Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
Location: Books & Such Main Office, Santa Rosa, Calif.
The ultimate decision-maker in whether to offer a contract has changed over the past few years. Having done my share of presentations at publishing committees, I soon learned that, really, anyone can scuttle a project by vociferously offering negatives opinions about it. By the time that individual is through questioning the feasibility of making money on the book (which is the bottomline), the tide is likely to have turned against the project. But one individual on the committee has the power to sway others to his or her opinion more effectively than anyone else.
But before we dip into that pool of water, let me say that publishing committees are as unpredictable as the stock market. Sometimes the committee just isn’t in the mood to say yes. That can happen because:
- the committee has been meeting for three hours, and everyone is tired;
- the committee just said yes to several projects in a row and is realizing the book lineup is filling fast, leaving no space for unforeseen exciting opportunities;
- a general dyspeptic mood has settled on the crowd and nothing looks good, exciting, or new;
- truly nothing presented is especially good, exciting, or new.
Pretty crazy, huh? But it’s true.
Now, back to that one person (or group of individuals, depending on how large the committee is) who has the biggest say over which projects will receive a contract offer. To put who that person is in context, let me start out by telling you who is on the committee (slight variations occur from house to house). Usually the committee consists of the vice president of editorial, the editorial director, editors who step into the meeting only long enough to present their projects (sometimes all the nonfiction editors will come in together or all the fiction editors), the vice president of marketing, and the head of the sales team. Some publishers have additional executives, the number-crunchers who will run the profit and loss statements on the potential projects, and assorted managers in marketing and sales.
The power to nix a project used to rest in marketing. If marketing didn’t see the uniqueness of the project or didn’t think they could launch a successful marketing/publicity campaign, then the project wasn’t going to get the thumbs up.
While marketing still has a major say, the real decision-makers are the individuals representing the sales team at the meeting. Yup, the sales reps are choosing what you and I read.
This shift occurred because, the committee reasoned, the sales reps are the ones who receive feedback from bookstore buyers and the buyers at the box stores. Who would know better how significant a buy-in the book would receive? Plus, if the sales team couldn’t figure out how to present a project in the few minutes (or seconds) they had to catch a buyer’s interest, then the book wasn’t going to garner good numbers. If the sales team wasn’t confident they could sell the book into big venues, then the book wouldn’t be published.
The discussion around the table can be positive and moving toward a yes, but if the sales manager says the team won’t be able to sell the book, no argument can be mustered to change the course of events.
Now, here’s the question: Do you think it’s right for a committee to function this way? If not, what could be done about it? (I figure if BP is accepting suggestions from everyone for the oil spill, we should collect suggestions for publishers.)
I can say this about that. 😉 If it works, it’s a great idea. However, at conferences and on the web I have heard repeatedly, as in over and over again, that MOST (as in the incredible figures of 60 to 80%) books don’t earn out, that the house’s big name authors, of which there are a few, carry them. How can that be deemed successful?
“Now, here’s the question: Do you think it’s right for a committee to function this way? If not, what could be done about it?”
The conundrum between marketing and sales as to what really works rages on. I don’t think anyone is sure about what sells books. Readers themselves don’t know what sells books, but they’re the ones who hold the keys to the kingdom. Not someone’s opinion who spends time number crunching or in meetings or making trips to CBA stores. There are readers who scan the web for book reviews, buy Kindles, volunteer for writing reviews to gain free books, are influencers, and those who don’t own computers. What do they want to read? It’s not just “bonnet book” readers out here in CBA. There are all kinds of niche market readers, and publishers don’t seem to want to address them because it’s complicated. In the process many of them are left out of CBA fiction.
Why not niche market books? Why not smaller numbers printed of a variety of novels? Why not be innovative and find a way to do it and open up the market for more readers instead of trusting that the current trends or big names will sustain the industry now and forever? “Because we’ve always done it this way”? Sounds like some church boards . . .
