The New York Times published this story on June 29. I’ve read about it in several other places since then.
I find this sort of thing to be rather interesting because we’re often told that the Internet and social media have “leveled the playing field” so to speak between the big cheeses and the “little guys”. Fascinating!
It seems in this case, the big cheese won.
A Summary Of Big And Small
I usually hear about the battle between David and Goliath in business circles where I spend a great deal of time as a small business marketer. But I’m going to steer this discussion in the direction of the author-editor-publisher troika.
I believe I have some unique insight here because I fall into all of the above categories. I own my business and have people working for me, which makes me somewhat of a big cheese. Yet, my business is small enough to be considered a small business so I’m still a little guy. In the literary world I am an author, an editor, and a publisher. So I’ve got all the bases covered.
But this isn’t about me. It’s about power.
Here’s the question: Has the Internet truly leveled the power structure between the “haves” and the “have nots” or has it simply provided opportunities to succeed and to fail that before were not available to people at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale?
You should probably read that question two or three times and let it sink in. I believe if you ask a question the right way then you can get any answer you want. So I’ve specifically worded this question to ask it in such a way that it might shed some light on what’s really going on in this newfangled techno-revolution.
But I’m going to try and apply the answer to the publishing field and see where it gets us.
My Response As An Author
I see the world through multiple lenses. Sometimes those lenses are at odds with one another and I must find some way to reconcile them. Such is the case with my literary aspirations.
As an author, I’m excited about the unique opportunities the Internet affords. But there are just as many pitfalls as there are opportunities. It isn’t all a bed of roses.
Before the Internet, before newsrooms and forums, and even before e-mail, if an author disagreed with a review, she could just send a private letter to the reviewer or pick up the phone and call the reviewer and give that reviewer a piece of her mind. No one had to know. I’m not saying that’s what one should have done, but an author could have done just that and no one would have known. Or likely cared.
Today, the temptation to respond to something someone writes online is so great that an author can embarrass herself before she comes to her senses. And everyone will know it.
That’s a pitfall. But it isn’t the only one.
Many authors are so excited about the opportunity to self-publish that they hasten themselves to do so long before they are ready. They could be hurting their careers before they get them off the ground. That’s another pitfall.
These pitfalls don’t diminish the opportunities or the rewards for success. But any author who is considering doing it all themselves should take note of them. Calculate the risks or they could get you in the end.
My Response As An Editor
An editor’s job is to give a work the best presentation possible in order to make the experience a great one for the reader. Too many authors do not understand the editor’s role.
Editors are people so we are prone to mistakes, errors, and bad judgment just like the rest of you. But a good editor can make a mediocre writer look outstanding. Trust me, I’ve made many a small town news reporter look much better than they actually were on paper. It’s not hard if you’re any good at editing.
As an editor, however, I’ve seen good writers make fatal mistakes that a little restraint could have saved them from making. I’ve made my fair share for sure.
Reviewers, too, have their challenges. It isn’t easy to read someone else’s work and pull out the good, separate it from the bad, and communicate one’s findings to an audience that may or may not give a damn. I am fortunate in that no one I have reviewed for World Class Poetry book reviews has responded to me in the manner that Alice Hoffman did to her reviewer. And I’ve said some pretty nasty things about some of those books – by independent authors nonetheless. The bright spot has been that some of them have thanked me for taking the time to read their work and comment on it. That shows a level of professionalism that can be admired.
So as an editor, when I see someone act publicly in the manner that Alice Hoffman has, it frustrates me. There really is no excuse.
My Response As A Publisher
My response as a publisher is much more bleak. But it really is from an author’s perspective as much as from a publisher’s.
When you take on the roll of publisher, you are assuming responsibility for all aspects of the publishing process, from selection of material to editing to printing, copyrighting, marketing, and distribution. You accept the failures and the successes for all of it. Period.
In all likelihood, you will not be good at all of it. I see too many self-published authors who are just downright awful at editing their own work. I have fallen prey to this myself. While I consider myself a good editor of other’s, I am no good at editing my own. And that’s a terrible tragedy.
