It is clear that the ‘traditional publishing model [is] not working anymore’ [Hesse, 2014] during the emergence of digital technologies and its repercussions on the publishing industry. This new world has introduced new digital business models however, a sign that publishers have finally given up their refusal to adapt to a visibly changing industry. For example crowd-funding; a strategy in which readers invest in the books they want to see published. But is this new model right for everyone?
For the Publisher/ Author:
This model depicts a change in the structure, process and workflow required in publication – with authors becoming their own acquisitioning editors [Gomolin, 2014], and readers the commissioning editors if you will. As a result, it diminishes that awful “slush-pile” (Ingram, 2014) and enables publishers to see – in advance – what will be successful and well received.
Additionally, Darnton’s Communication Circuit shows the disintermediating of some processes of publishing, seeing the author gain the profit they deserve. For instance, crowd-sourcing company Unbound splits their net profits 50/50 with authors (Hesse, 2014), and authors at InkShares receive 70% of net receipts (Gomolin, 2014).
Although this has may have consequences for midlist books and new authors (who wouldn’t have the same backing as popular authors), it seems beneficial to those authors who wish to publish outside of their niche’s. This would be similar to self-publishing, where they could receive the support from fans of their previous work for a book which would not otherwise be published by their niche publishing house.
For the Reader:
Through this business model – depending on the amount an individual invests, they can receive different “perks” (Hesse, 2014) such as dinner with the author. This acts as both a benefit for the consumer; who meets an idol, as well as for the publisher and author; who no doubt receive more funds due to these prizes. Though some may fear this will harm quality of the content, the editors, illustrators and designers are still involved in the projects so the value is still high.
However, crowd-funded projects – despite its namesake – would be bad for readers. Although it allows them to invest in ideas they like, it destroys their serendipitous finds and variety of books and authors.
In conclusion this model involves ‘readers making decisions about what they want to read and playing an active role’ (Gomolin, 2014) in the process – and as an industry primarily based on catering for the needs of their market this is incredibly important. Not only do publishers avoid financial risk but also secure revenue, but they should be wary that investors don’t demand for increases in their ‘tangible return’ (Ingram, 2014). I predict this model will be successful for niche markets, but hope that not all – especially big conglomerates – don’t adopt this model as it would ensure the end of variety in the book market.
Word Count: 484
Bibliography:
Choudhury, S., 2014. Meet Crowdfunding Entrepreneur and Author Johan Norberg, fundedbyme, [online] 3 March. Available at: http://blog.fundedbyme.com/meet-crowdfunding-entrepreneur-author-johan-norberg/
Gomolin, A., 2014. On Crowdfunding Books: When People Vote With Their Money, publishingperspectives, [online] 22 May. Available at: http://publishingperspectives.com/2014/05/on-crowdfunding-books-when-people-vote-with-their-money/
Greenfield, J., 2014. Risk Free Publishing; Or, When Everyone Can Bankroll Books, digitalbookworld, [online] 16 July. Available at: http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014/risk-free-publishing-or-when-everyone-can-bankroll-books/
Hesse, J., 2014. Crowdfunding Authors’ Books Could Save Publishing, forbes, [online] 30 September. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonhesse/2014/09/30/crowdfunding-authors-books-could-save-publishing/
Ingram, M., 2014. InkShares Wants To Create A Hybrid of Traditional Book Publisher and Crowd-funded Digital Platform, gigaom, [online] 26 February. Available at: https://gigaom.com/2014/02/26/inkshares-wants-to-create-a-hybrid-of-traditional-book-publisher-and-crowdfunded-digital-platform/
Page, B., 2013. Wattpad Tries Crowdfunding, thebookseller, [online] 13 August. Available at: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/wattpad-tries-crowd-funding
White, M., 2013. New Watson & Holmes Comics Grab Crowdfunding, publishersweekly, [online] 20 August. Available at: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/63715-new-watson-holmes-jesse-reklaw-valorous-damsel-comics-grab-crowdfunding.html
For the Publisher/ Author:
This model depicts a change in the structure, process and workflow required in publication – with authors becoming their own acquisitioning editors [Gomolin, 2014], and readers the commissioning editors if you will. As a result, it diminishes that awful “slush-pile” (Ingram, 2014) and enables publishers to see – in advance – what will be successful and well received.
Additionally, Darnton’s Communication Circuit shows the disintermediating of some processes of publishing, seeing the author gain the profit they deserve. For instance, crowd-sourcing company Unbound splits their net profits 50/50 with authors (Hesse, 2014), and authors at InkShares receive 70% of net receipts (Gomolin, 2014).
Although this has may have consequences for midlist books and new authors (who wouldn’t have the same backing as popular authors), it seems beneficial to those authors who wish to publish outside of their niche’s. This would be similar to self-publishing, where they could receive the support from fans of their previous work for a book which would not otherwise be published by their niche publishing house.
For the Reader:
Through this business model – depending on the amount an individual invests, they can receive different “perks” (Hesse, 2014) such as dinner with the author. This acts as both a benefit for the consumer; who meets an idol, as well as for the publisher and author; who no doubt receive more funds due to these prizes. Though some may fear this will harm quality of the content, the editors, illustrators and designers are still involved in the projects so the value is still high.
However, crowd-funded projects – despite its namesake – would be bad for readers. Although it allows them to invest in ideas they like, it destroys their serendipitous finds and variety of books and authors.
In conclusion this model involves ‘readers making decisions about what they want to read and playing an active role’ (Gomolin, 2014) in the process – and as an industry primarily based on catering for the needs of their market this is incredibly important. Not only do publishers avoid financial risk but also secure revenue, but they should be wary that investors don’t demand for increases in their ‘tangible return’ (Ingram, 2014). I predict this model will be successful for niche markets, but hope that not all – especially big conglomerates – don’t adopt this model as it would ensure the end of variety in the book market.
Word Count: 484
Bibliography:
Choudhury, S., 2014. Meet Crowdfunding Entrepreneur and Author Johan Norberg, fundedbyme, [online] 3 March. Available at: http://blog.fundedbyme.com/meet-crowdfunding-entrepreneur-author-johan-norberg/
Gomolin, A., 2014. On Crowdfunding Books: When People Vote With Their Money, publishingperspectives, [online] 22 May. Available at: http://publishingperspectives.com/2014/05/on-crowdfunding-books-when-people-vote-with-their-money/
Greenfield, J., 2014. Risk Free Publishing; Or, When Everyone Can Bankroll Books, digitalbookworld, [online] 16 July. Available at: http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014/risk-free-publishing-or-when-everyone-can-bankroll-books/
Hesse, J., 2014. Crowdfunding Authors’ Books Could Save Publishing, forbes, [online] 30 September. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonhesse/2014/09/30/crowdfunding-authors-books-could-save-publishing/
Ingram, M., 2014. InkShares Wants To Create A Hybrid of Traditional Book Publisher and Crowd-funded Digital Platform, gigaom, [online] 26 February. Available at: https://gigaom.com/2014/02/26/inkshares-wants-to-create-a-hybrid-of-traditional-book-publisher-and-crowdfunded-digital-platform/
Page, B., 2013. Wattpad Tries Crowdfunding, thebookseller, [online] 13 August. Available at: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/wattpad-tries-crowd-funding
White, M., 2013. New Watson & Holmes Comics Grab Crowdfunding, publishersweekly, [online] 20 August. Available at: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/63715-new-watson-holmes-jesse-reklaw-valorous-damsel-comics-grab-crowdfunding.html