As we move forward into a new digital era in the publishing world rife with self-published books, there is theoretically one area where publishers could offer significant value to authors in an e-book world: Cachet.
Despite what the publishing naysayers say, the endorsement of a publisher really does mean something to consumers. I’ve heard way too many people tell me they only want to buy books traditionally published to believe it doesn’t matter. People want the quality control, they want the traditional process, and I think people are willing to pay a premium for it. The mark of a known publisher could be a powerful differentiator in what will only be a more and more jumbled space.
But there’s one problem with this: Publishers are squandering their brands on imprints few people outside of Manhattan and Brooklyn have heard of.
What’s an imprint? Basically it’s the name on the spine of a book, usually a division or a group within a larger publisher. The major publishers are made up of literally dozens of imprints, and they’re not all ones that most people know.
People have heard of Penguin. They’ve heard of HarperCollins. They know Random House and Knopf and Doubleday and Harlequin and a few others.
I’m not going to name the ones people haven’t heard of because I don’t want to offend anyone, but you know who they are. Or rather, you probably don’t know who they are. Even ones that have been around for fifty or a hundred years – not all of them have name recognition. And that’s a huge problem.
Imprints matter to publishers and agents and somewhat to booksellers as they help organize the company into various divisions. You can get a sense of the “flavor” of a book by knowing who is publishing it, and agents know where to send projects.
But these distinctions matter next to zilch to consumers unless they’ve actually heard of the imprints and unless the publisher actively cultivates recognition of the imprints and what the “flavor” of an imprint means.
If a consumer hasn’t heard of Unknown Imprint but they have heard of the bigger company, why insist on putting Unknown Imprint on the spine and in the Amazon metadata? How are consumers supposed to distinguish between a book published by Unknown Imprint and a book self-published under Imprint a Self-Published Author Made Up?
If a self-published e-book has a polished cover and presentation, the only thing separating it from a traditionally published book is the imprint. And if the consumer hasn’t heard of the imprint (but has maybe heard of Random House or Penguin): Opportunity lost.
Publishers have cachet. Consumers want to buy books published by the major publishers. But consumers can’t and won’t do that if they’ve never heard of the imprint.
Need help with your book? I’m available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes (NEW!), my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
“Demonstration on October 17, 1905” by Ilya Repin
While I agree with those who've pointed out that readers don't walk into a bookstore and ask themselves, "Gee, I think I'm in the mood for something from Scholastic this afternoon," brand recognition does go a long way for a debut novelist. And since that's what most of us are trying to become, we should care about this more than anyone.
Consider two debut novelists. One went the traditional publishing route, and her agent ended up selling her novel to Scholastic (or one of its many imprints). The other decided to self-publish.
In conversations with friends and family – and, hopefully, random acquaintances – Debut Novelist #1 can tell people Scholastic is publishing her novel. (And even if that doesn't ring any bells, she can add, "The same company who published Harry Potter and The Hunger Games.") Instant credibility.
Debut Novelist #2 is going to have to explain what self-publishing is and how that works – and maybe even why one of the Big Six DIDN'T publish her novel. And while others might respect her go-get-'em attitude, that explanation isn't going to lend itself to instant credibility.
So yes, I have to agree with Nathan that publishers aren't doing themselves any favors by slice-and-dicing their household names into unrecognizable bits. Heck, I've been following this industry pretty closely for more than three years now, and I'm only just starting to recognize certain imprints and remember which publisher they go with. Not the best way to build your brand.
I think the publisher only matters (at least for me) when looking for new authors online.
The reason I look for a recognizable publisher: it means that more than one person, someone other than the author, someone who works in the publishing industry, has read the book and thinks it's good. As a slush reader for a SF/F magazine, I read a lot of terrible stories. The ones that get through me, and through editor, are usually pretty good because we weed out the bad stuff. Maybe you don't like the stories we picked, but believe me, there's a lot worse out there.
Granted, I've read some books from publishers that I hated. Books that I thought were poorly written. But on the whole, they're high quality.