By the same token, many authors are lousy at marketing. They could be great editors, but if you can’t market your book then what difference does it make? Your book won’t sell.
Many self-published authors have no problem outsourcing the printing of their book, but when it comes to handling the rest of the publishing process, they want to do it all themselves. And they fail miserably. No wonder. They’ve got bad judgment.
Bad judgment comes in many flavors. As a publisher, you can exercise bad judgment in your selection of authors, or more specifically in the selection of a particular project. As an editor, you can exercise bad judgment in the layout and design of a book. As an author, you can exercise bad judgment in any number of ways (choice of words, choice of editors, choice of publishers, subject matter, et. al.). And marketing. Who is responsible for that?
Well, honestly, everyone is responsible for marketing. Many authors who opt for traditional publishing think that just because they have the name of a big publisher behind them that their job is done. When the marketing fails, it’s time to complain. But ask them if they gave any readings, sent out any press releases, or hired a publicist and the answer is almost always “No.”
Fail!
If you are a working author then you have to take responsibility for your own success, whether you do it all yourself or publish through a large publishing house. If you want to succeed, you’ve got to learn how to market yourself. And that requires more than a strategy based on hope.
It’s hard being a publisher. You have risks. Financial risks, legal risks, editorial risks, just to name a few. The risks don’t change if you are a self-publisher. Their magnitude may change, but at the heart of it all is risk. Real risks. And I’m talking more than the risk you took to expose your innermost, darkest secrets. Those are minimal compared to the risk that your publisher is taking on you.
The competition is stiff. Consumers are fickle. Production costs are rising. The budget is tight. Those assholes in Congress are in session again. Someone put chocolate in someone else’s peanut butter.
You get the picture. There’s always a reason (or an excuse) to fail. Do it yourself and you have no one to blame.
The Most Important Part Of The Publishing Process
You have your strengths. I have mine. Quasimodo has his. And they are all quite different, yes?
Yes.
My strength is editing, though admittedly I am lousy at editing my own work. I’m a not-so-bad writer. A better than average poet. Good at certain aspects of marketing, and getting better. And the verdict is still out on my skill as a publisher. I’m banking on adequate. If not profitable.
But this isn’t about tooting my horn. It’s about knowing thyself and to thine own self being true (thanks, Shakey).
Do you know your strengths? Your weaknesses? Your biases?
I’m surprised at how many authors enter into self-publishing without taking personal inventory and counting the costs. Were you aware that marketing is the most important aspect of the publishing process? It isn’t the writing. No one cares how good a writer you are until they’ve bought your book. But for that to happen, someone has to “sell” it. It has to be marketed. Are you any good at marketing?
As mentioned before, too many authors are willing to outsource the printing, but not much else. Why? You should outsource every part of the process that you aren’t any good at. You know why? Because your success is at stake. And as a publisher you’ve got to make good decisions. That means hiring the best person for the job.
This is why most self-published authors don’t get very far. I wrote a blog post in March in which I discussed the vanity of self-publishing online. Several readers took me to task on my stance, which I expected. But the majority of the comments were made due to a misunderstanding of my intent. That was likely my fault for not communicating clearly about the subject matter. I can take those hits.
But what I can’t take is an author who fails and blames it on someone else. I don’t think for a minute that Alice Hoffman’s apology is all that sincere. When an author list’s a reviewer’s phone number and asks her readers to
“Tell her what u think of snarky critics.”
it indicates to me that the author clearly thought that such a request would be honored and vindicate her by popular opinion. It stems from the misconception that the Internet has “leveled the playing field”. Such moves are done as a power play. In this case, it backfired.
Lousy marketing.
Hoffman took a calculated risk and failed. So own up to it. The fact that she deleted her Twitter account seems to imply that her embarrassment runs deeper than a mere publisher’s statement. It likely means that she was ordered to remove it by her publisher or she has realized that she does not know how to use social media and removed it for fear of retaliation, or some other concern. I’m not trying to crawl into Hoffman’s head, but I know that she now is a liability to her publisher and that her publisher would be right in having concerns about Hoffman’s future marketability.
