Can the Publishing Industry Learn from the Music Industry?
As 2008 wound down, it was revealed that the publishing industry is in some sort of turmoil. I’ve been reading news articles and blog posts about it daily for at least five weeks now- and it’s got me thinking. If it’s really in peril, or at least having a mid-life identity crisis, can the publishing industry learn anything from the music industry? If anyone knows a little about turmoil, it’s them.
At the beginning of this decade (2000 - 2002), the music industry was going through similiar panicky motions. There were frantic layoffs, downsizing, shifting around, labels folding, artists complaining, artists getting screwed, artists getting dropped, articles about the “death of the music business,” and so on. Okay, a lot of these things still sentiments are still deliberated upon, and will continue to occur in 2009 and beyond. But the one thing that hasn’t happened is that said death. The music industry is still kicking and labels are still around. Are they geniuses who figured out how to control their product? Hardly. But they’ve worked overtime, like mad scientists, in trying to come up with a new formula on how to get people to shell out their hard earned cash for records/cd’s/downloads.
Unlike the publishing industry, the music business has had a massive uphill climb, in that they lost control over their product. Books, by and large, haven’t been subjected to online piracy. At least not to my knowledge. Why is that? A guess (and assumption) would be, that while this decade has proved that people are willing to consume music, buy music, listen to music that doesn’t have a physical thing attached to its content, people haven’t shifted over to that physical-less thing for books. But supposedly they are; we shall see. Still, while you can enjoy tons of different sounds, lyrics, arrangements in just a three minute pop song, reading a PDF file of your illegally downloaded book, on your computer, just isn’t the same thing. For one, books are a time commitment; the new Coldplay song isn’t. Another thing- often, you can do things while playing that new Coldplay song- dust your room, do your hair, book a flight, have a conversation, or read about the perils of the publishing industry on the Internet. With a book, you can’t really do any of those things at the same time. You have to be invested in that one thing, in those pages and words and paragraphs. So, the nature of both things are quite different, and I don’t really see piracy having the same devastating effect on the publishing industry. But at the same time, the music industry had some role in their own pirated downfall- and it would seem that suggestions are being thrown around in a similiar vein, in terms of book publishing.
As much as I don’t like KISS, Gene Simmons knows a thing or two about sustaining a band through various stages and shifts through the industry. “”Thank God you’re the last vestiges of a dying breed, because the record industry is already dead, because we trained the people [that] they don’t have to pay for stuff that they used to pay for,” he said. “The record industry allowed that and people are shocked they’re out of business.”
What he’s saying is, that when the industry had to make a decision about the future- at the beginning of this decade- they balked. Instead of embracing models of online distribution, they retaliated with suing fans, putting restrictions on the digital playback options, or even worse, continued thinking about the bottom line, instead of the quality of their product, or quality of their artist. They still wanted that big payoff and those weeks where a million or more CD’s would fly off the shelf.
here we are now, entertain me
Eventually, they got wise. The music distribution business- both independent labels and majors - realized that they couldn’t keep investing in the same types of records they did in the past. It just didn’t make sense to keep going after one type of fan or sound, or an artist that would resonate with millions. Take for example seminal alt-grunge indie label Sub Pop . Sub Pop was known for bringing that certain flannelly, grunge sound to the forefront of the world, but in a recent conversation with one of the higher ups, he confessed to me that in 2001 / 2002, they weren’t doing well at all. Piracy was rampant, and they started to invest in comedians as a new type of CD to put out. They saw comedians as having a following just like rock bands, but they were also getting on late-night television shows, without anything to plug. Just to do a set of stand-up material. So they signed some comedians, as a different way to reach out to consumers. But Sub Pop didn’t stop there; they also started to massively diversify their musical artists as well and in doing so, they were able to appeal to many of the different niche’s that were being cultivated in online/offline/word-of-mouth worlds. Yes, this is a very LongTailian view, but now many bands that are in Starbucks, at major festivals, and are on countless iPods, sell out shows, appear on Letterman/Conan/Leno, are on Sub Pop: The Shins, The Postal Service, Band of Horses, Fleet Foxes, No Age, to name a few. And they all have radically different sounds, that appeal to (or have the ability to appeal to) many different listeners. And in doing so, Sub Pop has effectively rebranded themselves- not as the company that started grunge, but the record label that has this great, unique taste, where you have followers of every release they do.