Anybody, and I mean anybody, can publish a book on Amazon these days. A book that no one but them has read or edited. Maybe it's the first thing they've ever written. Maybe it's some of these writers who sent me their terrible stories, but they think they're publishable. And just maybe, they can get 200 of their best friends to give it a 5-star rating.
THAT'S what scares me about self-publishing.
Speaking as a reader and buyer of books, I disagree that who the publisher is or the imprint of the publishers is that important in selling books.
I buy a lot of books both fiction and nonfiction. I don't have to worry about weeding out the self-published books, because I shop in brick and mortar bookstores not Amazon. I rarely buy books from Amazon because I hate trying to browse through their site. It's time consuming and frustrating when one only wants to browse. If I browse at a brick and mortar bookstore then I come across books that I never would have encountered on Amazon. Books that I wasn't aware that I was looking for and wanting to read by authors that I had never heard of. It's like a treasure hunt and I always come away with an armful of treasure.
I also borrow books from the library. I use the card catalog to get me in the general vicinity of what I am interested in and then I browse the shelfs. And find books that I didn't know that I wanted to read by authors that I have never heard of.
The number of times the publisher has influenced my buying decision is almost never. I think there was a Jane Austen book that I bought several years ago because it was published by Penguin classic, but that is a rare exception.
The author is the brand. When I buy a book written by one of my favorite authors, I know what kind of book that I am getting. The author can switch publishers and I couldn't care less.
I try new authors all the time. I'm always on the hunt for new authors to add to my favorites list. Because the ones that are on my list can't write fast enough to fill my need to read. I never use the publisher of a new to me author as the basis for trying their book.
It's only writers who know who the publishers and imprints are. The majority of readers who are not also writers probably couldn't tell you who the big six publishers are. I know a lot of people who read and we never discuss who the best publishers are or "hey, did you see the new release from Penquin?" We talk about authors and specific book titles.
Future… future…. future of agenting and publishing….!!
I've been thinking this for a while, especially since I'm heavily into SFF and publishers are recognized by at least the profilic readers in that genre. I think, though, that this is going to have to be something publishers learn the hard way, and hope the branding will go stronger as they begin to compete more with self-published authors. As more and more of them enter the mix, and assuming it takes a while for the public to become fully trusting of them, they'll start paying more attention to the publisher names as brands and seals of approval.
As I noted in my last blog post, most readers don't care if the book is published by a goat. No one buys "the next Random House". It's authors who are brands.
The Titanic is going down and those in steerage either already jumped off and gone indie or they're dead. First class can still eat caviar, but the ship is still sinking.
You're making a very important point here, Nathan. As much as we'd like the general public to be educated about the self-pub revolution, an awful lot of them aren't. People who get all their reading info from the NYT Book Review, for instance. And people who only buy a few books a year, and once bought a self-pubbed book from that woman at church and it was so awful, they had to sit in the back pew for a year to avoid her.
Also agree on the imprint thing. I recently brought up a book title at a party. "Was it self-published or did they have a real publisher" said Uninformed Person. "It was published by Grand Central," said I. "Not a real publisher like Random House or Little Brown?" said she. "I think Grand Central IS Little, Brown," said I. (Not even sure myself. Is Hachette owned by Little, Brown, or the other way around?)
Uninformed Person shook her head and snorted as if I was trying to pull something on her. Everybody laughed at me. And these are book people. This info isn't on the evening broadcast news, so many older people don't have a clue.
So thank you very much for this post!
Anne-
Yep – Grand Central and Little, Brown are imprints of Hachette.
I agree. Even though I'm somewhat interested in self-publishing I almost never buy self-published books. The fact that a book has been through the traditional process means a lot in terms of the quality, at least to me (and thousands of others).
That name recognition means an awful lot and translate to sales.
I think a lot of people are missing the point- it's not THAT the imprint or even the brand name of the publisher matter right NOW. It's that they COULD matter- these are brand names that we've created and let fall to the background. In the brick and mortar model, this was ok (someone made a very good point about this being because a physical store promotes a feeling of "vetting"). In a digital world, where everyone can just print whatever they want, really taking advantage of a brand and image is one way publishers can really make their mark on the digital front.