Marketing is the most important part of the publishing process. Do it right, do it wrong, or not at all. The payoff is a sonofabitch for somebody.
Why You Should Think Twice About Publishing Your Own Book
Hoffman’s faux pas is not unique. For every successful author or artist doing it all themselves (and there are some) there are 10 Alice Hoffmans with heads planted firmly up asses.
Hoffman’s response to a critic could have been made by anyone – even a self-published author. But it gets media attention because Hoffman has achieved a certain level of success in the past. However, future success is not dependent on the past. It is dependent on the present.
Do you know how to use the marketing tools at your disposal? Do you know how to conduct a feasibility study or find the audience for your book? How about social media marketing or search engine optimization? Understand how it’s done?
This blog achieved high traffic and high search engine rankings within six months with hardly any marketing simply because of my skill in search engine optimization. But readers have continued to come back because I can write with their interests in mind (or at least with enough fisticuffs to keep their voyeuristic eye open). In the past eight months I have written less often, but my rankings are still present at the search engines and while my traffic has declined somewhat my subscriptions are going up.
Again, I’m not tooting my horn for ego’s sake. I have made certain editorial decisions that have contributed to this blog’s success. Some of those have to do with my “snarkiness”, a quality not appreciated by everyone. My sarcasm on this blog is partly due to temperament and partly due to a marketing “concept” to make myself unique. It works. People read it and respond to it, sometimes negatively. Boo hoo.
At some point in your life as a publisher, you’ll have to make decisions that, as an author, you’ll simply hate. If you don’t make them then you won’t succeed, either as an author or a publisher. In a word, you’ve got to exercise good judgment.
Many writers don’t have good judgment when it comes to editing or publishing. It comes from knowing your strengths. Simply being in control of your works of art is not a benefit. You decide to self-publish because you hope to profit from your writing. Otherwise, why would you shell out the expense? Printing isn’t cheap. And controlling too much can mean putting the stranglehold of death upon your talents.
To bring a long story to a quick halt, the most important quality for an author, an editor, or a publisher is good judgment. And that judgment manifests in different ways depending on the hat you are wearing. But if you don’t have good judgment in matters of publishing then you should fire your publisher and find a new one. Because bad judgment is a killer and the last thing you want left in the morgue is your writing career.
Well, attacking their critics didn’t do E.E. Cummings or Franz Wright any harm. In fact, it made them more famous.
Yes, but it matters how you do it. I’m pretty sure E.E. Cummings would not have deleted his Twitter account. And I think Franz Wright should get one. That’s just my humble opinion.
Hey Allen, this is a very good post. I self-published and, while I don’t regret it, I certainly haven’t made the effort necessary to assure it’s “success”. Marketing is everything. History is rife with mediocre talents who were exceptionally good at marketing themselves. Artistic talent has never been, in and of itself, a guarantor of success. Marketing talent is a much surer indicator.
I’m not sure that your advice should be: Don’t self-publish. Better advice: Do so with your eyes open and be honest with yourself. If I haven’t sold dozens of books, I can’t blame anyone but myself. But… you know what? I like that. I would rather blame myself than feel as though some publisher counted beans and decided my work wasn’t worth the investment. I own my books. When I’m ready, and I’m getting there, they will be ready. My blog has been my first effort at marketing. And it’s worked.
As to your question:
//Has the Internet truly leveled the power structure between the “haves” and the “have nots” or has it simply provided opportunities to succeed and to fail that before were not available to people at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale?//
I think your question depends on which genre you’re discussing. In the music world, it has *definitely* leveled the power structure.
In poetry? You know… Allen. You’re question is based on a premise; and your premise is that there is, in fact, a “power structure” – that there are “haves”.
I question your premise. The whole poetry “industry”, in all its guises, has dismally failed in the last half century and more. What does success mean to a poet? Does it mean publishing x number of poems in journals, then winning a book contest, then getting published by whatever publisher has awarded the poet first place? If so, then don’t self-publish. But that “success” is short lived. How many award winning books and chapbooks are published each year that promptly fade into obscurity outside anything but academics and insiders?
