Showing posts with label New York TImes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York TImes. Show all posts

Monday, September 15, 2008

What a depressing day for publishing

Ugh, publishing is doomed, and apparently, it's no longer fun.

First up, we have the hella long article in New York Magazine, which asserts that, basically, we're all screwed. Some choice quotes:
Yet in recent years, more accurate internal sales numbers have confirmed what publishers long suspected: Traditional marketing is useless.

“Media doesn’t matter, reviews don’t matter, blurbs don’t matter,” says one powerful agent. Nobody knows where the readers are, or how to connect with them....

Marketing a book these days is like playing a slot machine;
hitting one 7 won’t get you a dime. “There has to be this constellation of events,” says Daniel Menaker, whose departure was tied in the press to the low sales of Benjamin Kunkel’s much-ballyhooed debut novel, Indecision. “Not only a Times Book Review front cover but Don Imus talking about it and Ellen Pompeo actually reading the book on-camera. And Barack Obama has just bought it.”
Augh, so true! In fact, I think I have mentioned these points before in some of my rants. Not to mention, the book has to be in stores. The book can be reviewed everywhere, but if it's not sitting on a table at B&N, it's probably not going to sell giant numbers. Which brings us to point #2...
This matters because the following response from Barnes & Noble CEO Steve Riggio is only technically true: “We buy every title published—our business is a long-tail business—less than 5 percent is from bestsellers.”

Editors insist that plenty of books get skipped. Richard Nash, head of indie publisher Soft Skull Press, estimates that one in twenty are passed over, though ten to fifteen copies are shipped into their warehouses in case there’s a special order. Many more are getting smaller initial orders than ever. That’s a very long, very skinny tail.
I'm gonna agree with Nash here. Also, sometimes they might buy 500 of a book. But 500 copies for all of the stores? Not helpful. It means that book is either sitting in a carton in the warehouse somewhere, or shoved on a back shelf. Moving on...
It’ll be rough going in the meantime; some publishers will transform, some will muddle through, some will die. And there will, no doubt, be a lot of editors for whom even this diminished era will look like the last great golden age, when some writers were paid in the millions,some of their books produced in the millions, and more than half of those books actually sold. Book publishing is still a big-league business, and that’s a hard thing to let go of. “There’s something terrible,” says an editor at a prestigious imprint, “about admitting that you’re not a mass medium.”
Oh, god. This was the golden age? Not according to Al Silverman. His new book, The Time of Our Lives: The Golden Age of Great American Book Publishers, Their Editors and Authors, defines the golden age as the period between 1946 and the early 1980s, the period "when 'books were most beloved by a reading public.' Soon afterward, the great 'bookmen' stepped aside and the bottom-liners of business took over."

(NY Mag also references the decline when publishing became about conglomerates rather than taste: "In its heyday, publishing was a vast array of mom-and-pop shops, in which the pops tended to be independently wealthy. Their competitive advantage was not efficiency or low costs but taste....By the nineties, five big conglomerates were divvying up the spoils and their lucrative backlists. Many of the smaller companies that had been struggling, like FSG, Ecco, and Crown, were flush with corporate resources. But in exchange, they gave up final say in how they’d publish their books—or even what books they’d publish. And suddenly an industry accustomed to 5 percent margins was being run by media moguls aiming for double digits.")

Crap. I guess I was about 20 years too late. I imagine the old days of publishing were a bit like an episode of Mad Men. As Gawker puts it, "It can be difficult to know you're in a golden age. You might be too busy working. You might be too caught up in the hum of everyday life. You might live in Omaha. But here's a hint: there are usually a lot of white guys in bow ties smoking indoors." Now, that would have been fun.

--Ladytron

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Pasta and Cigarettes

Awww, this story just made my cold heart melt a little. The Times did a profile piece on legendary chef and cookbook author Marcella Hazan and her husband, Victor. The two are publishing a memoir next month (her words, his translation) from Gotham Books called Amarcord: Marcella Remembers. Although the couple is known for their fights (with each other as well as people who have worked with them in the past), the article makes it clear that the two are still very much in love -- and each other's inspirations. The best part is? Marcella lifestyle includes "a parade of Marlboro Lights and afternoon shots of Gentleman Jack whiskey."

Did I mention that she is 84? I'm not sure what I'm most jealous of: her ability to cook delish food, her longterm marriage, all the money she must have, or the fact that she's 84 and still able to live on cigarettes and bourbon.

--Ladytron

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Woohoo, more books on NPR (dot org)

NPR.org is adding more book coverage to the site with reviews from Jessa Crispin (who never returns my emails for Bookslut, so god knows what will happen now), John Freeman (who I saw speak once and was wearing a purple shirt, so I think I like him), and Laurel Maury (who I know nothing about). Perhaps a reaction to Yen Cheong's NPR Book Watch?

