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? Iām available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes, 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
Agree. Publishers need to push their name so every reader says, "Hey, that's a Penguin book. It must be good!" By spreading themselves thin across imprints, they risk diluting their brand presence.
Nathan, do you think it's a similar problem with readers not recognizing small press names, too?
I've never given this much thought–perhaps because I know to look behind the imprint and find out who the "umbrella" publisher is. But it's true, most people wouldn't think of that or know to ask.
Great example of the small ways you CAN judge a book by its cover (and even SHOULD).
Anyone who thinks a book is good just because of who published it would be easy fodder for Mr. P. T. Barnum.
You really think consumers buy books based on the publisher? I used to think so, too. Try this experiment:
Talk to ten people who have nothing to do with the publishing industry. Ask them to name three publishers, and ask them to name one publisher from whom they'd be more inclined to buy.
If your results are anything like mine (except that I asked 100 people), you will find that most can name one publisher, and about 10% can name a favored publisher.
Publishers are irrelevant to consumers.
I agree with your post 100%, Nathan. Brand sells. People will pay a premium for brand. As time goes on brand will mean a lot in the selection process of ebooks, IF publishers seize the moment and promote their differentiating qualities.
The shift to electronic media muddies the water, makes what value a publisher adds to the reader unclear. Publishers need to make it crystal clear that they stand for quality products, quality in writing, editing, formatting etc.
They need to become a much bigger part of the digital process. Today, there are individual bloggers (like you) who have a bigger effect on digital buying than most publishers. Publishers squander the value brands they have built over decades (some over centuries). They better hop to it quickly, or they will be left in the dust.
Cheers,
Pete
Publishers are going to have to rework the way they market their brands.
In 1995, Toyota spent around $100 million to launch the Tacoma brand. That's on top of their regular annual media budget. The planning and development of the campaign took months before the first message reached the public. Back then, media choices were limited to TV, radio, and print.
The same disintermediation that is disrupting the traditional publishing model will make it possible to support a roster of brands targeted to smaller customer groups. The cost shifts from huge media budgets to less costly but more labor intensive management of social networking. Media planning and execution cycles shrink from quarters and months down to weeks and hours.
Think of the shift in providing a daily evening newscast in the 1970s to round-the-clock news coverage with the success of CNN.
A small publisher or imprint, backed by a focused strategy and a small team managing social media, could be very successful with a small audience and small budget.
It all depends on viewpoint.
"Consumers want to buy books published by the major publishers."
I have to disagree with this. People are buying books because they like the author. They don't really care who the publisher is. Actually I never met with anyone who said; Now I'm going to buy the next Penguin book or the next HarperCollins book.
In the 21st century a publisher is rarely a trademark of quality. Good authors used to be the trademark of quality instead. This is what publishers used to forget nowadays.
Sorry guys, I don't look down on self publishing but it's not true that publishers don't mean anything to consumers. They don't matter to ALL consumers, but they do matter. Not just the people who do look down on self publishing either. I'm not saying people line up to get the next HarperCollins book, but tell someone you're published by HarperCollins and there's a difference there.
I wonder if there is a difference in perception between consumers who buy their books in a bookstore or buy online. My thinking is that perhaps, the brick and mortar–whether a large chain or a small independent–offers a sense of legitimacy and equality to all the books, so that the consumer may not think too much about who is publishing them. (the consumer may on some level assume that the bookstore has already vetted the book). Consumers who purchase online may be potentially more discriminating, looking more closely at who published the book before making a decision to buy.
"I'm not saying people line up to get the next HarperCollins book, but tell someone you're published by HarperCollins and there's a difference there."
It's maybe a difference for writers and professionals, but for the audience it's really matter and it's not important at all. Honestly, why would they care? The story is created and written by the author not by the publisher. For the readers it's really matter who is going to publish the next novel of J.K. Rowling or Stephen King.
Maybe I'm wrong in this, but as I written, I never met with anyone (Standard readers, not writer-reader hybrids), who ever cared about the publisher.
I'd buy the next GRRM book regardless of who published it.
On the other hand, if I was "just browsing", and had a choice of 1 out of 3 books by new authors, I'd buy the one with a logo š
Brands do matter. I don't have time to read all 3 books, I'd rather be sure someone read it before me.
