One Big UK Book Retailer Admits To Promotion Charging!

That's why we started booktribes (or one of the reasons at any rate).

As I understand it, the deal that's being offered is: "Give us the dosh and we'll stick your titles in the window of all of our shops." This is nice money if you can get it. Booksellers will try to promote to people the titles they'd most like to sell. Bookshops will also want to do this. It's usually aimed at people who might not buy that many books. Independent bookshops can put whatever they like in the window, but as they are only one or two shops, it's unlikely they'd be able to charge anything for that. I don't see what the beef is. Publishers will pay magazines and newspapers so that they can put adverts into their pages. This is similar. I can't imagine that Waterstones will clear out all of the other books that they have in stock. It wouldn't make sense. If they did, you could go to your local independent. The problem, if there is one, is that publishers pay large advances for big money signings and then need to sell a lot of books to recoup that advance and make a profit. This takes money. So there is an increasing amount of money put behind a decreasing number of big signings. However, it's worth pointing out that most books published don't sell a huge amount of copies and don't make a huge amount of profit, but publishers still publish them, so that means they either really support authors and readers or they have very bad business skills. Independent publishers vary greatly from each other. In fact, they're not an homogeneous group at all. It's a bit misleading to compare a publisher that puts out four books a year about turn of the century steam locomotives with Hodder & Staughton. Not all publishers are competing with Paris Hilton because given the choice, most people would find Paris more interesting. I don't think that Big Publishers have a death grip on the world of books, because I'm not sure that any amount of flashy advertising could convince most people to pick up any book, never mind a small niche title. That said, independent publishers could up their game a bit. The Arts Council UK published a report last year about the independent publishing sector, and the main conclusions were that while independent publishers most often were bewailing the lack of money that they had, they really only wanted to publish books. Many claimed that they were not big businesses, and didn't have the skills, ideas or staff to engage in marketing. They were, in effect, claiming that publishing shouldn't be about business, it should be about art. They in effect, wanted more money to publish books that they weren't sure would sell, and didn't feel it was their business to make sure that they did. Cheers, Mark

I'm surprised this is news - I just assumed it happened anyway. I feel sorry for the publishers in this (they're the ones being fleeced). Essentially they have the same business model as Hollywood (and, for that matter, pharmaceutical companies), they pour a lot of cash into creating several products and hope to God that at least one of them turns out to be a hit. If any of them had any idea which would be a hit, they wouldn't waste money on the flops. In a world where David Blunkett got a £400K advance but only his mum and a few of her friends bought his book, it's bloody scary to be a publisher - and they will try any method they can to ensure a little bit of certainty. Hence a reliance on sequels and formulas and established authors, and paying through the nose for silly things like having your book in the window of the store.

"Is it just me or is this another example of corporate insanity?" Well, this is how capitalism works. It's not surprising or especially unethical, compared to the general workings of a market system. Selling things is not a meritocratic contest or a public service. That said, Mark's point: "However, it's worth pointing out that most books published don't sell a huge amount of copies and don't make a huge amount of profit, but publishers still publish them, so that means they either really support authors and readers or they have very bad business skills" is correct. While writers generally moan about how hard it is to get published, the number of books that publishers do publish vastly exceeds the number that would be published as a rational response to demands of customers. Book publishing taken as a whole is one of the least cynical, least market-orientated sections of the economy. As Mark also suggests, small indie publishers - such as the small poetry outfit I help to run - aren't really bothered either way by books that have these kinds of massive promotional budgets because this is so far out of league as to not really be part of the same industry.

British Book reviewers do review self-published books. They don't review very many, though. Self-published books can have lower standards of proofing and editing. This will irk reviewers no end. I imagine the systems for distributing review copies is more developed for big publishers, possibly because they have more money, and probably because either publisher or author uses PR professionals to do it. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because it's hard to get a book through to the final point of being published by a larger publishers it must necessarily be a closed shop. Agents guide, editors edit, proofers proof. All of these people are professionals, and like it or not, they often make something better than it was at the start. Self published books are often in the control of the author, and the author isn't always the best person to have the final say, not being either a professional editor, proofer or agent. On the subject of price, every small press book I have ever bought has been more expensive than a major publishers title to which it is comparable. As Orwell points out, in comparison to the price of tobacco and cigarettes, and pleasure that they confer, books are surprisingly cheap, which ever ones you buy, wherever you buy them. Cheers, Mark

