Traditional v. Self-Publishing: A Suggestion | Part 3
A Solution:
Why not consider a joint venture? Writers and publishers working together. Why shouldn't we writers make a financial investment in the printing of our books? A writer might argue that s/he has already made a significant $$$ investment by virtue of the time spent writing the book, but that's disingenuous. Anyone who creates something and then seeks to produce it for market distribution not only invests time but also money in both creation and production. If we writers see our books as "products," then there's no reason we shouldn't invest in them. Why should we expect publishers to take all of the financial risk? We don't like the control they have over us, but we have to understand that as long as they make the lion's share of dollar investment, they'll have the lion's share of control.
So I'm suggesting a joint partnership, one in which authors finance the initial setup of their work and publishers take prime responsibility for actually bringing the work to market, i.e. distribution and promotion. Both sides would get to enjoy a healthier balance of power and higher return on investment. The share of royalties could be tweaked and adjusted to suit each partnership.
Where would literary agents fit under this scenario? They would still be there. Their skills for diplomatic negotiation would be just as necessary as ever. Yes, some writers are great at approaching publishing houses for deals, but most of us aren't. Agents would still represent us. But the framework of the deal would differ.
Why not consider a joint venture? Writers and publishers working together. Why shouldn't we writers make a financial investment in the printing of our books? A writer might argue that s/he has already made a significant $$$ investment by virtue of the time spent writing the book, but that's disingenuous. Anyone who creates something and then seeks to produce it for market distribution not only invests time but also money in both creation and production. If we writers see our books as "products," then there's no reason we shouldn't invest in them. Why should we expect publishers to take all of the financial risk? We don't like the control they have over us, but we have to understand that as long as they make the lion's share of dollar investment, they'll have the lion's share of control.
So I'm suggesting a joint partnership, one in which authors finance the initial setup of their work and publishers take prime responsibility for actually bringing the work to market, i.e. distribution and promotion. Both sides would get to enjoy a healthier balance of power and higher return on investment. The share of royalties could be tweaked and adjusted to suit each partnership.
Where would literary agents fit under this scenario? They would still be there. Their skills for diplomatic negotiation would be just as necessary as ever. Yes, some writers are great at approaching publishing houses for deals, but most of us aren't. Agents would still represent us. But the framework of the deal would differ.
0 comments:
Post a Comment