Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
Recently British author Harry Bingham and American publishing consultant Jane Friedman conducted a survey entitled “Do You Love Your Publisher?” The survey measured how satisfied authors were with various aspects of their publishing experiences. The results are enlightening.
1. The majority of those responding were authors who had published 5-6 books, and most of those books were with large, traditional publishers. Most of these authors were represented by agents. So the results reflect how experienced authors see publishing. That in and of itself is interesting because it’s hard to find data on this group of authors. Self-published writers have been surveyed far more vigorously.
2. The authors tended to rate the editorial input they received as excellent or good. That, frankly, surprised me since we hear a lot about how in-house editors don’t have 
time to dig deep into a manuscript. Even copy editors (grammar, punctuation, etc.) received high marks, which also surprised me because I find that many books I read are deplorably copy edited.
3, Responders indicated they felt pretty involved in the designing of their covers and even in the cover’s back cover copy.
4. But the publishing process seems to fall apart for authors when the marketing department gets involved. Only 19.75% of the respondents felt they were meaningfully engaged in the marketing process, with another 18.11% saying the communication was good but could have been better. That leaves the majority of authors seeing themselves as marginalized–with 21.40% saying they didn’t think their books even had a marketing plan. (Remember, the survey measured authors’ perceptions. This last statistic shows authors never saw a marketing plan, even though one might have existed.)
5. Among other communication questions the surveyed authors responded to was, “Did you receive systematic guidance from your publisher about how you could add [the] most value to the overall publishing process?” 19.20% indicated they did receive guidance most of the way; 25.41% said they received guidance but would have liked more; 30.25% said they didn’t need their hands held; 25.14% said they felt excluded or marginalized. Now, if these had been debut writers, seeing 1/4 of them feeling marginalized might make sense. But these are authors who know the ropes. That’s a pretty disturbing percentage, in my opinion.
6. The publishers didn’t ask authors for feedback. When asked if the publishers ever sought author feedback on how the publisher was performing, a full 74.38% said feedback had never been sought. Considering that every time I stay at a hotel; shop at various sites online; or use GoToMeeting, my opinion on that experience is solicited, it’s pretty stunning that publishers, whom we view as having regular connection points with authors, don’t tend to ask, “How are we doing?”
7. Publishers received high marks for paying on time and for making their royalty statements clear. That response also surprised me because some publishers’ statements are beyond deciphering. Now, it’s true these publishers aren’t the largest in the land, but even some medium-sized publishers manage to obfuscate just how a title performed. I think this stems from the publishers being inward focused rather than author-centric. Some have made a real effort to clearly communicate a book’s activity. For example, Simon & Schuster provides so much information on each title that a person reading the reports can feel inundated with data. The reports are relatively easy to read, if you take the time to sift through all the pages. Other publishers’ statements offer inadequate data; there’s no way to determine exactly how a book is doing.
8. Authors aren’t particularly loyal to their publishing houses. The survey asked, if another reputable publisher were to offer the same size advance for the writer’s next book, would the writer switch. 37.22% said they would; 32.92% said they would stay; and 29.86% said they weren’t sure. Considering that your current publisher is in the best position to win your heart, it’s disconcerting that, for the same amount of money, an author would seriously consider shifting to a new house.
9. In comparison, if a different agent offered representation, these authors generally would choose to stay put. 45.77% would stay; 33.57% weren’t sure; 20.66% would move.
10. The survey goes on to ask perceptions about self-publishing (many of these authors are hybrid); about Amazon; and about the role of publishers. Authors generally expressed a negative view of publishers.
- 56.79% agreed with the statement: Publishers have been lazy and uninnovative when it comes to digital.
- 46.72% agreed with: Publishers have ever less to offer. They don’t know how to market books any more.
- 43.05% affirmed: Publishers are a crucial bastion of culture and learning in our society.
- 34.02% think that: Publishers think and act collusively; the big 5 is an oligopoly of sorts.
- 25.19% would say: Publishers treat their authors well (in nonfinancial ways).
- 15.88% predict: Conventional publishing will cease to exist in 10-20 years.
- 7.63% believe that: Publishers pay their authors well.
Taken as a whole, this survey is a pretty sobering picture of the author-publisher relationship. It seems that, as a book is produced, the experience is positive until the marketing equation is weighed in. Authors generally feel disengaged from the process at some point, see themselves as underpaid, and don’t see publishers as doing much to change with changing times.
11. Still, most authors agreed that being published traditionally is important to them. 31.58% responded with an unqualified yes, while 53.6% gave a qualified yes.