I don't concede that it's fiendishly difficult to break into writing if you don't have the right connections. It's fiendishly difficult to break into writing if you don't know about how you might break into writing. There's a difference. We can do precisely f*** all about the connections and knowledge people within the 'writing industry' already have. We can, however, advise people the best ways to go forward with their writing, suggest to them what be needed and help them to understand the way in which the industry works. Your examples don't really prove anything. Some people in some companies didn't think that they wanted to publish something by someone. There isn't a science to prove what's good or not. Claiming that publishers are on the lookout for profits at the expense of literary ability is incorrect. They're on the lookout for both, and in a perfect world this would be equally balanced. Claiming that it's all about profit and not about talent usually comes from the mouth of someone who feels that their talent has been unjustly overlooked. To sell something for money you need three conditions: There needs to be demand for the book The book needs to be good The people who want to buy it must know they want to buy it and be able to do so Cheers, Mark

"British book reviewers won't review self-published books, or even books from small independent publishers. Why the bloody hell not?! They're supposed to review the bloody things to ascertain whether or not they're any good. That's what a book reviewer is for." Are you seriously suggesting that book reviewers have a responsibility to review all books? Who are you thinking might be paying for them to do so? "Unfortunately everybody thinks that publishers are on the lookout for literary talent, but mostly they're not really doing that, they're on the lookout for profits; they need to pay wages, print runs, PR expenses and so on. New writers actually cost publishers money, they don't make them any." This obviously is true of any business but it's less true of publishing than any comparable industry. There's loads of publishers who are in the business just because they believe in it. There is also massive subsidies from the Arts Council to publishers who produce books which are deemed to have artistic value but few people want to buy. But the reality is that the number people wanting to write books is much greater than the demand for books and the space on bookshops' shelves to stock books. Some publishers obviously do take bad decisions but it's not a conspiracy.

You seem very angry about this Patmac. Do you feel personally wronged by the book business?

Surely the purpose of book reviewers is to help sell newspapers.

"Book reviewers are given credit for reviewing books." No, they're paid some money to help their bosses sell newspapers or magazines. I don't think anyone believes that the job of book reviewers is to attempt an honest assessment of every single book that's published - that's approximately 2,000 books per week - and make an objective decision as to which one's are the best. Who would be paying for this process?

> Why the bloody hell won't they review self-published books? I imagine it's a mixture of basic (and not wholly unjustified) prejudice against them, and not receiving enough free copies.

"Why the bloody hell won't British book reviewers review self-published books?" Because 99% of them are utter tosh, obviously. What a complete waste of time it would be to trawl through all the crap in the vain hope that you'll find something good. BBF - I thought I saw you play for Arsenal a few years back? You even scored a goal, no?* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5WQ8phrh7A Ben * Please don't beat me up.

perhaps it's just because self published books are mostly shite

Pat, if you really like Orwell, there's an article by him about the miserable life of the professional book reviewer: http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/reviewer/english/e_bkrev I imagine life for them hasn't changed much, and for the most part they follow the advice in his final paragraph. Cheers, Mark

"My question remains: Why the bloody hell won't British book reviewers review self-published books?" The answer remains, as Mark said above, that in many cases they do. A lot of self-published stuff gets reviewed in niche and small press magazines in the UK. There would logically be more of this happening in US because there's more people and more magazines there. But I'd be surprised if the general situation in America is significantly different to here. Are there really lots of reviews of self-published stuff in the Washington Post and the New York Times - or even the New York Review of Books?

I may have overstated the willingness to review self-published books, but I think that you may have led me astray be rolling independent publishers and self-publishers together. Saturday's Guardian review: Phobic: Modern Horror Stories, edited by Andy Murray (Comma Press, £7.95) http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/roundupstory/0,,2104163,00.html Comma Press are an independent publisher. You've got one argument with the publishing world and one with the book reviewers. Cheers, Mark

Well, you haven't presented any evidence either that British reviewers actively discriminate against self-published books - in a context where the vast majority of all books are not reviewed in the mainstream press. You also haven't presented any evidence that it's usual for self-published books to be reviewed in the mainstream press in the US. Mark's inital statement wasn't wrong if you look beyond the mainstream in the UK. Lots of self-published books are reviewed in lots of publications every week.