Istvan, you do have a point in case of established authors. Nathan's argument, I think, mostly applies to "first time reading this guy/gal, is he/she any good?"
While I agree that brand matters, I will say that I've taken a leap into some self-pub books and didn't notice that big of a difference. Sorry. To consumers, especially in markets like YA and Romance, I just don't think it matters.
I don't really care who the publisher is, honestly. I buy solely based on my acquaintance with the author or the subject matter.
Interestingly enough, I am hesitant to self-publish because I wouldn't have an imprint or publisher behind me. It does lend cachet and a safety net–more than if I were to join the thousands of people who are self-publishing.
I agree. With the exception that if a book looks polished, has a professional cover, and has an awesome blurb, then I'll buy it and think about the imprint later.
I have often wondered why publishers bother to put the imprint on the spine, since many of them are small and don't have brand-recognition. Does anybody know why they do this? Why not just mention the imprint in the front matter, or in the acknowledgement section?
"Nathan's argument, I think, mostly applies to "first time reading this guy/gal, is he/she any good?"
I also wouldn't bet on this as a good advertisement is also capable to make a difference. However in that case it's a game of trust. If the reader gets a good first book from the author as it's been advertised, the reader will be faithful. If not, the writer may look after a different job.
I know few self-published writers by myself and they're selling well (Better than many traditionally published writers.). And they also present quality to their readers since their first book. The key is quality. If you have quality material, it's really matter who is publishing it.
Yeah, Nathan, sorry but I have to disagree with you here. I've worked/volunteered in libraries for more than twenty years and spent three years managing a used books store.
The average reader could care less who published a book. Yes, if you say, "My book was published by Harper Collins," there will be recognition in there.
But no one goes into a library or bookstore, finds a book that looks interesting, and then looks for the publisher before buying or checking it out. It doesn't happen.
It's quite possible most of your friends are really well-read and well-educated about the publishing industry. Talk to the average person and they won't have a clue who published the last book they read – even if it was Harper Collins.
Megg
I agree. I think publishers matter to a portion of consumers. I've found that out more and more in my career. I'm always surprised by how many non-writing readers recognize certain publisher logos. It's also a huge difference in saying you're self-published and with a publisher no matter how ugly that might seem to some writers.
Given the proportion of uninspired books mainstream publishers put out, I think they are lucky consumers don't register their names on the spine.
I'll never buy another book by TV presenter Sandi Toksvig, given how amateur Flying Under Bridges was, but which opportunist publisher was responsible? I've no idea.
I don't buy a book because of who published it, and I never look for a book by a particular publisher.
Shouldn't the publisher be transparent except to the distributors & the supply chain?
Are the people who say they only buy books by reputable publishers industry insiders?
Cachet is important, but that brass ring is elusive. First you have to catch a publisher.
Is it possible for publishers to recover this "squandered" opportunity? Yes, by building brand, just like any other company. But then authors are supposed to build brand, too, and arguably, authors have more going for them in building brand because they are by definition a unified force (vs. a company with many authors). It's like the difference between Procter and Gamble and Pampers – which brand do you invest in? The author (Pampers) or the company (P&G)?
P&G succeeds in doing both to a limited extent. But the consumer looking at the shelves is going to shop for Pampers first.
I absolutely agree with this!
Publishers need to make their brand matter. With digital pub and just seeing a cover, I think publishers should put their name on the cover because it is way too much effort to click thru and try to figure out if a books is self-pubbed or traditionally pubbed.
Great post!
megg-
Susie said it better than I did, but I think there's a difference between libraries/bookstores and online. Libraries and bookstores are pre-curated and people don't have to think about the publisher because someone has already decided which books go in the bookstore and there's an assumption of a certain level of quality there. But it's different now when someone hears about a book and is thinking of getting it on Amazon.
I also feel like consciousness about publishers is a relatively new development. Now pretty much everyone has a cousin or aunt or someone they know who has self-published, and I think more people do want to know whether it's published or self-published.
This is just my own experience, but it's not limited to people who are very familiar with books and publishing.
The series is the brand. The reason the Harry Potter series was a success wasn't because it was published (in the US) by Scholastic.
Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum series is now on its third publisher. Has anybody noticed?
Some series continue to attract large sales even after a change in authorship (Archie McNally, Wheel of Time). Dorchester's experimenting with a return to book-packaging series written by multiple authors under a common pseudonym (Gabriel Hunt).