I’ve loved these posts and the insight into editors. It’s great to know that they really are on our team. Now…to just write the story that will knock their socks off!
Fascinating, Janet.
I think it makes sense for the sales reps to say, “I can (or can’t) sell this book.” The best salesmen love their product. If a sales rep loves a book, he’ll figure out a way to sell it, I think. (And he might love not because he likes the genre but because he knows buyers will love it–there are lots of reasons to love something.)
So that brings me to my question: Does the editor cheerleader give the sales people the manuscript before the pub board? Do the sales people read the manuscripts? Or does the editor package a proposal with a great back-cover copy and and talk about how loveable the character is and how fresh the concept is, and try to gain excitement for the project that way?
I’m just curious. I guess it doesn’t matter which way it works. If you can’t grab the sales rep off the pitch how will you grab the bookstore browsing consumer?
It’s not a question of right or wrong, it’s a question of economics. Right now, the economy is down. Retailers AND publishers are in risk-aversion mode. The problem is much larger than the scope of any publishing committee. No matter who makes the decisions (and I don’t doubt that it’s the sales reps) they’re making them based on risk analysis in the current state of the market. In American business, bigger is better. The small farmer producing bushels of grain is gone because he couldn’t compete with the prices of a large farmer producing shiploads of grain. Home Depot has wiped out the small local hardware stores. The same thing has happened now with the small independent Christian bookstores— they’re gone because they couldn’t compete with the prices at Walmart and Amazon. Now that the independents are gone the big box stores control not only prices, but selection.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s say there are three categories of risk in the wholesale purchasing of a book: The Sure Thing (a proven, name author writing in a hot category), the Midlister (journeyman writer who may or may not break even), and the Long Shot (new or unknown writer with no track record of success). Back in the day, small independent stores might have taken a chance on a book because they liked the sound of it, but not the big box stores. The buyers for the big box stores, especially in a down economy, protect their jobs by saying, “We only want Sure Things.”
And the mandate trickles down. The risk is even greater for the publisher because Walmart defers the risk back to them— if WM buys sixty thousand copies of a book and only sells thirty, they return the remainder and the publisher eats the loss. So it’s not much of a leap to imagine sales reps in a committee meeting at a publishing house basically saying, “We only want Sure Things.”
I think things are likely to stay this way until either the economy returns to glowing health or somebody figures out a way to level the playing field so that Walmart and Amazon have less control.
What a great insight!
In the world of sales & marketing, it’s helpful to understand the two divergant personality types (broadly generalizing, of course, and with apologies in advance).
Marketing – Upside: Creative, innovative, wanting to take risks. Downside: Unrealistic at times. Don’t have street experience. Adverse to rejection and selling themselves. (Sales folks would say they are out of touch).
Sales – Upside: Where the rubber meets the road. Fearless. Like to interact with people and make deals. Without them, deals aren’t closed. Downside: Always choose easy over innovative in the quest of finding the shortcut to their next commission. (Marketing folks would say they are uninspired).
When marketing is in control, you have big ideas that can often miss the mark.
When sales is in control, you have a safe, short path to obselescence.
A great corporation provides balance of the two mindsets. On stage, effective companies have marketing writing the scripts and sales performing the roles.
But with sales in control? Yikes.
Solution? Until our name as an author is firmly established and upon mere mention causes the pub board to dance the Mumba Jumba, we need to come up with concepts that give everybody at the table something to get excited about.
Dale, you make a great point. However, what’s changed since the economy was rolling?
There are risk takers in CBA publishing, but it seems to be after the fact–in other words after the general market is flooded with something, CBA steps in to mimic. The authors were ready prior to the general market flood but were rejected in their efforts to be pioneers.
Aren’t we dancing around a specific issue here? I hoped it wouldn’t be me who presented this because it sounds cranky or jealous or bitter, and I’m not. Honest. I commend every writer for every effort, for all the books which have made it into publishing from the large well-known publishers to the small presses. It’s a fete, and I admire their efforts, stamina, and courage and those who championed them. However, it’s been spoken to me off the record by a number of professionals from agents, editors, and authors themselves that it’s more about perseverance than it is about talent. It’s getting through that sales rep or the marketing team.
