How Useless are Book Publishers in the Digital Age?

I'm a big fan of Matthew Yglesias at Vox, and he definitely caught my eye last week when he boldly declared that "Amazon is doing the world a favor by crushing book publishers."

The essence of his argument is that, in the old days of print books, publishers played a valuable economic role because they converted typewritten manuscripts into printed books and got them into the hands of distributors and retailers. The digital world is different because "transforming a writer's words into a readable e-book product can be done with a combination of software and a minimal amount of training."

Yglesias is not particularly subtle in his thesis: "In the brave new world of e-publishing . . . publishers are getting squeezed out because they don't contribute anything of value." Note that he's not saying publishers contribute less value than they use to but rather that they don't contribute anything of value at all.

Evan Hughes shot back with a defense of the publishing industry in The New Republic, offering the interesting analogy that "a publisher’s list of books is in essence a risk pool, a term most often associated with health insurance." Authors would be a lot worse off, he argues, without that insurance, and many great books wouldn't be have been created had a publisher not been willing to take a chance with an advance. They even publish things like poetry that aren't particularly profitable, using their more lucrative titles to cover the bills.

This, to me, isn't a particularly strong argument in support of publishers' value. There are any number of ways an author could fund his or her next project if getting money upfront was the main thing preventing him or her from getting a successful book to market: loans, for instance, or using new crowd-funding sites like Kickstarter, or an old trick many authors have long resorted to with some success—working a day job.

Publishers offer a lot more value than just advance funding, and I say this as an author who has both written for traditional publishers as well as self-published my own eBooks. Here's just a few valuable things they do:

• Working up front in the proposal stage to guide and shape the concept of the book. The mere process of trying to sell a book often helps refine and improve it.
• Providing set deadlines to encourage authors to actually finish the damn book (for me, this part is actually a huge value)
• Performing a range of editorial services: page editing, line editing, proofreading, index creation, etc. (though we fight like cats and dogs over that last one during contracting.)
• Graphic design: one of the key best practices for making eBook sell? Have a professional looking cover. It makes a big difference.
• Illustrations: novels don't need photos or illustrations, but many other types of books do. Publishers frequently pair authors up with photographers or illustrators and handle the work of sizing and getting the images ready for production, which takes time and skill even with all the great new software available to us.
• Typesetting and layout: sure, in the digital world this is a lot less important and difficult than in the print world, but formatting an eBook is still a lot of damn work, and it does take a certain level of technical skill, including HTML coding. There's a reason why there's an entire subindustry out there that sells services to help self-publishing authors format their eBooks.
• Sales: I know that we're moving to a digital world, but physical books are likely to remain with us for quite some time. Publishers still have field sales forces that work face-to-face with book buyers and retailers. And, depending upon what kind of books an author publishes, non-bookstore channels like retail chains, gift shops, and specialty stores can be a fairly good income stream for authors.
• Cachet & respect: A publisher's imprint is a significant endorsement, one that makes a book more likely to get noticed. Again, in an eBook world with reader reviews and rankings and lots of social networks for endorsing, this becomes less important, but it still has a lot of value to be able to say, for instance, "Random House is publishing my new book."  
• Publicity & marketing: Yglesias' case is at his weakest when he declares that "publishers are terrible at marketing," and that assertion is worth looking at in more detail.

Here's the case Yglesias makes for how we knows that publishers are bad at marketing:

• Authors always complain that publishers don't market their books well
• If publishers were any good at marketing then they would have a lot of leverage over Amazon instead of vice versa
• Authors may one day discover that they do have the power to market their own books. 

Wait, so authors do have the power to market their own books and they are also constantly whining about how their publishers are awful at it. So, how come more of them aren't out there doing it themselves?

Maybe it's because marketing your own book sort of sucks. Publishers may be lousy at marketing, but many authors (myself included) are even worse at it or, more to the point, don't really enjoy it and are happy to have someone else do it for them. Even the publisher that I think did the worst job of marketing one of my books managed to get review copies into the hands of dozens of publications and get it reviewed quite widely. Just the mailing alone is expensive and very time consuming. 

Will review copies matter when paper books go away all together? Emailing someone an eBook or PDF version seems far less likely to grab their attention than a nice, well-packaged book. I suspect that means packaging and gimmicks and buzz generation—a.k.a. good old PR and branding—will become increasingly important in the digital era.

And then there's writing press releases, and distributing them to the press (and figuring out the emails of everyone to send them to), and coordinating book tours. Authors despise book tours already, but how much more tiresome will they be when we have to make all the arrangements ourselves?

Book publishers, in other words, offer quite a bit of value to authors. The move to eBooks may be diminishing and changing that value, but it's a gross overstatement to say that publishers "don't contribute anything." 

Yglesias is absolutely spot on, though, in his point that the demise of hardcopy books—that is, the need to print and distribute physical books—changes the equation dramatically, just as the decline of printed newspapers and magazines is reshaping the equation within the news industry.

The really interesting question is what book publishers might look like in the future. Sure, an author today could conceivably go 100% eBook (passing up the not insubstantial slice of income that hardcopy books still generate) and pay a freelance editor to handle the editorial functions, a freelance photographer for illustrations, a graphics designer for cover and layout, and a PR person to do the marketing. That would involve not just finding and hiring and signing contracts but also paying and, possibly, firing those people, too. An author, in other words, could basically create his or own virtual publishing company and spend a awful lot of time doing all sort of things except for actually writing. 

It's true that many traditional book publishers don't do these things very well, particularly when it comes to producing and marketing eBooks in the new world of branding, social media, and in-person events. But, that just suggests that we are likely to see the rise of new, more agile, and more effective digital book publishers in the future, not the demise of the publishing function itself.