Blogs and Stories
An Autopsy of the Book Business
Roll over, Gutenberg! Publishing legend Jason Epstein says the only way to save the book industry is to get rid of all the books.
While it may deliver the fatal blow, the financial crisis is only the proximate cause of the book publishing industry’s difficulties. The deeper cause is structural and its symptoms have been visible, though largely unacknowledged, for years. In a series of lectures at the New York Public Library a decade ago, I traced the origins of this structural deformation to the great post-war exodus from city to suburb. This vast migration turned the book business upside down, transforming it from a modestly profitable, stable industry of fifty or so firms dependent on predictable backlist sales—i.e., the long tail—to a game of roulette in which agents and authors own a casino where publishers can’t win.
Madoff’s clients would not be out a penny today had they read Dickens’ Little Dorrit.
The marketplace for books when I entered the business shortly after World War II consisted of a thousand or so well stocked independent booksellers in major towns and cities supplemented by thousands of smaller shops that carried limited stocks of mostly current titles along with greeting cards, toys and so on. But it was the major independents with their sophisticated backlists—50,000 to 100,000 or more titles, displayed spine out—serving the interests of cosmopolitan readers, on which the industry relied. To linger in these stores was an education in itself and all the schooling a publisher needed. It was these backlists—titles that had covered their initial costs, earned out their authors’ advances, entailed no further risk than the cost of making and shipping the book itself—whose individual sales might be small but whose aggregate sale was in the millions, that sustained the industry. Bestsellers in those days were icing on the backlist cake.
What is true for book publishing is true for civilization: the books that survive the test of time are humanity’s backlist, our collective memory. I do not refer simply to the classics but to recent titles, hundreds of which are published every year and join the backlist long enough to move the civilizing dialogue forward. Without these books we would not know who we are, where we came from or where we may be going: they are the ongoing interplay of the present with the past, the confrontation of the human mind with the problem of existence. Would the American economy have collapsed if the casually educated caretakers of our treasure and good name who wasted our wealth on the assumption that greed is self-regulating had read those great conservative skeptics of human nature, Gibbon, Hobbes, Smith, and Burke, or studied the wisdom of our country’s founders? Mr. Madoff’s clients would not be out a penny today had they read Little Dorritt and encountered there Dickens’ ruinous and ruined Mr. Merdle (pun intended), Bernie’s exact prototype. The backlist—of which we as publishers, along with scholars, librarians and teachers are the guardians—is truly a matter of life and death.
By the mid 1970s the great downtown bookstores had begun to disappear as their customers migrated from city to suburb where population density was too thin to support major backlist retailers. Soon people shopped in deconstructed department stores, their former departments now individual specialty shops, where bookstores paid the same rent for the same limited space as the shoe store next door and needed the same quick turnover of inventories that sold themselves: books by celebrities and branded bestselling authors. By the eighties, publishers’ backlists were in steep decline as thousands of titles disappeared, dumped into the huge so-called orphanage of titles, no longer in print but still in copyright, whose owners can no longer be identified.
The steep decline in publishers’ backlists turned the industry upside down. Now publishers were obliged to pursue seasonal ephemera for which agents, putting their commercially viable titles up for auction, exacted unrealistic guarantees such as this seasons’ multimillion dollar guarantee to the multibillionaire Warren Buffett with his ready access to television, his folksy manner, and his hollow memoir—his true but neglected subject being greed, which has not lived up to expectations. Such disappointments are now commonplace and devastating. Publishers having lost control of their industry to commercially attractive authors and their agents are now not only their unhappy servants, but servants obliged to pay their masters for the privilege of serving them: an absurd and untenable situation.






mrx5000
they've been saying this forever. people love books & they'll always be around.
simurgh
As long as I can get a printed copy somehow, even if by that Espresso Machine, I'll be mostly okay. Sometimes your eyes need a break from looking at digital screens all day.
There's also something to be said against all printed books being "express" versions that look exactly the same (the remaining part of me that dislikes the idea). I like having visual variation on my bookshelf. It helps esthetically and also allows for finding a particular title a little quicker. Can you imagine going into a library where all the shelves are stocked with books that look exactly the same, sans text? Or will the traditional form and appearance of libraries change to fit the new times?