This desire to be published traditionally, the level of editing, and the sense of being meaningfully involved in the cover and jacket copy, add up to some compelling motivations for publishers to ramp up their engagement of authors with marketing–and to crack the nut of what marketing works today. Not to mention asking the simple question, “How are we doing?”
Do these authors’ responses encourage or discourage you? Which responses surprised you?
TWEETABLES
Are publishers failing authors? #publishing Click to tweet.
A survey shows how authors see traditional publishers. #publishing Click to tweet.
What do authors like/dislike about their publishers? #publishing Click to tweet.
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Very interesting post! Thank you for level of insight.
I can’t say I am very surprised by the negative comments; they seem to track trends in other industries and professions (for me, notably, military and academia) in which there’s almost a virtue in creating disconnects between admin and ‘productive’ units.
I think this morning may come from an increasing speciezation in responsibility; being given a title and an area of influence seems, in some organizations, to confer and assumed expertise.
What could a field operative know about screwed-up supply that an S-4 Real Live Officer would not? If you don’t have the batteries for the night optics..
well, you just don’t UNDERSTAND supply and you’re just a whinging grunt with an entitlement complex. Go fill out the proper forms. Blue ink only, please.
Please overlook the weird “this morning” about halfway down my comment. Smart Phone decided that it’s morning somewhere, I guess. Should have just been “this’, obviously.
I would hope that publishers would respect authors enough to want to fix what ails the relationship. But I may be too Pollyanna. There’s always another author eager to fill the slot for the writer who leaves a publishing house.
A surprisingly large percentage of people indicated they were consulted on their cover design and satisfied with the result, but many also said, if self-published they would pay for cover design. This shows me how strongly we as the author, having read and edited our MS repeatedly, have fashioned an image in our mind that best represents our story. We want the reader, through the visuals and text, to not only see the world we’ve created, but to live and breathe it as well.
“Publishers have been lazy and innovative when it comes to matters digitally.”
Is this because it’s hard to keep up with the pace of change in technology? Or does this highlight the importance of the publisher making full use of the author’s “skills, passion, contacts & digital presence?”.
Great food for thought today, Janet! Look forward to reading all the comments. On another note, Happy Mother’s Day this coming Sunday!
Jenni, I have to say, based on years of conversations with the publisher’s graphic designers and authors, that most authors need the knowledgeable eye of someone who isn’t as close to the book as they are. Over time, authors generally figure out what goes into making a strong cover, but few authors start out with a natural bent toward seeing covers the way potential buyers do.
I think those who responded to the survey saw how slow publishers were to embrace digital publishing. They seemed to be dragged into it by the compelling fact of so much money being spent by readers on digital books. If not for the size of the profit that was to be made, I think publishers would still only be dabbling in digital. Even now they haven’t been keen on figuring out what works in marketing digitally and have done little experimenting or committed creative energy in that direction. (I am, of course, speaking in generalities here; some publishers have been swift to move in this direction–and have been rewarded financially for doing so.)
Satisfaction surveys are a big deal to hospitals. We focus on the percentage answering “top box,” giving the best score possible. These top box scores are surprisingly low. For us, obviously, patients are our customers. But doctors are also our customers because they direct patients to us. I wonder if the publishers have focused only on book buyers as customers, and not on the authors without whom there would be no books to buy.
Very perceptive, Shirlee! I’d think that would be a temptation in any business–to focus only on customer satisfaction rather than supplier satisfaction. But as you rightly point out, it’s impossible to sustain one without the other. Customers may be the ones paying out, but suppliers (in this case authors) are the ones whose product is earning that payout!
It seems it would behoove publishers to remember that they’re middlemen and that being in the middle requires balance.
Shirlee, that’s a good insight. I think publishers are very focused on retail buyers,who make decisions about what books we, the buyers, see, and on readers. Publishers are more author-centric when a decision is being made to publish a book. After that, individuals within the publishing house are author-centric during the time the project is in their hands. But when it goes on to another department, aside from a very directive editor-advocate, no one is thinking about how the publishing experience as a whole is going for the author. Even publishing houses that have author relations personnel don’t assign that responsibility to anyone.
I was glad to see that authors felt they had some creative say in cover design. I was led to believe that authors were excluded from that conversation. I have a fear that if my MG book is ever published, someone somewhere will think that a cartoonish, amatuer cover would work.
“43% said that publishers are a crucial bastion of culture and learning in our society” I am not questioning that, but it says a lot. I often cringe when I walk into libraries that have “banned book” days or a program on the evils of censorship. I want to ask the librarian, “who selects books for acquisition?” After all, that one person made a judgement call on which books to purchase. That in itself is the second step of censorship. The first step is: can the book get published? I am not trying to make a political statement here, I am just pointing out that there are many filters through which books pass. And I agree that books are a crucial bastion of learning in our society.
