The publishing industry has been ripe for disruption for quite some time now. The pieces of the puzzle are there. But still it remains very difficult for a talented writer to make a living without some kind of brick and mortar publishing house agreeing to represent that writer.
So, this problem is especially interesting from the POV of a writer / aspiring writer.
Historically, writers would snail-mail the first 1-3 chapters to various literary agencies or publishing houses, include SASE, and wait for the inevitable rejection. (And yes, they DID insist on snail mail; this I know from experience). Those few lucky writers who would land an agent to represent them would likely get an advance, and hope for decent first-run sales. The publishing house would be responsible for placement in book stores, contact/ promo with "Book of the Month" clubs, etc. And depending on how well that writer's debut novel did, the writer would either get another advance, or fade into obscurity. Any number of circumstances around a first run could make or break a writer.
No piece of this old model was friendly to writers. J.K. Rowling was (now famously) rejected by every publishing house she sent Harry Potter to. The agency (Bloomsbury) that eventually agreed to buy and publish it didn't take on significant risk, and yet it has profited insanely from the success of her talents. It could be debated that back then, yes -- there was some risk associated with editing and formatting and typesetting and printing a hard-copy book. An agency would be right to take a "cut". But, aside from editing what part of the "book manufacturing" process is actually necessary now?
At some level, literary agencies and publishing houses have to know, deep down, that their time as gatekeepers of literary evolution is coming to a close. But yet, they dig their heels in, and refuse to acknowledge that their costs are lower so their prices should be lower -- if there was any real competition going. Instead, they say, "our costs are lower so our profit should be higher" . . . and so far, it is working for them, because everybody in their industry has agreed to play by those rules. Writers sure aren't getting any more wealthy, but publishing houses are . . .
One of the main problems with agency relationships is that they totally mess with the risk:reward model. Travel agents, insurance agents, real estate agents, literary agents, stock brokers -- their risk is minute compared to the risk of those they "represent" because the "agency model" encourages industry collusion. As long as every agent in the industry is doing the same thing, individuals are not accountable, and the mainstream society simply accepts it. The unfortunate thing is that the end sellers and buyers (writers and readers) are the ones who end up losing out.
Aren't there two pieces of your comment that are contradictory?
But, aside from editing what part of the "book manufacturing" process is actually necessary now
and yet:
But still it remains very difficult for a talented writer to make a living without some kind of brick and mortar publishing house agreeing to represent that writer
How do you reconcile these two statements? Either publishers add nothing of value, other than basic editing (which you should be able to easily purchase yourself by contracting a freelance editor), or publishers do in fact provide a lot more value in the process that helps ensure the success of a book. If publishers provide no value, how could it possibly be that you need to use a publisher to be successful?
It has never been easier in the history of the world to self publish a book. It's naive to think that a publisher's only role is to typeset, edit, and print (or electronically distribute) a book. If that was all there was to it then authors would/should self publish. And yet, as the other part of your comment alludes to, that's not all there is to successfully selling a book.
It could be that the only value added by publishers is that of passing through the barriers to entry that they themselves have erected around the book market. I won't say that this is definitely the case, but it's certainly a way to have publishers still provide an advantage without actually providing value.
But still it remains very difficult for a talented writer to make a living without some kind of brick and mortar publishing house agreeing to represent that writer
is not actually necessary anymore (as it well may be in the world of physical books and brick-and-mortar retailing).
Ah, in that context the comment makes more sense. Then the argument is that because we have these new electronic storefronts, there's no need for the traditional marketing/sales effort that publishers traditionally provide (which used to be necessary for blockbuster success). I guess then it's just a matter of whether or not you believe that. I don't.
Marketing/sales is, of course, a necessary part of success (as are effective editing and, within the limits of the medium, effective design). Simply making the book available for purchase is never going to be enough (unless you're the type who likes to by very expensive tickets in a long-odds lottery). What is not necessarily part of the equation is that the channels for that part of the process be restricted to its traditional agencies and suppliers in the e-realm.
They control distribution. You know, that thing nobody needs? Well, you can't use what you don't need without them.
Of course, each statement is true for different parts of the market. You still need distribution for physical books and you don't need it for e-books IF you can make people aware of your book somehow. Well, that's a big IF sometimes.
> Wait what? Is there collusion in the digital app industry built from the ground up with the agency model?
In the digital app industry, there isn't collusion there's coercion where some (not all) platform owners say that if you want to sell apps for my platform you will adhere to my rules about distribution, pricing and related matters. That's not exactly a model of competition.
So, this problem is especially interesting from the POV of a writer / aspiring writer.
Historically, writers would snail-mail the first 1-3 chapters to various literary agencies or publishing houses, include SASE, and wait for the inevitable rejection. (And yes, they DID insist on snail mail; this I know from experience). Those few lucky writers who would land an agent to represent them would likely get an advance, and hope for decent first-run sales. The publishing house would be responsible for placement in book stores, contact/ promo with "Book of the Month" clubs, etc. And depending on how well that writer's debut novel did, the writer would either get another advance, or fade into obscurity. Any number of circumstances around a first run could make or break a writer.
No piece of this old model was friendly to writers. J.K. Rowling was (now famously) rejected by every publishing house she sent Harry Potter to. The agency (Bloomsbury) that eventually agreed to buy and publish it didn't take on significant risk, and yet it has profited insanely from the success of her talents. It could be debated that back then, yes -- there was some risk associated with editing and formatting and typesetting and printing a hard-copy book. An agency would be right to take a "cut". But, aside from editing what part of the "book manufacturing" process is actually necessary now?
At some level, literary agencies and publishing houses have to know, deep down, that their time as gatekeepers of literary evolution is coming to a close. But yet, they dig their heels in, and refuse to acknowledge that their costs are lower so their prices should be lower -- if there was any real competition going. Instead, they say, "our costs are lower so our profit should be higher" . . . and so far, it is working for them, because everybody in their industry has agreed to play by those rules. Writers sure aren't getting any more wealthy, but publishing houses are . . .
One of the main problems with agency relationships is that they totally mess with the risk:reward model. Travel agents, insurance agents, real estate agents, literary agents, stock brokers -- their risk is minute compared to the risk of those they "represent" because the "agency model" encourages industry collusion. As long as every agent in the industry is doing the same thing, individuals are not accountable, and the mainstream society simply accepts it. The unfortunate thing is that the end sellers and buyers (writers and readers) are the ones who end up losing out.