Welcome to the weekly The Smart Set, where I curate new smart reads about the publishing and media industry. I also point to issues and questions raised, and welcome you to respond or ask your own questions in the comments.
“To seek: to embrace the questions, be wary of answers.”
—Terry Tempest Williams
When an Author Should Self-Publish and How That Might Change by Mike Shatzkin
Industry insider and analyst Mike Shatzkin lays out the value of a traditional publisher, and then goes on to explain when it makes more sense for an author to self-publish. Those scenarios include:
- Releasing more than one book per year
- Releasing material that isn’t traditional “book” length
- Releasing backlist titles — and this one especially
However, Shatzkin finds reason to believe that the desirability of self-publishing may wane over time as publishers adapt to the new market and:
- Have digital-first imprints with more flexible contracts or attractive deals
- Publish a wider range of work, of varying lengths
- Raise royalties
Self-publishing and new-style digital-first publishing can grow more to the extent that the book-in-store share of the market shrinks more. But while that’s happening, the big publishers are also adding to their capabilities: building their databases and understanding of individual consumers (something that all the big houses are doing and which the upstarts seem not to believe is happening, or at least not happening effectively), distributing and marketing with increasing effectiveness in offshore markets, and controlling more and more of the global delivery in all languages of the books in which they invest.
- Will self-publishing diminish in attractiveness when there’s less backlist for authors to capitalize on?
- If publishers raise royalties, how much less attractive does self-publishing become?
- How big of a role does autonomy play in authors’ decisions (as opposed to earnings)?
- How much will traditional publishers be able to match the dynamic pricing and release models that successful self-pub authors have pioneered?
Is Reading Anti-Social? by Laura Miller
Miller’s piece is sparked by the recent sale of Readmill, a social reading platform, to Dropbox. (The service will not be continued.) Some in the publishing industry have taken it as a larger sign about the viability of social reading—that reading doesn’t want to be social.
The Readmill sale doesn’t particularly interest me, but the idea of social reading does. Social reading—at least as it’s perceived today—means seeing and sharing comments on a text, or building a conversation around a text, usually within a particular community. Thought leader Bob Stein has laid out a taxonomy of social reading here.
We all tend to take it for granted that reading is a solitary (even sacred) activity, but that behavior is fairly new in our history, as Stein would tell you. He argues that as texts move from print to digital, the social aspect of reading (and writing, for that matter) moves to the foreground. Read more about his ideas here.
- Was Readmill before its time, or will social reading never take off?
- Might social reading take off if implemented by Amazon?
Toward a Fair Non-Compete Clause by James Scott Bell
Author James Scott Bell discusses a disturbing clause he recently saw in a New York publisher contract: a very far-reaching non-compete clause that would not allow the author to write, publish, or produce similar material outside of that particular publisher.
Why are these clauses becoming so restrictive and unreasonable? To crack down on self-publishing efforts, primarily.
- How prevalent are these clauses? Are agents seeing them too?
- Are such restrictive clauses going to become the new normal?
- We’ve now come full circle to questions raised by the Shatzkin piece: if publishers are to become more “current” with their deals and contract templates, these kinds of clauses couldn’t possibly be acceptable to authors—right?
What questions do you have? Share in the comments.