Sheila, publishers seem to have realized that to allow the author no say in the cover is to potentially do major harm to the writer’s enthusiasm for the book. Authors generally can’t direct the design of a cover, but in my experience, authors are listened to–and their opinion is sought more often than not. Of course, sometimes authors’ thoughts on a cover can send the design down the wrong road, so it’s a tricky balance that a publisher has to maintain.
I think the point authors were making by agreeing with the statement about publishing being a cultural bastion is that publishers give a megaphone to every author whose book they produce. If we see YA books focusing on vampires, for example, and those books sell like crazy, publishing encourages teens to continue to think about vampires through the zillions of books produced to satiate that desire. On the other hand, if readers buy lots of copies of books about social justice, publishing helps to inform readers in how to make a difference. In this way, publishing contributes to a culture’s zeitgeist.
What an interesting survey. it’s enlightening to see what authors are experiencing.
I think the biggest surprise is that publishers are not enlisting author input on how they’re doing. I would have thought, especially in light of the challenges traditional publishers are experiencing, that they might seek out insight from the people who help keep them in business.
I found it interesting that many of the authors surveyed also had stepped into the self-publishing pool. That lends a broader perspective to the answers here.
Jeanne, it does seem short-sighted that publishers don’t seek information from authors about how publishing could improve its relationship with writers. But then again, once the avalanche of requests for better pay began, what would publishers do in response to that? It becomes awkward to ask if you don’t intend to change the most significant “detail” in the relationship, you know? Once you ask, you have to be prepared to make adjustments.
Janet, forgive me for my lack of knowledge in this area, but I don’t want to let that prevent me from chiming in. 🙂 Regarding the lack of marketing … do you think traditional publishers just can’t afford it? With all the bookstore closings … a telltale sign? And is that why we hear that authors must be prepared to do their own marketing? Is this another way to open opportunities for publicists? I’ve heard they are very expensive to hire. But things always seem to go back to “money,” or lack of it. Even the uninnovative digital part … would that take hiring new people … people who can change with the times … or experienced in this area? Or maybe that’s a wrong assertion. Maybe they are doing good at it, being innovative. But I know at my hubby’s workplace, he’s working with a generation that refuses to change or learn new things. Everyone involved hopes retirement comes quickly. Change is not always easy. From all the reports, it seems that publishers may be watching every dime to stay afloat. Maybe they are doing the best they can with what they have. Maybe scrambling as efficiently as possible to keep up with arrows of change. Some would probably say, “It’s just business.” But again, I know so little in this area. 🙂 I’m not discouraged or encouraged … nothing surprised me because of the B&S continual updates … but I can’t help but be partial to traditional publishing, especially as long as bookstores remain. 🙂 I get a special feeling, filled with awe and hope, walking into a bookstore. To be cliché … a kid in a candy shop.
Why do authors feel marketing is lacking? That’s a complex question. There always is a marketing plan–it just might be minimal or lackluster. Publishers have a set amount of marketing dollars for every season of book releases. That money is allocated from the top down–the titles that are most likely to become best-sellers receive their marketing dollars first. So, if you’re a debut writer, your allocation will be based on how well the publishing staff think your book will do. Or, if in your proposal you suggested you’re pretty tied in to your potential readers, then the publisher will rely on you to do most of the marketing. If that is the case, the publishing committee chose to publish your book because they saw you could reach readers more effectively than they could.
The digital question is complex too. Publishers were slow to embrace that change because it meant they had to rethink everything–which titles they publish, how to help readers discover books, how to market books, what covers look like, etc. It’s a major shift almost akin to starting a new publishing division. Big houses shift slowly because they’re like a giant cruise ship. For it to adjust direction is no simple matter. And publishers weren’t eager to make the change, which added to their slow response time.
“The titles that are most likely to become best-sellers receive their marketing dollars first.”
That’s a bit chicken-and-egg – did a book become a best-seller because it got the marketing push it needed, or did it get the big marketing push because they wanted it to be a best-seller?
And if a book with less potential had been given those marketing dollars, would it have become a best-seller? And if the potential best-seller hadn’t been given marketing dollars, how would it have sold?
There are no easy answers.
Iola, right you are. There are no easy answers. Although I realize, on seeing the one sentence you lifted out of my comment, that I wasn’t as clear as I might have been. I meant to specify that certain authors’ books will be best-sellers. If you’re publishing Karen Kingsbury’s next title, yea, it’s going to sell like crazy. Your job as the publisher is to make sure everyone knows it’s releasing, and that means telling potential readers over and over that they need to buy it.