Major labels have done this too and are now enjoying success with more “weirder” or “challenging” bands, such as TV on the Radio, MGMT, M.I.A., and Franz Ferdinand. All of these (with the exception of MGMT) were on indie labels prior to making the major league jump; I’d argue though, say ten years ago, none of these artists would ever make that jump- because they wouldn’t have been safe bets. In the past, record labels needed to play it safe, while at the same time, trying to appeal to many as possible.
But do people still want the same, safe thing, or are they tired of it? In 2001, Wilco handed over one of the best records of this decade in Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, got dumped by Reprise because it wasn’t “friendly” enough to radios, etc. It was too “weird.” That record pales in “weirdness” to say, M.I.A.’s Kala, out on Interscope. The point is, Interscope diversified. Which I think is very different than one view of the publishing industry, where you just publish fewer, quality books. You could do that. Or you could publish a bunch of books that will tap into many, many types of disparate audiences, that are of high quality, too. But most probably try to do that, all ready. But is it working?
Maybe it’s not so much the diversity of a publishing house- they have a large catalog and do have a wide range of quality titles. Maybe its just that they haven’t been able to tap into new readers, like Lawrence Osbourne argues; book publishers have yet to really explore the avenues that readers exist in, or are massively struggling to gain new readers. One thing that struck me as curious: if 2008 was the “year of the book trailer”, yet Youtube has been around since 2005, what was the holdup in creating teaser trailers for books?
Because the music industry lost control over it’s product, this decade we’ve seen all different facets try to hatch some sort of scheme to get artists and labels money. Synch deals with brands. Commercial licensing has gone through the roof- that’s every publicist and industry type’s goal, is to get a song licensed. If you land on Grey’s Anatomy or Gossip Girl- jackpot. Some will do stunts, like Dr. Pepper and Cartel , where they record their album in a see through bubble. That didn’t do so well. But others, like Converse, will commission artists like they did this summer- in Pharrell Williams, Santogold, and Julian from the Strokes to make a track for them. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement, where the shoe company got exposure through the artist, and the artist- who has their work stolen regularly- got paid.
Are there forward thinking situations that could provide authors with something similar? In this Village Voice article, the notion of the “book tour” is argued to be antiquated and not worth the money spent. I’d agree, if only three people are showing up. But maybe book stores aren’t the best place to reach a book buying public? Maybe if you’re out plugging a cook book, you do signings/demonstrations at a restaurant. Or a farmer’s market. Maybe if your coming of age teen novel is about a scrapbooking protagonist who finds his/her way, you go to craft stores, or sewing circles, or the like. And if your police crime thriller somehow has a morgue tied into the opening scene, yep, you guessed it, somehow work in a morgue (well, their might not be that many active readers at a morgue, but you get the point). Readers, like music listeners, are everywhere. But as the music industry has learned- they’re not going to come to you anymore; you have to go to them. You have to rely on more than just hoping for a print review and a blog post here and there to get the word out. This is something that publishers and authors a like, need to think about. And some have, like this dude who went to a book club and participated. Cool, interactive websites, contests that involve reader submissions have sprouted up here and there, or embeddable soundtracks, like on the recent Augusten Burroughs memoir are a decent start.
Because as blockbusters such as Harry Potter and Twilight have shown, people that read exist. And there are also a ton of people out there that get so into it, they are willing to dress up as characters, wait in line at midnight, and go to a “vampire prom” that was held at my local Barnes and Noble this past summer. This is probably akin to a Bruce Springsteen show at Giants Stadium; you have something so big, that its hard for many to resist. These are your summer blockbusters, your big concert/festivals. While part of what makes these book events, “events,” is the strength of the idea and writing, another part of it is that booksellers and publishers are happy to create that level of excitement over a book. This can be done around others, as well. It’s about creating books that make it fun to be a reader, or at least try and tap into what is fun about the act of reading. The music industry is now trying to tap into what’s fun about being a music fan- besides just the record. The Revenge of the Bookeaters does this, to a degree. I’m sure more things down the road could be done that involves involvement.
