On a more personal level, editors糖心传媒攔eal, living breathing people, not just the faceless corporation糖心传媒攃an reach individual readers in an extremely cheap, effective way. By creating Facebook groups to crowdsource parties, such as what Lorin Stein did for Bola帽o糖心传媒檚 2666, or writing personal blogs about books and publishing, editors and independent presses can start to build alliances with readers who believe in what the press is doing.

One of the biggest growth areas糖心传媒攎aybe the only growth area糖心传媒攊n publishing is in the realm of graphic novels. Again, there are a lot of reasons for this, but one significant reason is the fact that graphic novels (and comic books more broadly) have always cultivated a fan culture in which readers interact closely with the publishers, writers, artists, etc. In our 糖心传媒渨eb 2.0糖心传媒� world, interaction is key, and people who feel engaged with a project or organization are much more likely to do the sorts of things that will spread the word and increase sales and readership. As demonstrated by the success of BzzAgent糖心传媒攁 word of mouth company that mobilizes hundreds of unpaid 糖心传媒淏zzAgents糖心传媒� to spread the word about new products糖心传媒攚ord of mouth marketing is extremely effective. The more people who love what you糖心传媒檙e doing and feel like they糖心传媒檙e helping you to do it, the more they糖心传媒檒l get other people involved, and the more successful you糖心传媒檒l be.

It糖心传媒檚 not a complicated concept, but one that sleek, savvy small presses are more likely to capitalize on than amorphous, nondescript commercial houses. Indies also have a chance to leap ahead in terms of using e-books to reach readers. With a loyal fan base and authors who aren糖心传媒檛 looking to make millions off their intellectual property, independent presses can play around with the current models, giving away free e-books or selling them at a very low price, all in the interest of generating excitement about a particular author or work.

It was clear to me when HarperCollins announced a special iPhone tool allowing people to access excerpts of HC books by visiting the Harper website on their phone that the big presses are insanely out of touch. The activities of the Institute for the Future of the Book, such as their collaborative online reading of Doris Lessing糖心传媒檚 The Golden Notebook, or their theorizing about how presses could be structured in a world where content is completely free, are much more cutting edge than what the big houses are doing.

One other thing worth mentioning is the nonprofit model and recent variations on it. Since the revenue stream for nonprofits is diversified糖心传媒攗sually about 50% from sales, 50% from donations糖心传媒攖hese houses are more protected than other presses when the bottom falls out of the market. Granted, foundation giving is slowing up for the time being, but individuals are still donating. And individuals who understand the value of what nonprofit publishers do will continue to donate and help these presses through these rough times. Furthermore, collaborations between nonprofit presses and universities has proven to be very advantageous to both parties, giving the press additional, crucial resources, and giving the university new educational opportunities for its students.

With independent, nonprofit, and university presses doing most of the literature in translation, there糖心传媒檚 a chance for the sales of translations to continue to grow in the coming years. As the industry retracts and readers of the literary community consolidate, translated literature could come to the fore, attracting new readers. And as more presses like Melville House, Archipelago, Europa Editions, Counterpath, Ugly Duckling, Graywolf, and Open Letter come onto the scene with reasonable expectations and a willingness to experiment with new ways of reaching readers and new models for how to survive and fulfill one糖心传媒檚 mission, the literary world might not be as bleak as some might think.

Currently the marketplace is dominated by the idea that books should be enjoyable and useful, an entertainment alternative equivalent to watching TV or surfing the Internet. But, to be honest, books aren糖心传媒檛 as immediately gratifying as a TV show. People who really read, who buy lots of books, are often attracted to the unique things the medium has to offer that goes beyond simple amusement. This discrepancy between books as simple entertainment and books as unique medium could be one of the reasons behind the dismal numbers reported in the NEA and reports, which found that in 2006, 15-34 year olds spent less than 10 minutes a day reading for pleasure. And that between 1985 and 2005, household spending on books fell by 14% when adjusted for inflation.

Independents driven by an editorial vision糖心传媒攈ouses like New Directions, Archipelago, Europa Editions糖心传媒攁re in a better position because they aren糖心传媒檛 trying to appeal to an enormous range of pleasure seekers, but are engaging with an active audience that is dedicated to the idea of serious literature. These houses are 糖心传媒渄eep糖心传媒� publishers doing a lot of books within a certain aesthetic range. Commercial presses ten to be very horizontal糖心传媒攑ublishing a few titles from a huge range of categories. Most importantly though, is the genuine desire to connect with their audience.

Despite having all the necessary resources and reach, commercial houses have historically been pretty bad at truly engaging with their audience. The websites for HarperCollins and Random House are aesthetically disastrous, and have little that draws a reader back or starts an electronic 糖心传媒渞elationship糖心传媒� with its fans. You may find excerpts and basic book data on the site, but you糖心传媒檒l also find an Obama book next to a cooking book next to a Michael Crichton thriller. There糖心传媒檚 not much of a voice present on these sites, and there糖心传媒檚 definitely not a sense of community. It糖心传媒檚 as if the commercial publishers can only view readers as clients rather than supporters.