ScottRose
I am pleased to have Jason Epstein sounding a positive note for the future of culture.
I'm not sure, however at this point that "client" is le mot juste for those that entrusted money to Madoff for investment.
Victim to me seems the more appropriate word.
Who knows whether Madoff's victims would not have become victims as a result of reading Little Dorrit? People could (willfully and delusionally, perhaps) have not seen any parallels with the present-day, citing for example that there are no Marshallseas now.
The common-sense wisdom related to investing in Little Dorrit might be reduced to a few paragraphs. The rest is the magic of Dickens' artistry.
Thank goodness for the Jason Epsteins still championing that.
Abelard
Call me a Luddite if you will, but I for one hope that the ink-and-paper book does not die out. I don't use a Blackberry or scheduling software because I can never remember what my appointments are unless I physically write them down. To me, a physical book is the simplest form of entertainment; you don't even need batteries...
klava1985
I stare at a computer screen all day. And I read for many hours at night to relax. I don't want to read from a lighted screen, no matter how good the resolution is or how nicely the background imitates paper. I'm just done with electronics at that point in the day. I also like to read for hours in the tub. In the sauna. And I like the way books fold, so that you can put your thumb in the middle and hold with one hand while you're reading while lying on your side in bed. If you're not reading sitting up straight with perfect posture, these electronic devices are not going to be very comfortable to hold, orient, and use.
HarlDelos
The tax code says you have to amortize the cost of producing a book over the useful life. Dump the existing books into the landfill, and there's no useful life left; ergo, you get to deduct your expenses immediately instead of stringing it out for years.
A simple change to the tax code, allowing authors and publishers the choice of expensing or depreciating their costs, might even be beneficial for the federal treasury, as it would stimulate the industry without actually cutting taxes.
aluxeterna
I see two directions for publishing, moving forward. The first is digital. The ease of distribution with electronic copies is simply too strong a force to not overcome the paper books of today, as the dominant paradigm. The codex is just an information technology. It was better than what came before it, and it will be replaced in time as well. That said, the paper book probably won't die entirely. Rather, we'll start to see it take on more importance as a fetish object for collectors. Think McSweeney's. Those who want libraries full of beautiful things will hardly be satisfied by a computer folder full of files. And those who want to express their enthusiasm for a particular author will choose to acquire physical copies which offer benefits beyond the actual conveyance of the information contained therein. So, a win-win world, right?
The challenge, though, is that, at whatever point electronic books offer an actual reading experience comparable to paper books, we're going to see the publishing industry face the same problems as the recording industry and film industry, re: pirated/shared files. Decentralized sharing does not involve the collection of royalties, so we're going to see a real collapse of the industry at that point.
We're going to have to make hard decisions about what we value, as a culture. If we value content creation, but we lose the ability to monetize the output, how do we support it as a worthy endeavor?
ChanRobt
I've been hearing this "This changes everything" bullshit for 25 years.
Well, guess what. Nothing changes everything. As the dot-com crash that couldn't happened proved. And as this latest financial debacle proved.
Gravity has not been repealed.
By the same token, electronic books suck. I haven't found a screen yet, no matter how high the resolution, that wasn't hard on the eyes.
Which is why though I enjoy the Beast, Slate, Salong, Politico, TN, HuffPost, Drudge, REalClearPolitics-- all of 'em, I PRINT OUT the articles I want to read.
But, I sure as hell don't want to either ead Moby Dick on Kindle or "self-publish" the damn book at home on my HP.
I want real books--- in all their different shapes, sizes, typefaces, paper types, smells, photos, dust jackets.
So, go to hell with this idea. The dog ain't eatin' the dogfood.
texvark
--Jason insists books are done because he wants you to get his Expresso Book -- what a terrible idea -- he's like the Chick Fila print ads where the cows tell people to eat chicken instead of beef ( of course cow's don't want you to eat beef, and this guy wants you to download a book and stop buying them the old fashioned way ) Epstein comes off
like he wants to help but he just wants to promote his bookkiller/digital propoganda -- most people -- esp kids still like books -- even with computers -- so do I, reading on kindle type machines feel like doing homework -- yuk!
why try to improve on a good thing -- the book -- it's not going anywhere -- when I'm done with a book I can display it on a shelf -- esp if it's got a good cover, spine --the book then becomes decor, collectable - a kindle is not user friendly and can't be shown off or lent out..... I think the cost of books are too high -- that's the real problem.