All of them.
I frankly couldn’t care less for the “poetry foundations” or the institutes, publishers or their journals. I want to reach the general reader. I want to be read by the general public. When I look at the publishing industry, as it concerns poetry, all I see is a sustained track record of failure.
I’d love to know how many copies of “Alphabet” by Ron Silliman actually sells. Comparatively speaking… probably just a handful.
If I succeed or fail, it will be on my own terms. I’m OK with that. I own all my poetry.
//This blog achieved high traffic and high search engine rankings within six months with hardly any marketing simply because of my skill in search engine optimization.//
Mine too. And that’s because I filled a niche that no other poet has filled. Anywhere, or at least to my knowledge.
Will that success brush off on my poetry? It remains to be seen. But I’m more than willing to take responsibility for its success or failure.
Patrick, you’re approaching it with the right attitude. Certainly. I’m not trying to keep everyone from self-publishing. I do think that is an individual’s decision, but it has to be done, as you say, “with eyes open.” There are a lot of pitfalls.
I agree on your power structure retort. Yes, it makes a difference on genre, but I’m not sure the music industry is a good example. There are a lot of musicians who have managed to use the online tools to their advantage. MySpace and Facebook certainly helped out with that. For music, MySpace was a big leveler. And YouTube as well. But if you look at who was able to take the best advantage of the tools, it was acts that had big followings prior to going online. Radiohead, for example. Stephen King’s efforts, on the other hand, haven’t turned out so well. Why not?
I’m sure we can come up with a dozen or so reasons why it hasn’t, but with poetry I would say there is definitely a power structure. The problem with poets is that we tend to undersell ourselves. How many times do you hear someone say, “There’s no money in poetry.” Meanwhile, poets like Naomi Shihab Nye and Gary Mex Glazner write “Poet” on their income tax returns. How do they make a full-time income while the rest of us just get by? I think too many poets set their sights too low. Others are just plain lousy marketers and blame it on “the industry”, a lack of a market, or something else.
Question: If there’s such a lousy market for poetry then why are there so many journals and books being published every year? More now than ever. Thesis: Take away the NEA, Guggenheim, and the many other foundations that fund poetry and more than half the most successfully published poets today would quit writing and the rest of us could thank God and count the opportunities. Let there be a true free market in poetry publishing and I think you’d see the money.
Who’s making money now? iUniverse, Xlibris, and Lulu. Plus the executive directors of those non-profit poetry foundations in the industry “where there’s no money to be made”. I think it’s a ruse. Take away the power structure and let freedom ring.
//I’m sure we can come up with a dozen or so reasons why it hasn’t, but with poetry I would say there is definitely a power structure.//
Yes, but to what end? The only power structure I see is a self-perpetuating “poetry industry” of poets teaching, talking to, and writing for poets. If a poet’s only aim is to make a living off poetry, then he or she definitely must contend with the “power structure” and, as I wrote, publish in hundreds of journals, enter dozens of competitions, probably get an MFA, and then, with enough contacts, find their way into academics or, if you’re like April Ossman, merrily make money off other poets and writers.
Nothing wrong with that.
But who reads Ossman’s poetry?
As to Naomi Shihab Nye and Gary Mex Glazner… in terms of poetry, who are they? I looked them both up. I could walk down the halls of Dartmouth and *maybe* a handful of people will have read their poetry. Do they make their living by selling their poetry to the general public? According to Wikipedia, Nye has published fiction and is a songwriter, Glazner is primarily mentioned as an organizer of poetry slams and the writer of three books, two of which (ironically) about how poets can make a living being poets.
Really?
Since I’m betting that you know Glazner, ask him this: Could he make a living selling Glazner’s poetry?
There’s a difference between being a “poet”, in my view, and “making money off poetry”.
They’re both equally valid, but if I have to choose, I choose Poet – with a capital “P”.
//The problem with poets is that we tend to undersell ourselves. How many times do you hear someone say, “There’s no money in poetry.” //
No, there’s lot’s of money in poetry. O dear Gawd, there’s lots and lots and lots of money to be made “off poetry” and “off poets”. Just ask the bean counter at any College or University that offers an MFA. And sure, I’d like to make some of that money, but more than that, I want the success of being read.