You give so much terrific information, Janet, that it’s difficult to know how to respond. Thank you for the time you must have put into this post! The one piece of information that sticks out to me is that publishers don’t ask authors for feedback. With the glut of wanna-be authors, that didn’t surprise me. Publishing houses have so many authors to choose from now that there’s always someone else available if need be. As stretched as they apparently are, do they have the resources to conduct surveys and alter their approach appropriately? I’m not saying that they shouldn’t bother with author feedback. Quite the opposite! I’m just trying to figure why.
Meghan, I think the publishers could find the resources to ask their authors for feedback if they were so inclined. It would be as simple as having one person come up with questions and then receiving feedback from a group of employees from each publishing sector. Pop it up on SurveyMonkey and send out a group email. SurveyMonkey even compiles the results for you.
The problem comes after taking the survey: authors would want to know the results, and they would expect to see change. Suddenly the publisher has a major public relations problem on his hands. If you ask how to do better, you need to be prepared for the answers and prepared to make adjustments.
Very interesting. Thanks so much for making this information available to us, Janet.
I find that in most relationships, be it personal, or professional, there will always be some margin of let down. I think as debut authors, we usually dream of that traditional contract as being the ultimate. That will be our greatest success… and we dream of all the books we’ll sell and all the fans we’ll have and the reality can be quite sobering. I don’t know that it’s entirely the publisher’s fault. I think a lot of it has to do with business and the industry and when factoring in bookstores and buyers… there are so many variables. It seems to only take one or two of those variables slipping, and suddenly, an author is faced with a bit of a mess on their hands. I suppose the publisher may feel the same way. 🙂
Even though I’ve gone the Indie route lately, I still think publishers are pretty cool. They accomplish a handful of things that I can’t do on my own. There’s something to be said for having a publisher believe in your work enough to back it. Maybe that’s a silly thing to make mention of, but to me, that’s always been important. After 2+ years of being on the outside of CBA traditional houses, I still dream of coming across a publisher that believes in my work.
I think there are ups and downs to both sides of the business, and really ups and downs to just about anything in life.
Thank you for this grounding perspective, Joanne. I so agree with you. When a person thinks about the myriad of details that have to line up for a book to be successful, it’s mind-boggling.And the publisher takes flack for each detail–even the ones over which it has no control. For years I’ve said that it’s a miracle a single book sells.
A publishing house is taking on a mammoth task to create each book. And I have deep respect for those who do the work.
This survey shows just one side of the coin. If someone surveyed publishers on their relationship with authors, we’d find they have issues with authors–and some of those items might surprise authors.
It’s a relationship, and relationships are complex animals that constantly need to be reconfigured in a variety of ways. Even business relationships.
Have publishers failed authors? Yes, I believe they have. Otherwise, indie and self-publishing wouldn’t have exploded. I write for a market I know exists, yet traditional CBA publishers claim it’s not real. They claim I’m not real and my reading preferences don’t matter. I’m the future of CBA in both reading and writing for them, and I’ve left. With no plans to ever come back. I’m not alone either.
Now that I have experience in the CBA and ABA market, CBA is even further behind the curve than ABA.Particularly when it comes to the power of a series, and readers’ changing tastes.
It’s not hard to keep up with changing technology. Publishers’ refusal to do so seems to me to be more of an ostrich sticking their head in the sand and hoping all this digital stuff will go away. It’s cost them market share and profits, and will continue to do so. I won’t even go down the DRM rabbit hole and how much a waste of time and money that junk is.
Rachel, thanks for your perspective. Traditional publishing has always kept the majority of writers on the outside looking in–there will always be more writers than there are publishing slots. Indie publishing has done a lot to alleviate that frustration.
And indie publishing has enabled those who write to an audience traditional publishing doesn’t know how to reach.
Those are two important needs that indie serves.
CBA historically is about ten years behind the general market in most matters. Over the last decade or so, I think CBA has been caught between two worlds–the core CBA reader and the readers who want material that’s closer to a general market read. Because CBA is small compared to the general market, it has trouble financially succeeding in reaching both types of readers. So it has chosen to, for the most part, sticking with that core reader. Will it someday find it has lost all its readers? We don’t know the answer to that question.
Janet, I think you’ve become my agent hero in the last few weeks. 🙂 I loved last Monday’s post, which really was you standing up for authors. That seems to be so rare, for an agent to challenge publishers. Loved it.
And here you’re sharing what I think is an important survey, particularly for those who have not yet published. I found this survey very interesting.