Yet, sometimes the author is the brand. There are some authors whose names are big enough that they don't need series. Stephen King and John Grisham come to mind.
I don't know how I'd characterize James Patterson, but he's definitely a brand.
The situation can be different for publishers outside of the 'Big 6'. Harlequin does romance. Baen does sci-fi/fantasy.
For the smaller publishers, the imprint can be the brand. Readers will continue to recognize the Hard Case Crime imprint after its recent move from Dorchester to Titan. Another move from Dorchester with a different approach: will readers recognize that Don D'Auria's Samhain Horror imprint is quite different from the usual romantica fare published by Samhain?
Would you suggest they get rid of imprints altogether? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious.
I hate to make another music analogy, because it seems like that's all I ever do over here, but with record labels I really love how you can count on a certain sound from a certain imprint, regardless of who the artist is.
It would be nice if books worked that way, but I think you would have to be extremely knowledgeable about the industry to recognize (and know the flavor of) more than a few imprints.
For the folks who say the publisher brand is immaterial: You are correct, but only because publishers do not have a consumer marketing brand strategy.
Simply establishing a name is not a brand strategy. A brand is a basket of expectations of the consumer who consumes the brand. It takes an active effort and careful planning to establish those expectations.
A good example is bottled water. Water is water is water, but consumer loyalty to certain brands is fierce. Even though the brands are chemically indistinguishable, many consumers will insist that their preferred brand tastes better. In my Beloved Florida, consumers of Coca-Cola's Dasani brand prefer it to tap water, even though Dasani is tap water purchased from the City of Jacksonville.
The difference is in the consumer expectations of the brand. The consumer expects the Dasani bottled tap water to taste better than the same water from his home tap, so he experiences "better taste" when consuming the Dasani brand.
Of course books and authors are not bottled water. Loyalty to a certain author is based upon the author's work. But an effective consumer marketing strategy by a publisher would enable a publisher to leverage loyalty to one author to sell works from other authors.
The key is to associate the expectations of the experience of reading one author with expectations of enjoyment of reading a new author.
Matthew-
If I were in charge a major publisher I'd do a brand awareness survey of the imprints and only keep the ones with sufficient recognition. Then I'd rebrand the others "Major Publisher Children's Books, Major Publisher Business, Major Publisher Wellness," etc. etc.
Doug. Yes, the author is the brand and sometimes the title / franchise (Such as Star Wars, Star Trek, StarCraft, Mass Effect, etc, etc… so what you can't connect to one specific author.). But I never heard that the brand would be the publisher and only the publisher as they love to advertise it sometimes.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think that, if anything, publishers don't have enough cachet. Readers I've talked to also don't know/don't care who publishes a book. They'll look at the quality of the cover, maybe the design inside, but they're not going to assume that a Big 6 has more cachet than a small press. I think they figure if it made it on a bookshelf and the cover/printing looks decent, it's not complete amateur hour. The only publisher that I've seen that does active branding is Harlequin, often emphasizing line recognition over individual author. I think some small publishers might be able to use branding to their advantage, but it's a weird issue.
That makes sense.
Such is the pain of self-publishers. š
I'm not a social butterfly or anything, but for all the people I know, they don't read anything that doesn't have a major publisher behind it. It's not that people will recognize all the names of a publisher and their imprints, but the fact that the imprints/publisher exist behind a book is enough for the average reader. Again, it's yet another wall self-publishers have to try to break down.
You're right, and Michelle is right.
It's indeed "ugly," but true. One of the first questions in many contests is "name of publisher." It even, I suspect though don't know for certain, is indicated in the ISBN number of a book.
And I'll admit, as a writer, I would still prefer to have the cachet of a "known" publisher to help attract readers.
That said, many small imprints were around–far more than now–during the literary flowering between WWI and WWII, as I mentioned in another post. Perhaps that's what will happen again–and readers will have to rely more on reviewers than publishers or even an imprint's cachet to guide them to great writing?
And then, as in the past, writers will have to pay a reviewer (as the publishers have)…and it all gets ugly again…
Too true. The imprints mean nothing to me, but the name of a major publisher means something.
To a certain extent, Nathan, I'd agree with your suggestion of identifying which imprint brands should be retained and which should be dumped.
But based upon the excellent comments many have made, I'd expect that few imprints have sufficient brand awareness to make such a survey reliable.
