What's the pedigree of a bestseller? That's the question the
New York Times asked last week in
an article that, despite the endless waves of political scandal, remained on their most viewed list for the better part of a week. The article reveals the seamy side of publishing: publishers have foresworn the metrics used by marketers to study their audiences' buying habits, because they, much like Creationists, "don't believe in them," leading to an industry where million dollar advances are gambled on the Flying Spaghetti Monster of editors' intuition. So is it any surprise that an article about the billion-dollar, high-stakes world of publishing, with its talk of big bets and horse racing, comes off sounding like a description of a Gambler's Anonymous meeting? Won't someone stop the insanity? (Very nicely summed up
here, btw.)Enter
Macmillan New Writing, the controversial imprint of the British publishing house Macmillan. New Writing was founded to promote works by unpublished writers, particularly writers who have produced the kind of experimental, unclassifiable or controversial books that are worth publishing, but might not have what it takes to become best sellers, in other words, books that don't have mass market appeal. The imprint publishes one book a month and currently comprises twenty titles, all of which are prominently featured in Macmillan's catalog. No agents are involved, the publishing house accepts direct submissions, and writers get no advance, but earn 20% royalties.
Sounds good, no? But it's not all upside. Not only are the writers' contracts non-negotiable, but Macmillan receives all subsidiary rights to the book and a first look at the author's second book. Critics have reacted strongly, calling the imprint "literary slave drivers" and "vanity publishers," and indulging in apocalyptic predictions of the end of publishing as we know it. (As if that would be a bad thing. The submissions, at least, are entirely electronic.) The negative press was so strong that the founder of the imprint,
Michael Barnard, felt compelled to write
Transparent Imprint, a book defending his idea. (Which the imprint, of course, published. See how that works?)Why all the consternation? Sure, novelists lose their right to film rights, translations, and licensed merchandise (Ignatius J. Reilly
trebuchets, anyone?), but is that so bad? Without an agent, they wouldn't be able to sell them anyway, and apparently Macmillan has been doing a good job so far, bagging a movie deal for the thriller
The Manuscript and a decent advance on a German edition of the fantasy novel
The Secret War. What's really at stake, it would seem, is the publishing industry's ego. Despite the fact that their best work is guesswork, they like to believe they know what they're doing when they get into a bidding war over a total unknown. The novelist
Giles Foden,
quoted by the Guardian, put it like this, New Writing's list is like "putting a bet on every horse in the race - but without paying for any of the bets." And that doesn't make us feel very special, does it?But, if the
New York Times is right, isn't that what publishers are doing anyway? If advances are the big gambles everyone says they are, then they only serve to make publishers risk averse. Much like Hollywood, which instead of looking for fresh material, increasingly hedges its bets by turning out retreads of once popular comic books and old TV shows, the publishing industry is in a rut. Bestsellers are inherently unpredictable, and yet, if a publishing exec had to choose between a cutting edge novel and another Harry Potter knockoff, you can bet that "Parry Hotter and The Sorcerer's Merkin" would be the one stacked on the front tables of Barnes and Nobles nationwide. By not giving writers advances, New Writing has found a way around this problem, allowing them to take a chance on a book, while reducing the considerable overhead attached. This system should be a boon for mid-list writers who, it's often said, are not nurtured by publishing houses in the way they once were. Sure, you'll hear writers grousing about being unable to make a living from their work, but, with the exception of the biggest literary stars, isn't that's how it's always been? For my part, I'd much rather have my books in print, giving my readership a chance to grow with me. After all, readers will seek out a good writer's backlist, and every book that sees print should increase royalties from previous efforts. And what a boon for those writers who don't have the savvy, connections, or good luck to get an agent. Hell, some writers,
John Kennedy Toole comes to mind, are literally dying to get published.It's been over a year since New Writing put out its first book, and the imprint's list of well-reviewed books seem to be proving the naysayers wrong. The writers' seem satisfied with the deal (
here and
here), and if
Roger Morris's Taking Comfort (
recently reviewed here at The Millions) is any indication of the quality of the books New Writing has on offer, they're doing the literary community a real service. It might be time for the rest of the publishing industry to put down their dice and take notice.