This is the first time I've seen a post on this and I agree wholeheartedly. Lots of my friends who don't write, have no idea of some of the imprints I mention. Many people don't unless they're a part of the publishing world in some way and most readers are not.
If a book is good and gets the right marketing, that can make all the difference though, regardless of the name on the spine.
Nevertheless, you've made some valid points. Excellent post and very well put.
Of course people care about authors over publishers, and nobody goes to Amazon and searches for books by Tor.
But they do search by genre, or follow Amazon's recommendations. And when they hit upon an author they've never heard of, the publisher is one of many factors that can go into their decision.
I'd agree that, at the moment, who published a book is a small factor–maybe the smallest. But why should it be that way?
Opinions aside, publishers go through a lot of trouble to choose quality books. If they marketed that fact, and changed the imprint names nobody knows to include the Big 6 name (like Nathan suggested in an earlier comment), it would go a long way towards not just increasing sales, but increasing the cachet that publishers provide.
Imagine a world with TV ads for Random House, where bookstores set up a display just for Tor books, where publishers' cachet was so strong they could sell books directly from their websites (and people would actually go there to look for them!).
It sounds almost ridiculous, but I don't see why it couldn't happen. What's the point of having a business name if nobody knows it?
Well, I look for certain publishers when I buy. I know Piatkus is going to put out something I'll enjoy, because I've liked pretty much everything they've done so far… and I'll try a new book based on the strength of their brand. (Edgy, hot, a little dark…)
I buy Orbit for Sci-fi and Fantasy and I know what I'm getting… (a little more bloodthirstiness than say, HC).
I could name a few others, but you get the gist.
I realise a lot of you are arguing that no one has bought using publisher style as a guide previously, and in your experience that may be true. I personally do, and I know others who do, so it can't be that uncommon.
Regardless, the point that Nathan makes so well is that going forward, in a market under deluge, people ARE going to start looking more towards publishers for the best work available. And Nathan's point is a smart one… publishers should be building an identifiable brand for purchasers.
(And by the way, as writers, it pays to be aware of an imprint or publishers style. When you get to the talking through submission stage with your agent, it pays to be aware of the market.)
Well, I look for certain publishers when I buy. I know Piatkus is going to put out something I'll enjoy, because I've liked pretty much everything they've done so far… and I'll try a new book based on the strength of their brand. (Edgy, hot, a little dark…)
I buy Orbit for Sci-fi and Fantasy and I know what I'm getting… (a little more bloodthirstiness than say, HC).
I could name a few others, but you get the gist.
I realise a lot of you are arguing that no one has bought using publisher style as a guide previously, and in your experience that may be true. I personally do, and I know others who do, so it can't be that uncommon.
Regardless, the point that Nathan makes so well is that going forward, in a market under deluge, people ARE going to start looking more towards publishers for the best work available. And Nathan's point is a smart one… publishers should be building an identifiable brand for purchasers.
(And by the way, as writers, it pays to be aware of an imprint or publishers style. When you get to the talking through submission stage with your agent, it pays to be aware of the market.)
A lot of the imprints are left over from large publishers buying small ones. The offices and staff are long gone, and only the imprint remains.
Look at british comics in the 70's and 80's – the arrival of cheap home computers destroyed the market, and mergers were taking place every month. A larger comic would add 'and [insert smaller name]' to their masthead for about 12 months, and after that it would quietly vanish.
If the title of the imprint is all you have left after you've bought out a competitor, you can bet publishers are going to use it as long as possible.
@Mira – I think you're spot on. There's something disturbingly class-based when it comes to the idea of building cachet by publishing imprint.
To put it bluntly, the beauty of the book comes down to the writing and the editing. These two are in themselves an inexact science; marketing, cover design, style etc are just as inexact in targeting reader markets, if not more so.
To imply that, somehow, quality can be perpetually guaranteed by a singular publishing house for any particular genre of books they represent, thereby lending cachet to the books they put out, significantly downplays I think the often experimental nature of writing/storytelling (and editing to a lesser extent), not to mention the changing tastes of readers, and deifies the nature of the publishing house as something beyond a business selling/distributing books for profit.