And here’s the part I really don’t get, being a businessman’s daughter. The profit of the few making the success for the lack thereof of the majority in a business makes zero sense to me. That does not spell success to me–I’m sorry.
I read several novels a month. Lots of books a year. I survey readers of all ages and backgrounds. I say this with no disrespect: the majority of novels I’ve read in the last year and a half are very forgettable. Their sales numbers I’m sure will bear this out in the short run. Something’s wrong with the system of selection. This is my opinion, right or wrong. Not written to contend or denigrate in any way. I admire you all.
Dale, uh, did you take a peek at my post for tomorrow? I’ll be writing about many of these issues and offering some thoughts on what authors can do to sustain themselves in the midst of all that’s happening in publishing.
Sally, the degree to which the sales team reads manuscripts before the publishing committee varies from publisher to publisher, but for the most part, they don’t have time to plow through all those manuscripts that land on the committee’s table. (Seriously, publishing committee meetings are all-day affairs at some houses–just think about how many projects can be discussed in a multi-hour meeting.) Most of the committee leaves it to the editor to read the manuscript and to bring to the table only the best writing. They will look at the proposal and might read a sampling. But for the committee, it’s mostly about whether the book’s concept is easy to present quickly and is readily discernible as unique but a popular topic; what the author’s sales history consists of; and whether this is a genre the sales and marketing teams believe they can successfully sell.
Nicole, niche marketing looms on the horizon, and I believe you’re right that publishers will need to find pockets of readers and aim marketing/publicity at that pocket rather than trying to reach every reader out there with news of a book’s release. (This is called “vertical marketing” as opposed to “horizontal marketing.”
But keep in mind that the big publishers are like huge battle ships. It takes a lot to move in a particular direction or to change momentum. Which means the smaller, more nimble publishers are the better place to look for niche publishing to work. Plus the smaller publishers don’t have to sell as many copies of a book for that project to be profitable. A large publisher needs big numbers to sustain all the crew members and the ship itself.
In terms of the number of books that don’t earn back their advances, the percentage is only moving up at this point. Which is why many in the industry are saying traditional publishing needs to be revamped. Way too many books aren’t earning back.
I hasten to add that doesn’t mean the publisher didn’t make money on books that don’t earn back. I have one client whose book has sold almost 50,000 copies, but because the project is connected to a national conference, she receives a very small royalty. The publisher and the conference have made plenty of money, but she has yet to earn back her advance, which of a medium size.
Michael, thanks for your clear, insightful post. You’ve nailed it when you defined the difference between sales and marketing and how each views a project (speaking in generalities, as we all are). I would also add that the group that pushes the envelope the most at a publishing house is editorial. They’re the ones who are at the most creative end of the spectrum, they’re the ones who might have met the author or talked to the person on the phone before making the presentation; they’re the ones who can fall in love with the craftsmanship of manuscript–and they’re the ones who don’t have to create the marketing or try to sell the book to the bookstore/box store buyer. Michael, I agree with you that publishing committees who are in the grip of sales staff can only make unimaginative choices of what to publish. Sales wants the sure bet.
And that, Nicole, is part of the answer to the question you’re asking: Why does publishing seem stuck in a cycle of same-old, same-old? Because it’s safe. Why does CBA imitate what the general market publishes and not innovate? Because it’s safe to pick up on a known trend from the general market and Christianize it. Although, I do have to say, CBA created the Amish book craze, and the general market took a few years to pick up on its appeal to everyone, not just Christians.
I recall two years ago being on an agent panel at a general market writers conference and informing the audience that Amish books were selling very well. The audience and the other agents were flabbergasted. Now books such as Mennonite in a Litte Black Dress by Rhoda Janen are on the New York Times best-seller list (as are Beverly Lewis’s very Christian Amish books).