According to senior supervising producer Joe Matazzoni, NPR.org "can’t cover the book industry like PW or the New York Times. We’re here to try and point our audience to good books. Our audience identifies with our sensibility and looks to us for judgment and taste. We’re a filter.”

Hmm, filter? Are you trying to say that the reviewers at PW and the NYT don't have good "sensibility" or any "judgement and taste"? It seems like the purpose of any book review section is to be just that. To review books so you know what you're getting into before you buy it. And while, yes, PW reviews a lot of books, it's not as thought the Times just throws out book reviews willy-nilly. I'm pretty sure that there is a fairly lengthy consideration process. Plus, no offense, Joe - it is NPR DOT ORG - as in not the radio. I wonder if our bosses will be as excited about a listing on the website as they would be about an Alan Cheuse review or an interview with Terry Gross? Somehow, I doubt it.

--Ladytron

Monday, June 16, 2008

Is the TBR all it's cracked up to be?

So, yesterday, I was flipping through the NYT Book Review and noticed that they had finally gotten around to reviewing Barbara Walter's Audition. This in turn reminded me of a conversation I've had with several authors and industry peeps over the past few months - has the Times Book Review become outdated and irrelevant?

Most authors (and publicists) consider the TBR to be the holy grail of print media. Everyone wants a their book to be reviewed there. Next to, "what about Oprah?," this is the most common question I get from authors. Yet, the times (ha) I have gotten full page reviews, it's barely moved books. Not to mention, these are almost always books that have already been covered a multitude of other places. Sometimes it feels as though the TBR waits to see what everyone else is going to do, and then jumps on the bandwagon - at which point, I no longer care about the book.

For instance, this week, there was a review of Barbara Walter's Audition - which came out over a month ago and has been covered ad nauseum by bloggers, reviewers, TV and radio, etc. We all know the scandalous parts already, and anyone who cared to read the book, probably has already done so. Or is waiting for the paperback. Why bother to run a review a month after pub? Even bookstores don't like to host events after a month has lapsed...why is the Times so willing to feature a book that has arguably already jumped the shark?

There are exceptions of course. There's a review of the new David Sedaris, which pubbed only two weeks ago (and which, btw, I can't wait to read!). But again, even two weeks feels like a long period of time. As publicists, we're taught to get in as much media the week of pub. Not the second or third or fourth. I mean, we'll take coverage those weeks, but we're supposed to line up as much as possible with the hopes of moving enough books to debut high on the list.
So why doesn't the TBR follow this? I know it's not because we don't get the books to them soon enough. As soon as galleys arrive, copies are immediately sent to Dwight, Sam, Nancy, Rick...And yes, I know they received hundreds (if not thousands) of books a week, but you know what, so do all the other major outlets...which often beat the times in coverage by several weeks...is it just because they CAN? Or is it because they are struggling to keep up in an era where book news breaks quickly and bloggers have upped the ante on churning out reviews?

Or I am just being grouchy because it's Monday and I'm bitter because not enough of my books are reviewed?

--Paige Sexie

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Is Emily Gould the New Sloane Crosley?

Let's compare, shall we?

Publishing Experience:

  • Emily used to be an associate editor at Hyperion and now blogs for Galleycat.
  • Sloane is the associate director of publicity at Vintage/Anchor
Books:

  • Emily is the co-author of some YA novel called Hex Education
  • Sloane is the author of the New York Times bestselling essay collection, I Was Told There Would Be Cake

Gawker Connection:

  • Emily is a former co-editor of the blog. It now mocks her.
  • Sloane has never worked for the blog but is still mocked repeatedly.

Freelance writing pieces:

  • Emily has had articles published in the New York Times op-ed section, Radar, Bookslut, and the New York Observer.
  • Sloane has had pieces published in the New York Times, Village Voice, Maxim, BlackBook Magazine, Playboy, and the New York Observer.
Jimmy Kimmel:

  • Emily was torn a new asshole by JK when he guest-hosted on Larry King Live.
  • To my knowledge, Sloane has no connection to Jimmy.
Over-exposure:

  • Emily's piece has spawned coverage in media outlets such as NPR, Slate, Atlantic, L.A. Times, New York Observer, Huffington Post, Philadelphia Weekly, New York Magazine's CultureVulture, Wired online, countless websites and blogs, and of course, Gawker.
  • Sloane's book got her coverage in New York Observer, New York Times, Daily Candy, Radar, San Francisco Chronicle, Publishers Weekly, New York Magazine, Forbes, Newsweek Online, Paste, Salon, Gawker, etc.
Connection to one another:
  • Emily interviewed Sloane for Radar
Hair:

  • Emily's looks a bit lackluster and even in a little greasy in one of the pics.
  • Sloane has been proven to have the shiniest hair in the publishing.
Slunch opinion:

