Time to Trim the Long Tail of Publishing?
But perhaps we should change it. Leigh Anne Williams wrote in Publisher’s Weekly on February 8 about the uncertainty in Canada’s publishing industry as a result of H.B. Fenn and Company filing for bankruptcy, Fenn being the largest retail book distributor in Canada. Publishers like Macmillan (being the largest represented by Fenn) scrambled to find a way to bring their books to market, and have now settled upon a wholesale (not retail) book distributor, Ingram. Canadian booksellers are concerned about returns, because Ingram is based in the US. The entire publishing industry is cowering under a falling sky as they did in 2002 when General Publishing gasped its last. They’re blaming digital sales for the demise of Fenn, for the lack of print sales, for their own anaemic condition.
As a mouse you’re able to gain a different perspective. Perhaps my larger, allegedly more sagacious colleagues would say mine is a minuscule perspective. From down here it seems to me everyone knew about this evolution in publishing, and instead of looking at how to adapt and survive, they kept those chins tucked and the tut-tuts coming.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense could see an industry that insists upon the inefficiency of multiple-sales-channel layers to bring a product to market is going to eventually collapse. There’s only so much of that profit-pie to go around. It’s almost Monty Python in its ridiculous proportion.
“Do you publish XBook by BAuthor?”
“Why yes we do.”
“May I purchase a copy for our store, please? I have a customer interested.”
“Oh, no, you’ll have to go to the Official Bookseller for that.”
“But the Official Bookseller won’t allow me to buy only one copy. I have to buy 10.”
“Oh, well, you could buy 10 and then return nine and get full credit.”
“But I don’t want 10, I only want one. Couldn’t I buy that one I see right there?”
“Oh, no, I’m sorry. I couldn’t possibly sell you that.”
And so it’s always gone. At least in the last 50 years or so.
Then there’s the whole industry based around returns. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that allowing a customer (bookseller) to rent (allow returns) your product for a year at at time, and rent enormous quantities of it is most likely going to result in skewed sales numbers, unrealistic profit expectations, and eventual disaster. It’s simply such a waste — of natural resources, of human resources. It’s a drain on cash flow.
Let me illustrate the ridiculousness of that business model another way. You purchase 10 ceramic mugs as stock for your store. You shelve them. Over the course of the year you sell two of the mugs, but now it seems the remaining stock isn’t moving. So, despite the fact the mugs have been knocked around a bit, you fully expect to return the mugs to the manufacturer for a full refund, and are surprised when the manufacturer informs you that the mugs are now yours. You paid for them. How you get rid of them is entirely up to you. Perhaps you should only have purchased two mugs? Perhaps you should consider a sale to move the remaining stock?
It’s called reasonable buying. You don’t purchase a quantity of product simply for the luxury of having a bountiful display. You purchase according to a reasonable expectation of sales. That’s called good business.
Now add into that mix the proliferation of established authors venturing into the waters of self-publishing. Indie authors and presses now abound, and that’s a business model on the increase. Where in that model is there a place for book distributors, agents or that long tail of publishing? There isn’t. Either adapt or find a new line of work.
And while I’m aware I’ve reduced the complexity of the current publishing industry crisis to simplistic forms, there is no arguing that the old industry model simply will not work in this 21st century. It’s time to wake up to the realities. It’s time to adapt, to evolve, and celebrate that change rather than wail about the passing of an era. Indeed learn from the past, but look to the future, and survive.