Bonus Link: The
MacMillan New Writing titles currently available in the U.S.
Max,
How do those numbers compare to average weekend sales figures for the actual, physical book? Any idea?
It's tough to know for sure, obviously the numbers vary widely and publishers are notoriously tight-lipped about sales numbers, but Jynne Martin did also tell me this: "quite amazing considering most debut novels don't even sell 10,000 copies in their whole lifespan"
Richard Ford's Lay of the Land, not considered a "big seller" compared to his earlier books, sold 51,000 in hardcover and 36,000 in paper. Those are Nielsen BookScan numbers which track about 70% of sales and were reported in a recent NYT piece on Ford.
So, that's just a random recent comparison but it offers a little perspective.
My sources tell me Random House would consider 50,000ish copies sold over the life of the hardcover to be a success. This could be utter bushwa, given that I've only heard the darkest murmurs about the amount of advance money tied up in the book.
How do those numbers compare to average weekend sales figures for the actual, physical book? Any idea?
A lot more. 15,000 copies in one week would be in the top ten on the Times list. Watch the list this week and see if it moves up or down from 38 and that should give you a sense of whether it worked or not.
Honestly, I very much doubt that one week will show the effect of this. The download event got this novel a ton of exposure and spread it's name. Along with all the other publicity — the features, the mostly positive and very positive reviews, the general discussion and buzz around this book and its merits or lack thereof — it seems more than possible that this will be a title people remember and check out, either in hardback or paper form.
I don't think comparing a first novel's sales to the sales of Richard Ford's sequel to his pulitzer prize-winning novel is necessarily fair. I also don't think that judging this promotion in a week is particularly shrewd. Most successful books need to be passed from one person to another, or have a special air to them. This novel seems to have a chance at being one of those books.
Thanks for the input from all three anonymous commenters. I particularly agree with this sentiment: "I also don't think that judging this promotion in a week is particularly shrewd. Most successful books need to be passed from one person to another, or have a special air to them."
For those still interested in the numbers involved here, USA Today offers a little more color: "Nielsen Book-Scan, which tracks about 70% of book sales, reports 12,000 sales as of Feb. 27. The publisher says the novel is in its seventh printing, with 50,000 copies in print."
So it's possible that the number of books downloaded from the Random House site alone equaled or surpassed the total number of book sales thus far.
yes, I saw that USA today article yesterday. So 12,000 by Feb 27th, a little over a month after publication which they said is perfectly solid sales for a new author no one has heard of.
But with bock, he received a spread in the NY Times magazine followed the next week by NY times book review cover. So that means about 2500-3000 per week (with maybe a spike just after the cover to say 4,000? I guess this is what got it on the bestseller?).
Interesting to see that all it takes is 4,000 sales in a week to get on the bestseller list. Then even though his book dropped off the list, he can forever more say it was a "bestseller." Always interesting to see the behind the scenes stuff. I'm surprised RH allowed that to be printed because it shows that the book isn't really selling like it should be.
Most publishers have issues with the tracker numbers. Last month Riverhead made a point of saying how off the BookScan numbers were on Oscar Wao. I wouldn't make too big a deal about it.
"Most publishers have issues with the tracker numbers."
Not really. Many editors do, but then editors are often shocked at how their books are doing. Many, if not all marketing and sales people in the trade rely on bookscan.
well, bookscan reportedly reflects about 70% of sales, and it includes borders, b&n, amazon and sales from major independent bookstores. so I think bookscan numbers are a pretty big deal – and at the very least, they are the only hard numbers available for publishers to rely on.
Parse it however you want, but If a literary first novel sells 16K books during a five week period and also has 15K free downloads of it, that book is doing very very well, my friends.