Blogger: Rachel Zurakowski
Location: Books & Such Main Office, Santa Rosa, Calif.
Two days ago, Kristen brought up a hard-to-answer question about series romance. To view her comment click here. Her question left me thinking about who’s really in control of what’s being published. Here are my free-for-all questions:
Does the market really reflect what readers want to read, or are readers only being fed what publishers want readers to read?
How do you see the newish era of e-books affecting the future market? I wonder, in twenty years will there still be fads like Vampire and Amish, or will everyone separate out into small reader circles because of the ability to publish anything online?
I look forward to reading your thoughts! Thanks so much for your great comments this week. 🙂
“Does the market really reflect what readers want to read, or are readers only being fed what publishers want readers to read?”
My opinion is “yes” to both questions. I know lots of readers who actually prefer “saga” length novels unlimited to historicals, fantasy, and thriller genres. Finding a contemporary saga in CBA is nearly impossible.
There are lots of niche market readers in CBA, particularly in the speculative fiction mode. It seems they are reluctantly being “fed” and for a long time weren’t being supplied at all so now tend not to look to CBA for it. That makes it harder to sell because no one expects to find it from CBA publishers.
The formulaic romance which will always garner its market share seems reluctant to expand the genre to its deeper, perhaps less predictable counterparts. Because of this, this market is losing a measure of readers–maybe not one which will make a stark difference, but for the most part they lost me and other readers to whom I’ve spoken. (And I write romance that’s a little more raw/real.)
So, yes, the publishers put out what they think sells and in the process miss a huge amount of readers. Niche or not, readers are readers and should have the kind of novels they prefer from CBA publishers (within reason of course).
I think it’s a little of both but I think traditional publishing houses will probably still play a large part in what readers read. Face it, most people like very few indie things – they may like the ones they like a lot but most people aren’t willing to scout for it. They want things that other people have recommended – things they have some level of confidence will be good before the slap down a single dollar.
Think about music – music tracks for 99 cents have been out for some time but the same artists that the record companies like get the large chunk of radio play, big name reviews and advertising in the “front” of online music shops. I think the same will likely hold true for publishing. If there were millions of books produced every year because anyone could slap something up on Kindle or iBooks then naturally people are going to want some kind of filter before they spend their money or time* on reading something that may or may not be any good.
*Yes, I think there will probably be an overwhelming amount of people offering free e-books that few people outside their normal circle of family and friends will read. Time is valuable, too.
I’ll kick it off, since we’re talking about my original comment. I honestly don’t know the answer! I think H/S, mentioned in my original comment, spend a lot on marketing and demographics, and know what sells for their readers. On the other hand, I think it does breed a “writing rut.” They’re probably less likely to take a really out-of-the box idea from anyone other than a very established author. And if you want to write for them (as I’d like to write for Steeple Hill) an author must know up front there are certain styles and themes.
I think e-books are going to change all this. Harlequin has recognized that, I think, and they’re launching Carina Press next month. Judging by the list of topics they’re acquiring for Carina, they’re going to put topics in there that they don’t have room for in their print lines.
It’s pretty much guaranteed there will always be fads, especially with self-publishing and e-presses giving rise to underground trends. And mostly because books are subjective. What one person likes, another doesn’t. And a comprehensive market needs to keep the majority of readers coming back for more in order to stay vital. I really think the accessibility of electronic channels, for the author, publisher AND reader, will prove to be game changing in the decade ahead.
I’ve debated this one for years.
There’s some truth that publishers are giving readers what they want, as evidenced by the fact that as they continue to publish what seems to be the same thing over and over, readers keep buying.
At the same time, there’s truth in the idea that publishers are short-sighted and readers are open to so much more, as evidenced by unexpected successes like the Harry Potter series, the Left Behind series, The Shack and other books that after they’ve hit big, make the publisher look prescient.
I’m dismayed by guidelines that narrow authors into specific settings or character types, like small-town cowboys or urban rappers or whatever. To some degree, if that’s what is published and put in bookstores, that’s what the reading public will buy. It will be interesting to see how ebooks and increases in self-publishing might change this. Will more authors release the books of their hearts, which likely have nothing to do with what publishers believe the reading public wants?
Rachel,
Thank you for a very thought-provoking week of discussions! You’ve challenged me to check my own writing for ruts and also given me insight into the factors that drive the market.
I’m not sure your first question has an answer unless maybe it’s “both.” Looking at the medium of television, a similar question arises. Does culture shape art, or does art shape culture? A generation ago, the market happily watched Mayberry RFD and similar fare. Was everyone in society wholesome and conservative? Probably not, but I believe culture generally benefits when we think on “whatever is honorable, whatever is pure.” Today the TV offerings include sex, violence, language and lifestyles that would have made my grandmother blush. I do not believe that represents Americans as a whole–at least I sincerely hope that it does not. But many will follow along like lemmings, consuming whatever is offered, and our culture suffers from the perverse influence.
To me, this underscores the importance of inspirational literature. I suspect that whether stories come on network channels or cable, in bookstores, through online retailers, or as e-books, people will find what they want. But the majority will simply take the easy route and follow whoever seems to be leading. We must, therefor, strive to lead.
In general I believe that the publishing houses are trying to predict what the reading public will want to read. They are all looking for the next BIG thing.
But stepping away from what is currently selling is a financial risk. After all they could spend boatloads of cash acquiring and marketing a new novel that seems really promising, only to have it bomb. That scenario happens all the time. The good old standbys pay for the risky (and therefore fewer) forays into the unknown.
But once readers make it clear that a, perhaps surprising, and heretofore unexpected hunger is out there, then publishers work hard to make sure that they line up books to meet the market where it’s at.
As for ruts, I’m not certain they’re all bad. People are always talking about branding, and what is that but a kind of rut? People want to be able to know what to expect from us. My tagline is Inspired Adventures. I write Inspirational historicals with a twist of adventure. Hopefully people will know what to expect when they pick it up. Not that I want all the stories to be the same but I want to provide a similar Experience to the reader, maybe, hopefully, just getting a little better each time.
Does the market really reflect what readers want to read, or are readers only being fed what publishers want readers to read?
>>>I think readers want to read what’s being published, for the most part. But, they could be open to other stories that are targeted to niche markets – like stories that are more outside-the-box like e-pubbed and small press titles. As far as Harlequin and Silhouette goes, I feel that they know what readers want. I believe Harlequin’s been around for sixty years now, and I know for a fact that if the sales figures for a certain line are poor, they’ll cut that line completely. Since I’ve been writing, I’ve seen Harlequin get rid of a few lines, so I sense they have an idea about how to give their readers what they want, so the “rut” works for them.
How do you see the newish era of e-books affecting the future market? I wonder, in twenty years will there still be fads like Vampire and Amish, or will everyone separate out into small reader circles because of the ability to publish anything online?
>>>I don’t consider the Amish books a fad. I think they’re here to stay because…they’ve been around a long time and they don’t seem to be disappearing. Publishers still publish several Amish titles and the inspirational market has been saturated with them for years now. I sense the Amish books are now their own genre…kind of like historicals and romances, although publication for Amish books may decline, I don’t think it they’ll disappear completely.
I think the vampire books are a fad as a result of the Twilight craze. I could see these disappearing eventually, maybe coming back every decade or so?
E-books? I think the ones that are the most successful would be the ones that are released by traditional publishers via Kindle (or other e-readers) along with the print copy. I’ve read some e-books that are published by small presses. Some are good, but I still find that I like the ones released by traditional publishers better. But, that’s just my opinion.