Which brings up a good question: should publishers work to secure more new authors that can rise up, and maybe create a Twilight of their own (with the right mechanisms correctly in place, of course)? Or just invest in people who are already at a major status, in a different area of the culture industries? A recent Wall Street Journal article argues that the big time deal is the only true way, and in turn, the way to save the industry is to sign more “brand names,” like the recent squawking over Sarah Silverman’s large book deal. I think the reason most were up in arms, and possibly rightfully so, is that she’s an actress; not a “writer.” Music critics question the same thing when actors/actresses cut a record- what qualifies them to write a song, or reinterpret Tom Waits? But from a publishing stand point, I get it; its a safer bet that Silverman will sell books because of who she is, not what she wrote. Is it? She will get the media ops because of who she is, sure. But I can’t help but think back to Water For Elephants, a great book that was rejected Wilco style by Gruen’s major publisher. It went on to massive critical and commercial success, based on the person’s ability to write and tell a story. Where as when you sit down with Tina Fey or Silverman, and decide to fork over the cash to them, both parties know that its not the product or quality of the book that is being paid for; its the Fey / Silverman brand. The transaction is not for the writing; its for something else. The general public also might know this too, and it might be more of a risk then one would think. Would you pay to see a concert put on by people who were not musicians? Or go to a play with people performing who are not actors? Maybe you would; Steve Martin’s books do well, I suppose. But they might be ghost-written, who knows.
I right stuff, LOL
There will always be Katy Perry’s and Jonas Brothers and Tila Tequila’s that segue into the publishing world; but should the indie presses and majors alike, continue to focus on those, or not? Major labels still snap up artists that are proven successes and still release music from artists that don’t sell anything anymore, or in the numbers that they used to. But like I said, major labels are now getting recognized for the forward thinking artists they sign, and not so much the commercially schlocky ones. The TV on the Radio’s are getting booked at festivals; the Katy Perry’s are not. For books, and this is very much rhetorical: which has more of an opportunity to advance the craft? That same Wall Street Journal article looks at Dewey, the book about the library cat as proof that rolling out the bucks is the way to go on returns. Dewey is like Katy Perry; a breakthrough act, that all arts industries strive for. But what if a lot of the resources put into Dewey were also put into other first timers? One that could make a quick buck/waste money, or one that will sustain a forward thinking career in his/her writing. In music, the one’s that are forward thinking, are winning as much as the Jonas Bros./flavor of the months (assuming they have a strong commitment to touring).
Which brings us to the music industry’s golden example/model of the decade: Radiohead. When they self-released “In Rainbows” back in October of 2007, they told fans they could pay anything they wanted- in a download format only. It was a sliding scale, based on how much you think Radiohead’s record is worth to you, and you got it. I think I paid around $5.00. It was worth so much more. So much, that a monetary tag doesn’t do it justice.
The thing is, Radiohead was in a position to do this. They already had a massive “brand” status across the globe, and continue to be one of the most widely obsessed about acts, ever. Because they were not contractually obligated to release this through a label, they financed the recording themselves (they could afford it) and they could afford to have everyone pay $0.00. They are set. Which means, they could afford to take this risk.
Should publishers keep paying out mega-advances to the Radioheads of the book world? I’m talking the Tom Wolfe’s, the Stephen Kings, etc. Big time authors who have big time, massive followings don’t need any of the resources a publishing house will offer them; they are in the position to self-publish. They can hire a distributor, set their own prices, and control the distribution of their own works, while making money. Their books will always get reviews and they will always get media ops- because of who they are. In the mean time, publishing houses can save money on advances (that may or may not make it back), divert the resources they are putting into a major, major author, into smaller authors, and ultimately work to “build the brand,” instead of keeping a high cost / possible high return signed. This, too, would free up money for more riskier books, or diversity, but more importantly, funnel energy into authors who will need it to sustain a career; should a Dewey hit, great. But maybe two Deweys will hit the shelves. Two is better than one, in theory. The idea that you have to fund lower authors through the sales of major authors books- or celebrities- doesn’t need to be the case.
Regardless, the point is, books aren’t going away, and the publishing industry, while probably a bit nervous, they have a unique opportunity in that books are still something people by and large, have to buy. The new things/hope like the Sony Style , Kindle , and Nintendo DS - all of which are trying to be a book- these are all new ways of getting content to folks- and this is what the music industry has had to force itself to do. The question remains: isn’t there a way to convince us that the content is a good time? I believe there is. But I’m a glass-half-full type when it comes to creativity.