This idea that a press partners with its readers rather than simply treating them as customers is a concept that I believe will shape the future of publishing. For ages publishers have cut themselves off from their readers. For instance, the general public isn糖心传媒檛 allowed to attend Book Expo, since publishers only want to deal with people in the industry. And the chain linking an editor with a reader is enormous, stretching from the author to agent to editor to sales department to wholesaler to bookstore buyer to bookseller to reader.

There are two main reasons that I think the iPod has been such a cultural force (aside from the 糖心传媒渃ool糖心传媒� factor): it isolates the user and makes him feel like a unique individual, while providing the listener with a greater freedom of choice than ever before. Parallel to the rise of the iPod and its message of individuality, social networking sites allowing people to connect and share information and recommendations have become more and more popular as well. Each of these innovations allows creators and producers to directly interact with 糖心传媒渃ustomers.糖心传媒� This combination of individual enjoyment, the empowerment of nearly unlimited choice, and instant access to a community of like-minded people is incredibly powerful and, in my opinion, is the setting the publishing industry should cultivate to engage and energize a large group of readers willing to explore and enjoy all types of literature.

Stage Four: What Happens Next?

Although it seems that everything is doomed (remember what I said about publishing folks?), I believe that amid all this chaos, potential or otherwise, there are reasons to believe that independent publishers, booksellers, and works in translation all could thrive.

Assuming Borders doesn糖心传媒檛 make it, or at least a significant shrinkage in chain stores, an opportunity will open up for independent bookstores to make a comeback. For years these stores have been battered out of business due to the volume discounts, enormous floor space, and nationwide branding efforts of the major chains. But at this time, when, thanks in part to the greed that destroyed the financial sector, people are focusing more on 糖心传媒渂uying local,糖心传媒� independent bookstores can fight back. There have been a number of studies on the economic impact of buying books from a local store, including one conducted last year in San Francisco that found that a 10% increase in book sales in the local market would result in increased economic input of $3.8 million, 25 additional jobs, and $325,000 in additional retail activity. These arguments should appeal to a larger segment of customers than usual during this current/forthcoming recession. In the wake of a Borders collapse there would be a lot of underserved book communities where a niche store could step in and succeed.

One reason indie stores could make it in this sort of climate is the modest nature of their business model. Rather than try and be everything to everyone, stores with specific identities that are integrated into the local community糖心传媒攍ike St. Mark糖心传媒檚, City Lights, McNally Jackson, Shaman Drum糖心传媒攖end to succeed by cultivating and serving a specific group of loyal customers. Additionally, a number of stores are playing around with the idea of becoming nonprofits. Shaman Drum is transforming into the Great Lakes Literary Arts Center and expanding its community activities and offerings. The indie store as literary center is the antithesis of the box store, and exactly what we need in our world today.

In terms of niche marketing, Amazon UK recently announced a 糖心传媒淟iterature in Translation糖心传媒� store highlighting works of international authors and presses that publish a lot of translations. This isn糖心传媒檛 dissimilar from the annual Reading the World program in which independent bookstores display a host of translated titles in order to draw the attention of readers to the wealth of great books that are available from writers born outside of our borders. This sort of niche marketing糖心传媒攐r not even marketing, just providing information about a particular type of book糖心传媒攊s highly effective and can make a big difference sales.

It might seems self-serving (or self-delusional), but I think that independents on the whole糖心传媒攏onprofits publishers especially糖心传媒攁re in a better position to weather this storm than anyone else. I糖心传媒檝e long believed that the role indies play in book culture would continue to grow in the future, mainly because these presses are branded, they have a particular mission and vision, and their expectations are modest enough to allow for them to publish 糖心传媒渞eal糖心传媒� literature instead of books that seem profitable.

The most frightening news of recent times involves the Borders chain. In March, Borders put itself up for sale and had to borrow $42.5 million Pershing Square Capital Management. Borders couldn糖心传媒檛 find a buyer, and as a result, had to issue warrants to its largest shareholder, giving Pershing Square even more control of the company. And if that wasn糖心传媒檛 bad enough, along comes the financial collapse, and Borders Group Stock falls from $7.80 to $2.44.

A couple weeks ago, Borders issued a memo to Independent Publishers Group, stating that Borders would 糖心传媒渘ot be paying [IPG] for two months due to anticipated excessive returns.糖心传媒� Borders claims to have cash on hand and access to credit, but this is a very frightening message for the entire book world, sending a message about Borders long-term stability. And of course, the independent presses are the first to have to deal with this non-payment . . .

If Borders were to go bankrupt糖心传媒攁nd this is still an if糖心传媒攊t would be one of the greatest catastrophes to hit the publishing world in decades. Even after liquidating as much stock as possible, publishers would receive massive returns, millions of dollars would be lost, and going forward, publishers would have 1,100 fewer stores to sell to.

Even worse, without a Borders store next door, a lot of B&N outlets would become superfluous. B&N could easily close down a number of stores to improve their financial standing, reducing sales outlets even further.

A lot will depend on the upcoming holiday sales season, about which there have been mixed predictions. To some, books are the perfect gift. Lasting, thoughtful, and most important in our economic crisis, relatively cheap. Random House recently launched a campaign to promote just this idea. