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2010-02-03:537324:Comment:2260942010-02-03T17:10:22.917ZDana Kinghttp://crimespace.ning.com/profile/DanaKing
Pearlstein's chat has ended; the transcript is available. Mots of the quesitons were about the iPad, but there was one salient exchange that is of interest to this group:<br />
<br />
McLean, Va.: So the introduction of competition into the electronic book reader marketplace has the effect of ... higher prices to the consumer? I demand that the FTC get involved and reinstate the monopoly!<br />
<br />
Steven Pearlstein: Selling something below cost isn't a sustainable model. Now, in fact, you could argue it wasn't…
Pearlstein's chat has ended; the transcript is available. Mots of the quesitons were about the iPad, but there was one salient exchange that is of interest to this group:<br />
<br />
McLean, Va.: So the introduction of competition into the electronic book reader marketplace has the effect of ... higher prices to the consumer? I demand that the FTC get involved and reinstate the monopoly!<br />
<br />
Steven Pearlstein: Selling something below cost isn't a sustainable model. Now, in fact, you could argue it wasn't below cost at $9.99 because Amazon also attributed some of the revenue from the sale of each Kindle to the sale of the subsequent books -- deferred revenue. So the real cost was more than $9.999, it is just that some of it was hidden in the kindle. In which case, of course, the actual price didn't rise and you have no complaint and no reason to call the FTC.<br />
In fact, what the FTC should be looking into is the potential collusion among all the publishers to "set" the price of e-books at $15. They didn't get in a room and collude but they colluded through their new "agent", Apple, with one following the lead of the other. It's an old story that we've seen many times over the years in many industries. But at the least the FTC should put these folks on notice that any attempt to fix the retail price (as opposed to setting a standard agency percentage fee) would be suspect if it appeared they were acting in concert. I want to piggyback onto Jon…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2010-02-03:537324:Comment:2260882010-02-03T15:55:28.911ZDana Kinghttp://crimespace.ning.com/profile/DanaKing
I want to piggyback onto Jon Loomis's comment below about promotion. Neil, you admit some writers get small to non-existent promotion. I have to wonder why the book was published at all, if it's not going to be promoted. If someone thought it MUST be published, what was the point of printing them up and leaving them on their own?
I want to piggyback onto Jon Loomis's comment below about promotion. Neil, you admit some writers get small to non-existent promotion. I have to wonder why the book was published at all, if it's not going to be promoted. If someone thought it MUST be published, what was the point of printing them up and leaving them on their own? Six and eleven seem like very…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2010-02-03:537324:Comment:2260842010-02-03T15:26:15.676ZJohn Dishonhttp://crimespace.ning.com/profile/whiteskwirl
Six and eleven seem like very reasonable numbers to me. G.P. Putnam's Sons is only one imprint of the Penguin Group USA, which, according to Wikipedia, has an unholy number of imprints. If they're all publishing say, five new authors a year, then that's a lot of new authors. And then you have the other big publishers doing the same. If anything, that's too many being published. I read somewhere that 172,000 new books were published in the U.S. in 2005.<br />
<br />
At least we're not filmmakers. According…
Six and eleven seem like very reasonable numbers to me. G.P. Putnam's Sons is only one imprint of the Penguin Group USA, which, according to Wikipedia, has an unholy number of imprints. If they're all publishing say, five new authors a year, then that's a lot of new authors. And then you have the other big publishers doing the same. If anything, that's too many being published. I read somewhere that 172,000 new books were published in the U.S. in 2005.<br />
<br />
At least we're not filmmakers. According to the MPAA, in 2008, only 610 films were released domestically. Agreed , Neil; rant ended. I'…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2010-02-03:537324:Comment:2260832010-02-03T15:01:12.986ZB.R.Statehamhttp://crimespace.ning.com/profile/BRStateham
Agreed , Neil; rant ended. I'm stepping down from my soap box and going to the kitchen to make me a salami sandwich.
Agreed , Neil; rant ended. I'm stepping down from my soap box and going to the kitchen to make me a salami sandwich. Hi Neil,
Usually when you're…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2010-02-03:537324:Comment:2260822010-02-03T14:35:22.330ZJon Loomishttp://crimespace.ning.com/profile/JonLoomis
Hi Neil,<br />
<br />
Usually when you're on the board I try to keep my mouth shut and listen, figuring I might learn something--and this has, indeed, been very enlightening. One thing you said just now piqued my curiosity: "It all depends on the level of the book." What does that mean, exactly? I mean, it's obvious that publishers have to establish a kind of hierarchy in order to figure out the best places to spend those scarce promotional dollars, but what kind of criteria are you looking for? What are…
Hi Neil,<br />
<br />
Usually when you're on the board I try to keep my mouth shut and listen, figuring I might learn something--and this has, indeed, been very enlightening. One thing you said just now piqued my curiosity: "It all depends on the level of the book." What does that mean, exactly? I mean, it's obvious that publishers have to establish a kind of hierarchy in order to figure out the best places to spend those scarce promotional dollars, but what kind of criteria are you looking for? What are the qualities of a potential best-seller, and how do you know a "small" book will be a small book before it's even released?<br />
<br />
Thanks for your time. Fascinating as always. B.R., my post said the six an…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2010-02-03:537324:Comment:2260812010-02-03T14:27:05.164ZNeil Nyrenhttp://crimespace.ning.com/profile/NeilNyren
B.R., my post said the six and eleven were all first novels. There was new nonfiction, too, of course, as well as many small/medium second and third novels. The point is that we're all very far from the immensely tired cliche of bestselling mega authors only. I know it's a popular whine, and, yes, Dana, I read the blogs, too, but it's simply not true.<br />
<br />
It's also not true that all the new writers get small to non-existent promotion. Some do, yes, no question. Others get a lot. Others get…
B.R., my post said the six and eleven were all first novels. There was new nonfiction, too, of course, as well as many small/medium second and third novels. The point is that we're all very far from the immensely tired cliche of bestselling mega authors only. I know it's a popular whine, and, yes, Dana, I read the blogs, too, but it's simply not true.<br />
<br />
It's also not true that all the new writers get small to non-existent promotion. Some do, yes, no question. Others get a lot. Others get in-between. It all depends on the level of the book. We launch new writers all the time because that's where the prize-winners and best-sellers of tomorrow come from. If "everything you hear" is true, how do you account for THE HELP? HOTEL ON THE CORNER OF BITTER AND SWEET? BEAT THE REAPER? THE PIANO TEACHER? Among many other first novels that were very successful last year.<br />
<br />
And, yes, Eric is right: "Good enough" to get published isn't good enough. It has to be (in our judgment, which of course is subjective and varies from house to house) a book that rises above the crowd, that has something extra on it, that makes an editor think, "I MUST publish this book." By and large, "good enough" simply means "mediocre."<br />
<br />
Sure, plenty of mediocre books are, in fact, published. I read stuff all the time that makes me wonder what the publisher was thinking. But somewhere there was an editor who said, "I MUST publish this book." That's where the subjectivity comes in. I'm sure you love stuff I would never read. I'm sure I love stuff you would never read.<br />
<br />
And, B.R., let me politely point out that you are incorrect: "Colluding" is exactly what it would be.<br />
<br />
End of rant. The Washington Post's Steven…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2010-02-03:537324:Comment:2260782010-02-03T14:08:36.424ZDana Kinghttp://crimespace.ning.com/profile/DanaKing
The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein discusses the Amazon/Macmillan controversy in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203910.html" target="_blank">today's column</a>. His weekly chat takes place at 11:00 this morning. (Wednesday.) Questions may be submitted in advance by using the link at the bottom of today's column. Pearlstein's chats are always educational and he's happy to address all comers.
The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein discusses the Amazon/Macmillan controversy in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203910.html" target="_blank">today's column</a>. His weekly chat takes place at 11:00 this morning. (Wednesday.) Questions may be submitted in advance by using the link at the bottom of today's column. Pearlstein's chats are always educational and he's happy to address all comers. The odds of success in the ar…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2010-02-03:537324:Comment:2260612010-02-03T06:51:34.540ZEric Christophersonhttp://crimespace.ning.com/profile/datahog
The odds of success in the arts are always long, B.R., often very long indeed. I remember feeling proud of myself when, years ago, I got acceptance letters from an Ivy league school and from (what is now my alma mater) Duke, but that was kid's play compared to acceptance by a major publisher, a goal I've yet to achieve though I'm at work on my fourth manuscript.<br />
<br />
Love to hear from Neil on this, but I doubt that a thumbs up from a major imprint is ever simply a matter of whether a writer is…
The odds of success in the arts are always long, B.R., often very long indeed. I remember feeling proud of myself when, years ago, I got acceptance letters from an Ivy league school and from (what is now my alma mater) Duke, but that was kid's play compared to acceptance by a major publisher, a goal I've yet to achieve though I'm at work on my fourth manuscript.<br />
<br />
Love to hear from Neil on this, but I doubt that a thumbs up from a major imprint is ever simply a matter of whether a writer is "good enough" to be published; the saleability of the work must be key too. In fact I once heard a literary agent say that he thought about 90% of newbie authors doomed their chances of publication at the conceptual stage. Neil--let me politely point o…tag:crimespace.ning.com,2010-02-03:537324:Comment:2260602010-02-03T05:01:06.778ZB.R.Statehamhttp://crimespace.ning.com/profile/BRStateham
Neil--let me politely point out the 'collusion' by legal definition, is an act between two or more parties meeting secretly to defraud or a third party. An open agreement between publishers stating the reasons why bookstore chains had to stock new writers along with best selling writers would not, in my opinion, be collusion.<br />
<br />
Insurance companies openly set parameters mutually agreed upon. Other industries do the same.<br />
<br />
And let me point out that last year, by your own words, your house put out…
Neil--let me politely point out the 'collusion' by legal definition, is an act between two or more parties meeting secretly to defraud or a third party. An open agreement between publishers stating the reasons why bookstore chains had to stock new writers along with best selling writers would not, in my opinion, be collusion.<br />
<br />
Insurance companies openly set parameters mutually agreed upon. Other industries do the same.<br />
<br />
And let me point out that last year, by your own words, your house put out six new writers. Six. Just six. For the entire year. And how many of them were fiction writers? And this year. . . only eleven. You mean to say that, out of all the writers there are out there, a mere eleven writers were good enough to crack into the market?