How to associate quality only with particular 'brands' of publishing houses when those same companies are essentially people who are unable in themselves to predict what readers want to read or what readers consider 'quality' with any accuracy anyway?
If there really is a need for cachet as a filter system, better to outsource cover design and marketing while having 'editing houses' specifically imbued with their own cachet. Knowing the pesonal editing style applied to a book would be more telling of the book's quality than knowing who marketed it, who did the cover design, who distributed it and so on (ie, the 'whole package' the trad publishers are assumed to be).
The only integral service publishers provided to writers (apart from distribution) has always been editing. Distribution is now becoming democratised.
I'm beginning to think more editors need to form companies of their own to build the quality of (and profits associated with) editing. There is a goldmine of quality-centred commercial enterprise waiting to erupt for editors. More so than writers or publishing houses, I sometimes think. I know that if I were a reader looking for quality goods, I'd probably pay more attention to 'editing' brands than 'publishing' brands, if that makes any sense…
p.s. btw, I'm one of those readers who actually pays some attention to imprints/publishing houses ie I can pretty much identify who's publishing what. ultimately, that doesn't make me buy the book. Ie, I don't have a favourite imprint after all these yrs lol or even a favourite publishing house. I have favourite authors. And, yes, a favourite editor or two:)
p.s.s. and the basic reason I pay attention to those imprints/publishing houses in the first place is cause I happen to be enmeshed in this industry. Not because I've found them to be a guarantee of quality/style. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Okay, shutting up now:)
Very interesting post!
While I agree with you that many imprints are rather obscure (just look at the spine of the books on your bookshelf — even those by famous authors have imprints that make me go "Who?"), and that it might detract from the 'prestige', if you will, of being published with a major publisher. However, I think this is more of a problem in the world of online book purchases, as most people I know probably won't be looking at the publisher's name when shopping in a book store. If it made it onto the shelves, it must have passed some sort of quality control, and it must have been published by some pretty big-name publisher.
Provocative post, and I think Nathan's not far off the mark … in some cases. When I read a lot of scifi, I did notice when a book was published by Tor and when it wasn't. I pay attention if a book of poetry is published by Norton or Greywolf Press. But for most of my general fiction reading today, I pay attention to the author and the plot, not the imprint. And that's after spending a year thinking about publishing and paying attention to everything about the physical book.
That said, publishing and imprints mean a lot in academia. You cannot get tenure in the humanities unless your book is published by a major university press or by a reputable mainstream press such as Norton.
Historically, certain presses have held a certain reputation, good or bad. Minerva Press was known in Britain for publishing cheap gothic novels. But who published Samuel Richardson's Clarissa, arguably the most influential novel of the later 18th century? Samuel Richardson, at his own press. Ultimately, for readers of fiction, it's the book (and author's reputation) that matters, not the publisher's logo on the title page.
Isabella – thanks, but I think we may be saying slightly different things.
Just to clarify – my view – I don't think cachet in and of itself is a class concept, it's more of an image thing which works to market products in a capitalist economy.
I'm saying that publishings' current cachet is based on a "cultural gatekeepers" image, something targeted more toward the upper classes.
They are trying to change that to a "quality gatekeepers" image, but they will need to reach the lower classes to pull that off.
They would need to either do a huge marketing blitz or actually deliver a higher quality product. Since they can't reall control the latter, since the author is the one who decides whether they even approach traditional publishers or go the self-publishing route, they really should go with a marketing blitz. Or do something to entice authors.
I'm not all that hopeful they will do either, based on what seems to be an entrenched inertia, but they might surprise us! Maybe if we tweak their noses enough on posts like these, they'll pay attention!
mira-
I think cachet may be the wrong word because I agree that implies a certain upper-crustiness, but it's not what I mean. It's not about class. Harlequin does not market itself to "upper classes," but it has what I'm calling cachet because it's known for a particular type of book that its authors do very well.
What I mean by cachet is really about trust – you're placing your faith in the publisher (or bookstore or library or restaurant or clothing store) that you're going to get a certain type of product and a certain level of quality. The more consumers trust a brand the more "cachet" (or whatever) the brand has.