I agree with Mark - he speaks sense often. Books appearing in windows and on displays is a form of advertisement. It is no surprise that this is paid for. I look at the top 10, 20 books that appear in the papers. I don't read a lot of them. This doesn't say much about the state of publishing. I don't buy a great deal of records that appear in the top 10. There are so many good books that are published. I am currently reading Michael Chabon's new book. I have recently bought David Eggers, Haruki Murakami, I also just bought a book about a Finnish miller, Rupert Thomson published a book this year. And so on. Agents are looking for writers that they like. Publishers are doing the same. But at the same time they are looking for books that will sell. They are not always the same ones. My advice - just do what you have to do. Write what you like to write. Don't act like the world is against you. If you good enough, try enough, annoy enough people you will make it, whatever that means. (And it doesn't mean being in windows.......)

Your posts read as if you're truly apoplectic about this, as if you're screaming WHY!!! at me in the manner of an action movie protagonist as he looks to the heavens, distraught over the death of some love interest. Are you actually that pissed off or am I reading more into it than is there? "And *most* people haven't given a single thought to the fact that the prejudice against them is complete *bollocks!*" I really don't see what the big deal is. I've read quite a bit of self-published work. I own a number of self-published books from lulu, for example, and three from diggory. Most of them were recommendations from friends. The overwhelming majority are crap. If they were reviewed, they would get BAD reviews. It is a blessing they are not reviewed in serious literary publications. Or anywhere else. *One* of them is actually very good, but I'm biased because I know the writer. (Barry Price, if you're interested- does diary-style pieces a little like styx's.) My own self-published book would never have been published traditionally: it's short collection of shorts and, like most self-published books, could do with a good editor. I'm delighted with it though because 10-15 years ago, my stories would have been shown to only my friends. Nowdays, we've got ABC and self-publishing services and it feels nice that people I don't know and will never know have read my stuff. I am grateful for that. Even if I'm not - and will probably never be - on the front table in Waterstones'. Why not spend more time writing and less time resenting? WHY? WHY!!!

yes, we know what your asking, you've repeated it a good dozen times now (which is kinda indistinguishable from ranting).

And why isn't my answer (they're prejudiced against them) enough to satisfy you?

I think Pat doesn't care for our answers because he has a very *specific* book in mind, rather than general 'self-published books'. Perhaps it's one that he has written?

If they were publishing lackeys they'd simple re-hash press releases and never give bad reviews - not many of them do that. Prejudice against self published books is perfectly rational; any publishing medium where an editor does not intervene ends up chock full of drivel (see exhibit A: the internet). A handful of very fine books (such as Enzo's) - no matter how many gushing American reviews they have garnered - does not detract from that fact.

why can't prejudice be rational?

Should I have examined and judged the merit of the email I received this morning from admin@viagra.com or was I justified in simply deleting it out of hand?

It depends what you mean by prejudice but it's certainly possible to hold a rational position on the likelihood that a self-published will be any good without reading it. It depends what the book is. That would be my position on novels. I wouldn't usually choose to read a self-published novel unless it was written by a close personal friend or family member. The rationale for being that novels that are worth reading would generally be expected to sell enough copies for someone to be interested in publishing them. It's different with poetry, short stories or non-fiction about obscure subjects. There's always exceptions but that's my general position. "I'd regard bland statements like: Lots of non-mainstream publications do this or that, as bogus unless proven otherwise." Here's a couple of examples of UK-based publications in which I've read reviews of self-published collections in the last few months: http://www.happenstancepress.co.uk/Sphinx.htm http://www.geocities.com/dj_tyrer/mms.html There's hundreds, though. It's usually a question of doing some research.

There's almost a joke in there, Maddan.

I've been letting this one pass, but what the devil is a 'book review outfit'? I'm not quite getting what that would mean. Cheers, Mark