Margot62
No one has ever curled up with their computer. Books will always be an important part of our lives.
Lookman
I see no reason that books could not be bought from a dispenser with a screen. You could search, locate, view, select and order. Do some shopping to return to collect a printed book an hour later or have it posted to your address. Many authors like myself might be happy with this if they got better paid and their royalties were not discounted in the prices. Otherwise I can see the day when major authors will set their own publishing partnerships. There are a lot of angry authors out there.
ds7511
I'm skeptical. Is our author speaking as a publishing legend or fledgling entrepreneur?
RudyShur
I have always enjoyed Jason Epstein's comments, however I think that he is focusing his concern on those publishers who who are competing in the elite trade market. The fact is that smaller and smarter houses have always been able to run rings around the larger firms. Whether in an updturned or downturned market. For the most part, they have also avoided the insane games played by larger houses.
Over the years I have thought that large publishers make money inspite of their decisions, not because of them. Most rely on their backlist to generate their operating costs--and most of their successful backlist titles were acquired through purchases of the smaller successful companies who actually had the skills to find these gems.
While I read about the behemoths of our industry laying off hundreds of their employees, the fact is many smaller houses continue to thrive--finding markets outside the traditional trade. It is important to remember that not every author or agent needs to score big on every advance paid. Sometimes common sense makes the most sense.
I'm not worried about whether it's paper or digital versions of a book that people are reading public. People will find a way to read material no matter what the format. All I know is that indie houses have been the backbone of the publishing industry in the past--and it will be so in the future. It's just that we don't get as many of the headlines.
Square One Publishers
arkaycee
I do think on-demand printed-and-bound books could be a good thing ... IF it could be customized as determined by the author/publisher/whoever tends to determine that nowadays.
Just as with home printing to my inkjet (but obviously much higher-quality and faster printers would be needed), having the original font downloaded and printed should be NO problem, cover art and titles of any color and font should also be NO problem. The only real problems I see that would add expense to the systems (and maybe you just have one machine like this at any given bookstore) are first, custom page sizes (my books come in different heights on my shelves -- paper could be custom-cut but there'd be a goodly bit of waste involved, or else have a bunch of different custom-sized pages available in this printer device), and second, cloth binding in all the myriad colors possible (though under those dust covers, I wonder how many shades my books really come in). If custom cloth dying onsite is needed, that might present a problem, or perhaps it can be done easily with the proper technology.
Perhaps, if inexpensive and reliable enough, custom printing would be the way to go. Perhaps one of each title at the bookstore itself for browsers, but you scan the code on the on-shelf book you want and it gets printed up. That may be slow, so the good-sellers would probably have an anticipated day's supply pre-printed (still, much smaller warehousing space than getting in a large supply).
The downside is that, if you are the one person a year buying that really obscure tome, you may have to come back for it (or maybe they sell you the on-shelf one and start printing the next copy... hmm... that could be the overall model too).
nibor50
Amazingly, most of the commentators seem to have missed the main point of Epstein's message, which was to tout the virtues of decentralized print publishing, not e-books as such. Only "arkaycee" has grasped the point that the Espresso machine does not produce every book looking the same as every other book; within the limits of its current setup (which will likely improve over time, offering more flexibility in choice of trim size, binding materials, etc., just as digital printing in general has). Espresso offers a particularly tantalizing possibility for libraries to serve their customers in new ways, essentially turning themselves into bookstores as well as repositories. This may drive another stake into the heart of independent bookselling, however, finishing off the remaining stores and perhaps even driving the chains out of business eventually (unless they specialize in types of books, like heavily illustrated books, that the Espresso machine cannot likely ever print as well as offset printing). This could be a boon to smaller publishers, too, once the price of the machine gets low enough to be affordable by even the smallest houses; it can relieve them of dependence on printing vendors and allow them--as "print-on-demand" and "short-run" digital printing already has for university presses like the one I direct--to attain much better cash flow by having little invested in inventory. It will be exciting to see just how "revolutionary" this kind of highly decentralized printing turns out to be. Might it reach a point where every home has not only a TV but also an Espresso machine?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.