I used to think that writers were the heros of the publishing world. Now, I've put away childish toys and see that it's the brand, whether that be publisher, imprint, or author. (Patterson is a franchise, btw.) I don't like that.
I adore the freedom and low cost that's come to self-publishing and have been open-minded esp in romance genre to self-pubbed writers via Kindle. But lately, I've started to weigh in for publishers. Self-pubbed stuff can be SOOOO bad. It's not a given, but a pro editor / agent will weed out the dogs, not to mention zillions of typos and grammatical errors.
Nathan –
I could be wrong, but I think we're using the word in the same way.
I guess what I'm saying is publishing has earned that 'trust' with the upper classes, because publishers do market, in a subtle way, to those classes (trade magazines, prestigious book reviews, etc.) They have not marketed themselves (in any way that I'm aware of) to the middle or lower classes, so those classes don't have brand consciousness or trust with publishers unless they are industy insiders, read niche genres and develop loyalty to a label, or are simply individuals who care about publishers.
This started because I was speculating on why people on this thread have differening opinions about whether the publisher matters. 🙂
mira-
Still disagree somewhat. What about mass market paperbacks in supermarkets, Harlequin romances, etc.? Not every book is marketed as literary – they're not making TV commercials for Jonathan Franzen, they're making commercials for James Patterson.
I hate time zones. I like to read the week in books before I leave work, because sometimes I'll forget to read it at home, and then I don't see it until Monday.
Nathan, sorry for the delay in my response – my work computer kept crashing at your site, but it's better now.
You raise some really good points! Harlequin is a definite exception, and it helps that they print their names right on the front: "Harlequin Presents"
And James Patterson is a good example of what publishing might do more of, only they could add their name:
James Patterson's Publisher Presents:
James Patterson
That would help increase their visibility.
I also want to quickly add that my discussion about class wasn't really meant to be hyper judgemental, but more explanatory about why publishers may be more visible to some than to others. It was also speculative, and I could be wrong!
I was just having this exact same discussion with my husband, and then I saw your post! He didn't know who TOR books was, even though their little logo is on half of his paperbacks.
I agree with what you're saying, Nathan. In fact, the only thing that keeps me from buying a self-published book is that it can't show that it has been vetted, edited, and proven by slapping the name of a publisher on it.
There is nothing more annoying than purchasing a book and realizing it is poorly written, or worse, poorly edited. The major publishers let us consumers know what has been identified as quality.
Krista, when I tell people I've written novels, they do sometimes ask who published me. I tell them I'm self-published. Then I mention how many I sold in the last year.
That gives me instant credibility, I find :o)
This is a great post, and a great discussion.
I absolutely agree that publishers need to leverage their imprint "brands" and ditch the ones they can't logically promote. I think there's a ton of opportunity for publishers, authors and readers if this is done intelligently.
Imprints and publishers do mean things to booksellers, for example. I experienced this first hand last year when I did my mini-author tour.
Publishers can and should use the advantages that they have and develop coherent brand identities for their imprints, and ditch the ones that don't work.
I think the point is less whether the publisher matters NOW and more that it COULD matter. I don’t think NB is suggesting that people walk into a bookstore thinking “I want a book from Random House” and go looking for only that. But that going forward in a market where anyone can produce content, what publishers will have to offer some assurance of consumer is quality control. It would be, as someone pointed out earlier, the same kind of assurance you would get from a book being in a bookstore- someone read this and thought “People will like it”. Not a guarantee that everyone or even you will like it, but enough that it’s worth testing out. I think it’s a valid point that a recognizable brand name will be crucial to publishers as we move forward.
I think, however, that imprints still have the capacity to be relevant as their own brand/identities. Reading tastes are SO specific and targeted, especially within genre fiction, that imprints (at least some of them) within houses could benefit from being more recognizable.
Nathan,
The title, the cover, and the summary on the back will cause the reader to open the book and read a page of two no matter the imprint.
Imprints are important for niches, much less so for best sellers and the like.
