Here are two recent stories that help demonstrate why traditional publishers are being left behind and left out.
A few weeks ago, the managing director at a book publishing company called to say they would be interested in republishing my book Goal Play! They said they were really impressed with it and the reception it was getting in the marketplace. They indicated, though, that they would want to change the focus of the book, perhaps change the title, and likely redesign the cover. In addition, they offered royalties that were well less than 20% of what I receive from self-publishing the book. They emphasized that they would still expect me to continue to handle most of the publicity and marketing for the book.
No thanks.
More recently, an intermediary informed me that a major metropolitan newspaper had expressed interest in reprinting my most recent blog post as an op-ed. I replied, "Sure, if we can keep the meaning within their editorial requirements. I usually don't do op-eds any more because newspapers often edit things without permission, and they also attach headlines that are not on point, so I'd like to be sure that I have final rights on whatever is to be printed."
The response from an editorial page editor at the newspaper: "No, we have to edit stuff sometimes and run our own headlines. We have to do that to get out 14 pages a week. It would be chaos if we didn't reserve that right."
No thanks.
Can you now understand why traditional publishers are being disintermediated by the electronic media? Their view that they must control all aspects of what they publish is a throw-back to an earlier era. The publishers do not appear to understand how to live, thrive, and participate in the democratization of the marketplace that has resulted from social media. While they can still bring value to that marketplace, they run the risk of squashing creativity and market entry by new authors, maybe because of their undue concern that they -- rather than the authors -- will be judged by what is published. Golly, they remind me of doctors and hospitals who refuse to engage in a partnership with patients and families in the design and delivery of care!
A few weeks ago, the managing director at a book publishing company called to say they would be interested in republishing my book Goal Play! They said they were really impressed with it and the reception it was getting in the marketplace. They indicated, though, that they would want to change the focus of the book, perhaps change the title, and likely redesign the cover. In addition, they offered royalties that were well less than 20% of what I receive from self-publishing the book. They emphasized that they would still expect me to continue to handle most of the publicity and marketing for the book.
No thanks.
More recently, an intermediary informed me that a major metropolitan newspaper had expressed interest in reprinting my most recent blog post as an op-ed. I replied, "Sure, if we can keep the meaning within their editorial requirements. I usually don't do op-eds any more because newspapers often edit things without permission, and they also attach headlines that are not on point, so I'd like to be sure that I have final rights on whatever is to be printed."
The response from an editorial page editor at the newspaper: "No, we have to edit stuff sometimes and run our own headlines. We have to do that to get out 14 pages a week. It would be chaos if we didn't reserve that right."
No thanks.
Can you now understand why traditional publishers are being disintermediated by the electronic media? Their view that they must control all aspects of what they publish is a throw-back to an earlier era. The publishers do not appear to understand how to live, thrive, and participate in the democratization of the marketplace that has resulted from social media. While they can still bring value to that marketplace, they run the risk of squashing creativity and market entry by new authors, maybe because of their undue concern that they -- rather than the authors -- will be judged by what is published. Golly, they remind me of doctors and hospitals who refuse to engage in a partnership with patients and families in the design and delivery of care!