I came across it a few weeks ago, ironically in a blog post that touted that authors loved publishers and were not self-publishing or leaving. I think that’s one of the most eye-opening aspects of this survey: sixty-seven percent of authors surveyed either have or are considering self-publishing. Sixty-seven percent! That’s huge! And forty-three of those sixty-seven already have self-pubbed. That says a lot.
One thing I’ve heard repeatedly about a certain CBA house is that they routinely put their authors’ books on sale–a big marketing promo–and never bother telling the author. That blows me away. The author is one of the key people they should be telling because they have readers they can immediately promote to! Makes no sense not to tell them. I’ve actually asked one author how the BookBub ad on his trad book was affecting his indie books, and he said to me, “What BookBub ad?” No one had told him.
Someone mentioned that there’s always going to be a bit of a letdown. I agree. Nothing is ever perfect. I do think there are publishers out there who do things well–or a majority of things well. But it’s too easy for people/authors to fall through the cracks. And now that authors have more options, it does seem like publishers need to treat their authors better than ever. More like customers, perhaps. Which I imagine is difficult as publishers’ own staffs have shrunk. Fewer people doing more work… Something always gives.
I’m looking forward to reading the rest of the comments here today. Thanks for bringing up this survey, Janet.
Ugh. No spaces between paragraphs? My bad!
Sally, among the insights publishers could gain from the survey is how poorly marketing efforts are communicated. That’s why so many authors responded that they had no marketing plan for their books. Yes they did. They just never saw it. Now, that plan might not have been robust, but from my experience as a publishing house employee, every book had some kind of plan.
Some small publishers might have a plan that encompasses an entire season of books rather than individual plans for each title. Or Harlequin might not have individual plans for books that are sold through direct channels and into the retail market only. So there are exceptions, but they truly are exceptions, not the rule.
“Yes they did. They just never saw it.”
I have no doubt you’re right.
Very interesting data here, Janet. It surprises me that so many authors are pretty happy with their editors and the editing process. Most of us are very protective of our work and get offended when someone would suggest a change. I suppose this means that experienced authors have learned to value the input they are receiving. Taking note of that. 🙂
Amber, you make a good point that experienced authors tend to appreciate an editor’s contribution to the finished product. And those authors also understand that, when they turn in their manuscript, in many ways they’re granting the publishing personnel permission to do what they think needs to be done to sell copies. Of course, authors will have the opportunity to read and respond to the editor’s work.
This report should be a huge slap across the publishing world’s face! They are behind the times…and no one seems to know how to fix it. But people are still reading and want to continue, so they are lucky if they choose to fix it. THEY STILL HAVE CUSTOMERS! The publishing house that figures it out will be the winner. I just hope they use this report and are cramming in the boardrooms to solve the problems. This truly is a shameful report and no one should be happy about it.
Elizabeth, the survey is a wake-up call. Hopefully publishing will respond to it.
In this way, publishing contributes to a culture’s zeitgeist.Janet, I’m intrigued
Because I’m intrigued by this subject, I read your post and all the comments twice. I found them most interesting as I have self-published four books, and have an almost completed novel, which I hope to see published in the traditional way. Thank you for the valuable service you offer here.
On a tangent are my observations concerning your use of the word zeitgeist, a word with which I previously was unfamiliar, but which I have now studied and whose notion I find fascinating. So pertinent and so apt is this word that I will be utilizing the concept in an address I will present in the early part of June to a group of church leaders.
How blessed is our call to be writers, for our playing field is that of words, and words are merely the visible marks of ideas and of philosophies. With such we entangle ourselves.
Thank you again for your splendid contributions to our lives.
Sorry for the extra sentences. Not sure how this happened. 🙁
I self-published and have also been traditionally published, and from my experience, the latter is always better. However, it does depend on the quality of the publisher and how excited they are about your book. But we’re living in a society where everyone seeks instant gratification with little patience, and this explains the explosion of self-publishing.
I’m surprised to see the timeline of how long authors think traditional publishers will be around. I would hate to see this happen, but unless they aggressively catch up with technology and digital marketing, this is a real possibility.
Great article, thank you for sharing it.
Randy, traditional publishing does bring inherent benefits, not all of which were weighed in the survey: a sales team, a marketing and publicity team, editors, a design team. They work exclusively on books they have a stake in doing well as opposed to free-lance individuals who work on a title to receive pay and then disappear from the scene. If books don’t sell when you’re working at a publishing house, eventually your job disappears.
I think traditional publishing will continue into the foreseeable future–barring any more sea changes.
I really hope they do, Janet. Without traditional publishing many jobs would be lost and the overall quality of books could diminish. Thanks for commenting back.