Publisher brands have never really been marketed as consumer brands. Authors have always been the forefront, and lacking any branding effort by publishers, consumers have had to rely on their familiarity with authors rather than publishers.
Since the cost of developing a brand is relatively low for something as highly targeted and personal as fiction, it would be better for publishers to work on developing communities of loyal author fans… then work on drawing those communities together under the imprint brand.
GEORGE: (rage) Oh, it's got cachet, baby! It's got cachet up the
yin-yang!
https://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheSeven.html
Nathan –
I get what you're saying. But doesn't the majority of the buying population continue to shop in bookstores or check out books from libraries? eBooks are still a smaller percentage in the grand picture.
As for online sales & self-pub – sure, branding might make a difference. I always look at a book a little harder if I know it came through Harper Teen.
Some of us indies also have our own publishing imprints (I belong to DarkSide Publishing). We do hope to snag readers through brand recognition. All of our titles are YA or MG, but they run the gamut in genres.
So maybe we're doing what you suggest traditional publishers should do? Consolidate. Create recognition through quality offerings. Make readers aware not just one author, but the whole body of work put through the publisher. That's what we hope for.
I just had to giggle for a moment when I realized you might be suggesting the same model for traditional publishers. Good thing our members have a strong background in business and marketing, not just in writing and editing.
By the way, can I say that your blog continues to be one of my favorites? It's the only one I regularly read. Even though I'm self-pub, I seek you out more regularly than I do Konrath (*gasp* Blasphemy!). š
Megg Jensen
Oh, and pre-curated books in libraries & bookstores is a whole other blog post, my friend.
Barnes & Noble is paid for shelf-space. That's not curation. That's retail advertising space. Smaller, indie bookstores pride themselves on connecting readers with local authors (usually pubbed very small presses). I know, I used to work at one of those stores.
How many librarians read every book they put in circulation? Not many. I know some of who do, and they take great pride in their collection. Most (again, not ALL) libraries are put together simply through bestseller lists and catalog choices.
Megg
Oh, and the use of 'my friend' wasn't mean to be condescending. I really do think you're a cool guy. š
(shutting up now….)
Megg
Great post, Nathan. Another thing I've noticed is that when I said I was published by Shadow Mountain (an independent based out of Utah) it was hard to get much respect when it came to scheduling school events, libraries, conferences, etc.
Just in the last month, since I signed a book deal with Harper Collins, I've had those same people coming to me.
It's a tough world no matter what path you take. But being able to mention you are with a large publisher definitely makes it a little easier.
"So maybe we're doing what you suggest traditional publishers should do? Consolidate. Create recognition through quality offerings. Make readers aware not just one author, but the whole body of work put through the publisher. That's what we hope for." – Megg Jensen
That's exactly what I'm suggesting publishers should do to develop a consumer brand.
Doug mentioned Baen Books, and it is an excellent example. Looking for more of David Drake's "Lt. Leary" series, I found Elizabeth Moon and David Weber through Baen's website. I've never paid attention to publisher brand before, but when I'm in the mood for space opera, I check Baen's web site first. My expectation is that Baen authors put out good product, especially when I discovered that Baen publishes Asimov, Heinlein, and several other authors I like.
The same is true for publishers with a diverisifed portfolio. Hunting my local library for more Horatio Hornblower style naval fiction, I stumbled across Robert Macomber's series set in Civil War Florida. Having learned something new about consulting publisher websites with Baen, I checked out Pineapple Press and bought a history of the Florida Keys and a variety of Florida non-fiction.
Both Baen and Pineapple Press are now my "go to" sites along with Amazon, all because I have a certain expectation of what those publisher brands will deliver.
When the world's biggest booksellers are not bothering to sort or prominently label books based on publisher at the point of sale–their web sites–it has a huge impact on consumer awareness. Or in this case, lack thereof.
I see no evidence that most readers can distinguish between publishers at any grain finer than self-pubbed vs. not-self-pubbed (and even that, not often). The indie/micro/university/e-presses, once differentiated by their physical distribution limitations as compared to the Big Six, are now on even footing in the digital marketplace.
