The digital era has not made publishers defunct - The services we provide are more useful than ever, to both authors and readers

Ursula Mackenzie The Guardian, Friday 27 August 2010

 
Ray Connolly's article, arguing against the need for publishing houses in the advent of the "digital revolution" (Who needs publishers?, 12 August), raises some interesting points but ultimately proves that publishers are more relevant than ever in the digital era.


The idea that publishers "now appear frozen in the headlights of the onrushing digital revolution" is simply untrue. Long before the digital revolution had become a reality for readers, most major publishing houses have been planning and investing in their digital divisions in addition to "doing the day job", publishing and selling their authors in all formats and in all markets. Digital publishing programmes are firmly embedded in all publishing businesses: these range from simultaneous e-book editions of new titles, republishing backlists digitally, revitalising old formats with new digital content, and creating title-specific apps on the latest devices. Publishers are absolutely aware that it is in their interests, and the interests of their authors, to embrace change in the industry.

Connolly's clear appreciation for, and enjoyment in, his work may be infectious, but I am not convinced it is the right route for other authors. "Apart from the time spent writing The Sandman, the other costs have been relatively small," he says.

But setting aside the fact that without an advance from a publisher many authors could not afford to write full-time, these "other costs" could easily spiral out of control. Take anti-piracy: the digital sphere presents new problems for authors wishing to protect their works. Protecting copyright and ensuring authors are properly paid is a key function of every publisher: publishers have created and manage anti-piracy schemes and contractual rights for e-books, often taking legal action where an author's copyright is breached.

While some authors may prefer to publish and market their own work, many want the whole package offered by a publisher: editorial input; marketing and publicity expertise; first-class sales contacts and proper remuneration. The point of publishers is not, as Connolly implies, about employing "judgments or whims" to choose which manuscripts to publish. A good publisher knows their market whether they are publishing in print or digitally: they invest time and money in authors, often publishing their early books as loss leaders in the belief that, with consistent marketing and publicity, the author will build a following.

Connolly's success is based on the fact that his work is digital: "There'll be an iPod version later ... and of course there will be Facebook and Twitter links." But while Amazon is indeed reporting healthy – and growing – digital sales, the demand for print works remains very strong, and many authors also want their work in print, recognising that publishers are a vital part of the process.
Full piece at The Guardian