Because books don’t make themselves.

We had a very interesting meeting this week with a former Acquisition Editor at a fairly large publishing company.  He was recently laid off as part of the publisher’s cost-cutting initiative and was in the midst of exploring the possibilities/opportunities for himself in this evolving publishing industry.   He was considering going on a job hunt to find a job at another publishing company.  He was also considering creating a niche for himself as an “outsourced acquisition editor” for one or more publishing clients.  This sounded like the most reasonable option for him given the current economic climate and the general state of the publishing industry.  He was going to be an outsourced acquisitions editor….hmmm.

The more I thought about this, the less I liked it.  It just didn’t sit right.  While I agreed with him that going to look for another full-time job at a publishing house wasn’t the most promising pursuit.  I mean, most publishers are continuing to cut jobs and these cuts seem to be making their way up the food chain.  At first the cuts came from the physical production floors (copyediting, typesetting, etc).  All of this work is now done by a fragmented freelance workforce.  It’s outsourced.  Now, we see publishers cutting production management and outsourcing that as well.  So, to our friend’s credit, it seemed logical to think that the publishers would be interested in an “outsourced acquisition editor” as well.  And he’s probably right.  This is just another full-time position (read: fixed overhead) that publishers would like to get off their books and make variable.  But is “outsourced production editor” the right way to think about this position?!?!  Hmmm…..

I started my career in Hollywood working in the film business.  I can’t help but see major parallels between the current film and the future publishing industry.  I see them as very similar, however I see the film business as much more evolved than publishing right now.  But publishing is definitely moving in that direction.  In Hollywood, the film studios DON’T write movies.  Nor do they develop them, produce them or edit them.  They really do three things — finance, market and distribute movies.  So, if studios don’t do all of those other things, who does?  Producers, that’s who.  Producers are the ones that work to find good material (scripts, etc), develop it, get the studios to finance it, then produce it.  They deliver to the studio a final film ready to be marketed and distributed.  (It’s a little more complicated than this simple explanation, but this is essentially the way it works).

So, why wouldn’t this model work in the publishing world?  Why couldn’t our friend be a book PRODUCER instead of an “outsourced acquisition editor“?  After all, he’s got the eye for good, marketable material as well as the relationships with the talent to conceive, write, edit, and produce these titles, right?  Why wouldn’t he create a series of books and pitch them to several publishers?

“Hey, Mr. Publisher, I’m developing a three-part book series on technology and its impact in the third world.  I’ve got [Great Author #1] set to write the first book and [Great Author #2] set to write the second.  If you want them, they’re yours for $X.  If you don’t want them, that’s fine too.  I’ve got a meeting with your biggest competitor this afternoon and they’ve already expressed interest…”

Why not?  Once he has a taker, he’ll produce the book from concept to final PDF and deliver it to the publisher, ready to print.  The publisher would cover the cost of production, pay our friend a producer fee as well as a royalty stream.  This model lowers the risk for publisher because they don’t have as much acquisition or production overhead and they can focus on the marketing and distribution — which is what the Hollywood studios do.  

Come on, publishing.  Hollywood’s been there for years.  What’s taking you so long?

DS