I completely agree with Nathan that large publishers *should* capitalize on cachet to distinguish themselves in this crowded bazaar. And I don't think that will happen by de-emphasizing imprints, but rather emphasizing the connection with their parent publishers: "Grand Central (An Imprint of Hachette Book Group)" or "Minotaur (St. Martin's/MacMillan)" should be prominently displayed in product metadata. Currently, Amazon just lists the imprint itself.
The irony is the dissociation of a specialized imprint with its parent press was once a selling point, a means of distinguishing itself as an independent voice separate from its corporate backing, but now the reverse may be more desirable: that corporate backing is a guarantor of quality control.
Cool discussion and post! Love the differing opinions.
In terms of your recommendation that publishers drop imprints to strengthen their brand name – absolutely!! I shudder to speculate on the internal politics that would trigger, but I agree that it would be absolutely the right move.
In terms of whether consumers care about publisher names, I think it's speculative at this point, and it would be good to have some actual research on this. Otherwise, we could go back and forth, but either side could be right.
My personal speculation falls in the middle. Excluding writers and insiders who are part of the publishing culture, for the general public, my speculation is that this is a class issue. I suspect that the upper class and upper-middle class care about publishing cachet, since those classes tend to be trained to recognize cachet.
The cachet given to a publishing label has not been earned through general advertising, but is instead is a concept of "expert elitism". That will appeal much more to the upper classes.
If publishers want to create brand recognition in other classes, they need to advertise in a way that will appeal to them. And, imho, they should have started doing that years ago, but they didn't because they prefer their elitist status, to be quite frank.
So, the above is speculative, and a gross generalization, individuals within any class will be individuals and I truly hope I'm not offending anyone other than publishers who prefer to remain elite. I'm okay with offending them.
Thanks so much for the fascinating topic, Nathan!
Consumers need to get over the whole brand thing and learn to step outside their comfort zone. They might be pleasantly surprised.
I see this all the time with Romance and I wonder. It's so bad it's hard to tell who's publishing anything nowadays.
And, like you said, I prefer buying what I know, not what I don't know. I've been taken several times on books that were poorly written and I won't do it again. I'd rather stick with the "brand" I know.
"And, like you said, I prefer buying what I know, not what I don't know. I've been taken several times on books that were poorly written and I won't do it again. I'd rather stick with the "brand" I know." – Anonymous
Ahh… rem acu tetigisti. You have touched the matter with a needle.
That is the basis of brand loyalty. It gives a marketer leverage to launch a new product, to support a premium price, to raise barriers to competition, and to build intangible value in the company.
At present and in general there really isn't any such thing as publisher brand – not in the way brand is used to grow a publisher's market share or revenues.
But building brand loyalty is a two-way street. For long term success, publishers must deliver a consistent experience that their stable of authors are better.
Regarding ebooks, readers determine quality in authors, regardless of if they have a publisher. You just have to look at how many books the author has out, the quality of the cover designs, the number of reviews they get and the ratings they get.
In this way, authors develop their own brand, so even an author without a traditional publisher can have a rep that is better than the traditionally published.
Readers certainly won't balk at buying a lauded indie author, just because they have no real publisher behind them.
Good point.
The experiment of asking 100 people to name a major publisher is misleading. There is a difference between being able to name a publisher by heart and choosing between a traditionally published book and a self published book.
Given that choice, all other things being equal, more people will choose the traditionally published book. They may not know the names of the publishers by heart but they'll recognize the name when they see it and the name will remind them (perhaps subconsciously) of previously published quality books.
You're right. It seems like the big publishers are making a mistake. If brand loyalty is a factor then they should be careful not to sabotage it.
As many people have said, I think it all depends. In the end, I think I agree with Nathan in the whole keep imprints that are popular but relabel the ones that aren't as Major Publisher's Kids Books. For example, I've been in love with Tor books since I was 11. Go back and time and ask my 11 year old self who my favorite publishers are, I would've said "Scholastic and Tor." But what seventh grade me didn't know was that Tor is only an imprint. I didn't know until I started researching publishers in college that Tor was an imprint of Tom Doherty.
Tor–by labeling books with the imprint–has brought authors to my attention. It's a brand that I trust. Re-label the books "Tom Doherty" and I no longer associate it with the Wheel of Time, Sara Douglass, John Scalzi, David Weber, and the dozens of other authors that I've picked up because they were Tor books.
And that was as a teenage consumer. I think we need to give the average population more credit. When people find a brand they love, they stick with it. Tor is my brand.