I read mostly SF, and have individual preferences. When I go looking for a book (unspecified, just something to read) I will look first at those with the Baen imprint, because their selection process yields the "flavor" of SF I prefer. If I don't find anything that looks good based on cover, blurb, and the like, the next choice is Tor.
A good presentation will override that, so I'm not wedded to either publisher; I'm playing percentages. When I was traveling a lot, and buying lots of books to while away the hours in motel rooms, it saved time in the selection process. This is what "brand" is all about.
For big sellers and supermarket books, imprint is practically meaningless. That doesn't mean it couldn't be, but at the present state of marketing in the publishing business it is.
Regards,
Ric
The imprint doesn't tell me much when I browse for books to add to my Kindle. Amazon gives the consumer more value-added in the sample and "also boughts" when it comes to making book selections.
Imprint alone can't tell me what type of reader is buying the book ("also boughts") or whether I'll enjoy the writing style (the Amazon sample feature), or whether the book is selling briskly (Amazon ranking).
I agree with Anna Murray: The imprint doesn't tell me much when I browse for books to add to my Kindle. Amazon gives the consumer more value-added in the sample and "also boughts" when it comes to making book selections.
You said that the name of a big publisher "theoretically" carries cachet with readers. Theoretically is correct. Once a reader knows how to search for great fantastic self-published books, the cachet of a big name publisher completely disappears. Recently, I've found more typos in books published by big name publishers than in the self-published books I've purchased, so the big publishers have lost their edge in regard to editing for me, especially since they usually price their eBooks at many times the price of self-published books. Big name publishers are also much less likely to publish edgy books; so many of them end up having cookie-cutter plots, which I find disappointing. I always search an imprint, by the way, so I find it easy to figure out who's the main publisher. That said, I still buy great books by the big name publishers, but it has nothing to do with cachet. I buy many more self-published and indie-published books than books coming out of the big publishing houses these days.
I plead guilty to the above. If I'm standing at the bookstore with two volumes and I know nothing about the authors, the publishing house can make a difference to me.
Nathan,
This is a good point you make but I have a feeling that as we get more into the digital revolution of the book world and publishers start dropping like flies, this name recognition is going to matter less and less.
If I'm holding two books with similar plots and unfamiliar authors–one published by Bloomsbury and the other by Big Bubba's Beer and Book Binding–I'm going with the publisher of Harry Potter.
And for heaven's sake, give the imprints some cred by getting rid of half of them. It's like watered-down jello with little chunks of missed opportunity floating around in it out there.
On Amazon many of the large publishers are demolishing their street creds with the Agency model of pricing ebooks. Perusing the Kindle forums will show you that resentment runs deep and is growing deeper.
I'm pretty sure the big publishers are doing more now to make sure the public views them as money-grubbers more than bastions of quality control.
And as any new author knows, they really don't do much for you in terms of marketing. Much of that is left to the author–they have to make connections with readers and get the word out.
Once you've done that, it's your name that matters. The author will be the brand in the mind of most readers. Reviews on Goodreads and Amazon will either add or detract from that name brand.
Let's face it. The traditional model of printing and distribution is dying. Borders is the latest victim.
I'm an avid reader and I probably couldn't tell you who the publisher is on half my books. I use Goodreads reviews more than anything else to determine what's worth reading and what isn't.
I also download samples to my Kindle to see how I like it.
Otherwise, indie, traditiona, it really doesn't matter to me so long as I enjoy it. And then I'll be yet another grassroots link to boosting or lowering the quality of that author's brand.
Great post, Nathan! The publishing world has changed for good and the last card publishers could play to re-assert themselves in front of the indie digital tsunami is surely "cachet" – and when they have too many (unknown) imprints, you are right, they are wasting that card!
But for how long?
Won't they wake up and regroup themselves around a few high-selling imprints? I know that's what I would do if I were a trad publisher…And when that day comes, it will be curtains for self-pubbed newbies!
Large multi-million/billion Dollar publishers are not stupid.
If imprints mattered to readers and retailers, and ultimately selling more books, do you think publishers would use unknown imprint names on their books? Of course not. Penguin would have their name on every single book they print if it would help them sell more books.
anon-
No room for improvement anywhere? Publishers are perfect as-is?