You mean I’ve got to give the big kid my Mars Bar?

Reminds me of school lunchtimes.

terry

I think it’s fair to say that booksellers, as we currently know them, are doomed. The rise of electronic publication will eventually push print into niche markets. The mainstream will be ebooks (and whatever they evolve into). K-Mart and Woolworths probably won’t be selling ebooks when this happens and, the way things look now, neither will Dymocks or any of the other main players. We’ll get our books from international ebook aggregators (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, B&N, Sony) or direct from the publishers (who are, even now, setting up ebook-only imprints, and revamping their technical infrastructure to manage direct sales – overseas, anyway, not here) or direct from the author.

The supply chain from writers to readers at the moment passes through publishers and booksellers. There will always be a need for some of the services publishers provide (selection, editing, design, marketing) but I’m not sure there will be entities like present-day publishers providing them in the future.

I suppose what I’m saying is that whatever the foibles and ineptitudes of our present crop of booksellers and publishers, the tides of change are about to roll right over the lot of them and 20 years from now they will seem like an historical oddity, artefacts of a defunct technology.

I agree there are some areas where “unfettered capitalism is a bad thing” including utilities, but to a lesser degree than you – I don’t mind them in the hands of corporations provided some conditions are attached (eg, supply to rural areas). I am also a fan of the public health system, supplemented by a private option.

But I don’t think it’s fair to compare books. First, it’s all books published in Australia that are protected – those by Australian authors (whether about Australian culture or not (eg, a book in competition policy in the EU written by an Australian is equally ‘protected’) and foreign authors.

If there is a need to encourage local talent (something open to question, but I will assume it is the case at the moment) then there are better ways to go about it – support local talent with grants etc that are appropriately targeted and interfere less with natural market forces (you suggest that this is a worse option because it turns Australian writers into charity cases – but that is precisely what the PIR’s do – they say you can’t survive on merits, so we’ll protect you …).

Why exactly should someone uninterested in Australian-authored books be forced to pay more for their foreign preferred options so support local talent? It no longer happens in film or music and Australian talent in those industries has survived.

Ultimately, the PIRs protect foreign interests as much as they do Australian interests and impose additional costs on those unable to seek out online alternatives (most commonly the uneducated or elderly). It’s not just about economics, but economics is a good starting point – and you won’t find any economists supporting the PIRs.

Janette, you can disagree all you like – I enjoy good debate – it’s just that most of what you say is entirely nonsensical (mass marketing leads to more sales – it’s not fair!) so it’s virtually impossible to engage in rational debate.

I think there are areas of our life where unfettered capitalism is a bad thing. I believe people should be protected from it in areas like public utilities. I don’t want my water supply, electricity supply, or telecoms in the hands of coprorations. I want them in the hands of a government I can vote for – or not vote for. I don’t want ‘ability to pay’ to be the criterion for whether people get medical care or education.

In the case of publishing, I want a legislative regime that will encourage the emergence and support of local talent. I don’t particularly want protection from imports, but if that is the only way to achieve it, then so be it. A far worse situation than keeping PIRs would be to support writers through tax-funded, government grants, as suggested in the PC report. Australian writers don’t deserve to be turned into charity cases.

ruzkin
November 10th, 2009 at 6:02 pm · Reply
Probably for the best, for now, until the Aussie publishing industry can stop sitting on their hands and find a way to make our books more viable in a global market.

and then suggested booksellers are to blame for the lack of an e-book market.

My comment about being too lazy to compete stems directly from this.

Booksellers would love to sell e-books, the PIR’s and publishers unwillingness to release them here stop them from doing that.

And Janette, any booksellers having to get their stock from Target is only stocking the bestsellers and any independent would go broke trying to do that. And hang on, if the publishers are giving such huge margin to target (even with the mistaken idea that they sell books at a loss) that it’s cheaper for a bookseller to buy it from them maybe it’s not really the bookseller
who needs to ‘step up to the mark’

What is stupid is publishers controlling the market and NOT providing service. Too slow, too expensive, too late.

The current system doesn’t work.

If we all have to sit around waiting for publishers to “find a way to make our books viable on the global market” we won’t have a local publsihing industry because there won’t be enough booksellers to sustain it.

What’s your solution to that?? because Target and woolies won’t step into the breach.

Ruzkin, I accept surviving on royalties is tough (I receive pittance for my books too, but fortunately that’s not why I write them) and that they may be less from foreign publishers – but there are other solutions – has anyone on this site actually read the PC report or the plethora of other reports recommending removal of PIRs or are you just completely sucked in by the self-interested protestations of authors and publishers who, like any other producer, would naturally prefer to be insulated from as much foreign competition as possible so as to maximise profits above competitive market levels?

Now, whenever you buy an Aussie print of an Aussie-written book, the author gets around $1.50, maybe $2. That’s not much. But, every time someone in the US buys a book by an Aussie author, that author only gets arouns 30c. Overseas contract royalties are a pittance, and some countries don’t pay royalties at all for foreign titles – China, for example, would pay a flat $500 or so for the rights to an Aussie book, and that’d be the end of it.

Now, imagine we remove import restrictions on foreign titles. What would K-Mart and Target do? Buy Aussie books from Aussie publishers? Or would they stock their shelves with foreign reprints of Aussie titles and leave those same home-grown authors you love and cherish bankrupt?

Supermarket chains use their buying power to buy books at crazy cheap prices, then sell for less than retail, as loss-leaders to entice shoppers through the doors. Small booksellers without the commercial muscle pay more than for stock than the chains are charging for the retail price. I know of one seller who chose to buy her stock of a particular bestseller at Target since it was cheaper than she could get it from the publisher – and they got it a week before the publisher would let her have it! Does that mean she is too stupid or lazy to compete? Hardly. (Actually I think her solution is quite clever)

Publishers, like the ‘sellers’ of other purveyors of entertainment and information, make marketing decisions that entail extraordinary levels of risk. We can maybe see this more clearly demonstrated in the movie industry.

The marketing campaign for the movie “Independence Day” cost $30 million and started 6 weeks before the movie launched. It went on to become the highest grossing movie of 1996. It’s a fun flick, but hardly the most intelligent or innovative or exciting movie of that year.

Does that mean all the other movies that year couldn’t compete because the makers were too stupid or lazy? Hardly. It does imply that a massive marketing campaign influences people’s buying decisions in ways that have nothing to do with the inherent value of the thing being sold.

This is especially true for the selling of ideas. We all know the huge difference it can mean to a book whether or not the publisher invests in a big campaign with storefront displays, book signings and a spot on Oprah. Does that have anything to do with being clever or stupid; hardworking or lazy?

It becomes an absurd argument in this context.

Books of all kinds are an important part of our lives, from the big blockbusters sold at half price in the supermarket to the small-run exquisite volumes of poetry which far fewer people will buy and read. Just as I don’t want to be restricted to the one or two big brands of cereal or cookies, I don’t want to be restricted to one kind of reading.

Maybe one day we’ll have a system where publishers only sell the blockbusters, and everything else is direct selling by the author online to the buyer. It could work, but is it the only way? I love the feel and smell of a new book, but confess to having bought several e-books as well. As a buyer, I want diversity.

Does this mean the blockbusters should subsidise the books of poetry? Too right.

If I were the author of a blockbuster I would LOVE to think my success would allow my publisher to take a risk on poems or books by unknown authors or any other high-risk works. And you can quote me on that