  • Emily is a nice girl and a funny blogger, but "Exposed" was the most boring, self-involved piece that I have ever read in the New York Times Magazine. Appropriate for Glamour? Maybe. But the New York Times?? No way. DO NOT WANT.
  • Sloane is a nice girl and a good publicist, but the coverage of I Was Told There Would Be Cake was ridiculous. Is Sloane a good writer? Sure. Is she good enough to merit more coverage than all the other authors. Um, no.
So, there you have it. Young, cute ladies with publishing connections trying to make it as writers. Unfortunately for them, while the connections they have made may help them "further" their career, they also might piss off their peers to the point of never-ending mockery and skepticism about their true abilities.

Oh, also, I think Sloane wins the battle. New York Times bestselling books trumps cover story of New York Times Magazine.

--Paige Sexie

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Number Crunching...

Remember last week when I was bitching about the number of books we (by which I mean publishers) continue to produce each year? Well, in next Sunday’s New York Times Book Review, Rachel Donadio tackles the issue (she obvi reads Slunch for her story ideas). Apparently, I was wrong about 300,000 books being published each year. That was in 2006. Last year? 400,000. Yeah, that’s right. 400,000. And while I was talking in relation to book coverage, Rachel tackles an even more disturbing trend – 53% of Americans surveyed last year hadn’t read a single book.

Now, think about this. If the population of the United States in July 2007 was 301,139,947 (according to Google), than only about 140 million something of those people were reading. Which means, we’re publishing 1 book for every 350 people or so – I think. I haven’t taken math since high school, but I’m pretty sure that’s right.

So, that doesn’t sound too bad, until you really start thinking about it. I mean, if you were working on a book, and it only sold 350 copies, I think you’d pretty much consider that a flop. And, yes, I know that many people who read will obviously pick up more than one book a year, but you also have to counter that many of these people are reading the SAME book, i.e. The Da Vinci Code, A New Earth, Eat, Pray, Love, or anything by Michael Connelly/James Patterson/David Baldacci, which all have millions of copies in print. Not to mention the fact that people aren’t confined to reading books published that year – we still have the classics and consistent backlist sellers to contend with. Which explains why, in 2006, 70% of books published ended up in remainder bins and only 1% hit the list.

I could go on, but I’m still on my first (iced – yay summer!) coffee and my head might explode. So, to summarize, the number of books we publish – UP. The number of readers – DOWN. Oh, also, there’s a recession, and despite the theory that books are recession proof, it’s still going to hurt, especially with the shitty dollar. Maybe we should all take a closer look at Jonathan Karp’s business plan before we destroy ourselves and the business.

—Ladytron

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Random Musings - brought to you by The New York Times


So, I was flipping through this coming Sunday's New York Times Book Review , and I noticed two things on interest.

One: a ginormous color ad for Nicholas Spark's new book, The Choice (Grand Central Publishing/September). Why is this interesting you may ask? Because I freaking love The Notebook, that's why. Not the book. Fuck that. THE MOVIE . Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams…the scene in the rain…"It wasn't over. It still isn't!"…sigh. Amazing. And I want another movie that I can love and rewatch as much as that. A Walk to Remember sucked - although Shane West was quite the hottie in it. What was the other one? That bottle one with the Princess Bride (aka Sean Penn's wife) and Kevin Costner? I think that was based on a Sparks book. Whatever. It sucked too. So, I will pin my hopes on The Choice. I have no idea what it's about, I haven't read it, I won't read it, but I will cross my little fingers that some wonderful screen writer will be able to transform it into another The Notebook. And if Ryan Gosling could star too, that would help.

Two: the new bestseller format is in effect. I don't know why, but I find the switch fascinating. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea - trade paperbacks are kind of the middle ground between hardcover and mass market (price and kind of quality wise too), and if you're going to separate hardcover and paperback, you might as well separate trade and mass. Fair enough. Good idea, Mr. Tanenhaus. Also, there are more books on the paperback and advice/how-to lists now. Awesome for all those writers who could never quite get up off the extended list (which really doesn't have the same ring). But here's what cracks me up - no one's actually buying that the Times cares about having "a list that corresponds closely to what we review in the section and what we gauge our readers are interested in." Nope, everyone in the biz knows it's about the money. As one insider put it "It's completely ad driven. People want to buy a position next to the list." And, as Crain's points out (you may have noticed that I'm basically stealing their article), people are going to be more likely to buy ads in the New York Times if they can actually say their books are bestsellers. Pure genius. Those book reviewers are so friggin' clever. No wonder they look down on bloggers so much. I mean, no one's scrambling to buy ads here. Hmm, maybe we should start a Slunch Bestseller list. Time for a meeting with my editor...

-Ladytron