And I think that’s what idealistic younger poets are referring to when they say there’s no money in poetry. They mean: there’s no money to be made by selling my own poetry. And, unless they’re great poets of Frost’s caliber, or phenomenal marketers of Kiyosaki’s caliber, then they’re probably right.
I don’t want the recognition of the poetry business, but the general reader.
That’s what I don’t see any poets doing, with the exception of Mary Oliver. Ashbery is the darling of the poetry business, not the general reader.
And it’s in that respect that the poetry power structure is an illusion. It doesn’t exist.
Oh, if you want to get philosophical, all things are an illusion. That’s what creates reality.
As for Nye and Glazner, I don’t know how popular Nye is on Main Street, but I know she is fairly popular outside academia (and inside academia as well). I don’t know Glazner, never met him. I did read one of his books and while many of the ideas he shares are not up my alley, I’d say if you want to become popular among the general reading public then you should read the book. Maybe a couple of the ideas will strike a chord with you. I thought the idea of a poetry diner was interesting and someone, it seems, actually pulled it off.
If you want to a be popular poet with the general public, I’d suggest three tracks:
Understand that the general public doesn’t read, let alone poetry. You’re not going to get anyone’s attention by publishing in the traditional sense, even self-publishing. People want to be entertained and unless you can write poetry that entertains, in the same vein as Robert Service or Dr Seuss, then you’ll be disappointed. Dashed. Singing the blues. Moving against the current in a kayak.
//I don’t know how popular Nye is on Main Street, but I know she is fairly popular outside academia//
OK… but how do you know that? I’m not disputing your assertion, necessarily; let’s add her to the list of poets who have broken out of academic recognition if you’re right.
//I’d say if you want to become popular among the general reading public then you should read the book.//
Since you read it, how has it worked out for you?
//If you want to a be popular poet with the general public, I’d suggest three tracks:
* Write sappy greeting cards
* Become an itinerant and stand on street corners barking your poetry as people walk by
* Write children’s poetry
Understand that the general public doesn’t read, let alone poetry.//
Right, this is the myth that is perpetuated by the “haves”, the “powers that be”, and which you are parroting. It’s the “Blame the Audience” refrain. You should know better than to buy into this rubbish. It’s *demonstrably* false.
If you want to be read by the general public, right good poetry. No… scratch that… right *great* poetry. The reading public has no trouble discriminating between good and bad poetry and they have plenty of interest in poetry. They continue to buy reams and reams of Robert Frost, Millay, Shakespeare, Keats, Cummings, Mary Oliver and to a certain degree, and Yeats.
Rather than admit to itself that its writing is lackluster and bad poetry, a whole generation has convinced itself that they are writing for a lackluster and bad audience.
Rubbish.
Allen, if you want to be read by the general public, write great poetry; study what they are actually reading.
//People want to be entertained//
People want to read good literature.
Audience? What audience? One can’t blame something that isn’t there. The average person in the U.S. would rather drink a six pack of beer and eat chocolate cookies while watching reruns of the Simpsons. Before TV and radio I’d say there was an audience for poetry. Back when The Saturday Evening Post published poetry in every issue and Ma and Pa looked forward to getting it in the mail. I guess you could say Robert Frost was the last popular poet. Now we’ve got Billy Collins – light verse for the Postmodern era.
Blame the lack of audience on nonsensical and bland academic poetry if you want, but that’s only part of it. We’re also competing against Dolby Sound and 500 channels of cable. Sorry, but wooden wheels just don’t compete against jet propulsion.
What audience?
The one that’s interested enough to keep Frost’s poems at 38,363 in the Amazon Sales ranking. The one that keeps Dickinson’s at 23,091; or Mary Oliver’s latest at 8,468 (who, I noticed, was just dissed by some avant-garde poets – which I take to be a good sign).
That’s damned respectable and better than many of the romance novels I looked up (randomly).
If I could reach that audience, I could live off my poetry.
Isn’t ‘Avant-garde poetry’ an oxymoron?
@Patrick, from Amazon’s own website:
In other words, rankings have no meaning. How many sales does it take to achieve that number? Furthermore, what time period does it cover? Amazon updates its rankings every hour, but does that sales ranking mean that’s what a book has achieved since Amazon started selling it? If so, that doesn’t really fare well for Robert Frost.
By contrast, Amazon’s #1 selling book, “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine”, is also No. 1 on the NYT Bestseller List. However, the No. 2 book in the same category on the NYT list isn’t even in the top 100 on Amazon.
All of those rankings only make sense if you’re into comparing yourself against everybody else. Rankings are relative to other moving targets. If you look at hard sales data that will tell a much bigger story. According to the Association of American Publishers, annual book sales for 2008 declined by 2.8% to $24.3 billion. Reference:
http://www.publishers.org/main/IndustryStats/IndStats/2008/2008_Stats.htm
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 281,421,906 residents of the U.S. in 2000. Assuming no rise or fall in population, that amounts to a total of $86.34 average dollars spent per person on books. That’s all books sold last year. What percentage of that do you think was on poetry books and what percentage of the U.S. population do you think actually spent money on books? And what percentage of that spent money on poetry books, specifically?
Seriously, Americans are not readers. They’d rather spend $30 to go to a movie to watch Bruce Willis blow up the same things he blew up in the last movie than to spend $2 on a used poetry book and expand their vocabulary.
@Gary, good jab. lol
//In other words, rankings have no meaning. How many sales does it take to achieve that number? Furthermore, what time period does it cover? Amazon updates its rankings ever hour, but does that sales ranking mean that’s what a book has achieved since Amazon started selling it? //
And here is the answer to all those questions:
47.9% of Amazon’s sales consisted of titles ranked better than (under) 40,000. 39.2% of their sales were books ranked between 40,000 and 100,000.5 Titles ranked between 100,000 and 200,000 accounted for 7.3% of sales, while titles ranked from 200,000 to 300,000 accounted for only 4.6% of sales.5 Anything above that accounts for only 1% of sales.
Researchers at MIT (Brynjolfsson, Yu and Smith) studied publisher-provided data of one publisher’s weekly sales for 321 titles, and compared the figures to Amazon’s sales rankings for the same week. The observed weekly sales of these books ranged from 1 to 481 copies and the observed weekly rankings ranged from 238 to 961,367.5 Morris Rosenthal of Foner Books also analyzed performance based on a brand new book he published. Combining the information culled from both studies, if a book is ranked 100,000 you’re looking at selling about 1 copy per day. At a ranking of 30,000 it’s averaging between 1 and 2 copies per day. The 10,000 ranking calculates to 2 copies a day. The 1,000 ranking is estimated at 11 sales that day.11 A book with a rank of 10 is estimated to get 700 sales a day.
Keep in mind that a ranking ***at any single point in time*** is not indicative of actual sales. Selling two copies of a title, regardless of whether it has ever sold before, will propel it into the top 50,000 for at least a few hours. If the same book otherwise sells very rarely, or never, it will drop 100,000 rankings the next day, 400,000 rankings over the course of the week, another 200,000 rankings the next week, and so on. Eventually it will hover around 2,000,000.
//In other words, rankings have no meaning.//
Wrong. They only have no meaning **at any single point in time**. I just published a post that rebuts your argument and others like it.
//Seriously, Americans are not readers.//
Sheer nonsense. Seriously. If you believe this then why are you writing?
So what you’re telling me is Mary Oliver’s most recent book is selling about 4.44 copies per day. That equates to 1,620 books per year. In your mind, that’s an audience? I hope you achieve your dream of becoming as successful as Oliver. She probably makes about $1.50 per book in royalties.
Again, I defer to the population of the U.S. in 2000.
Because I can’t help it. I need it more than air.
: )
If I’m ever as popular as Mary Oliver, then I’ll be happier than a pig in mud. Thank you, Allen. You have a heart of gold.
//Because I can’t help it. I need it more than air.//
Me too.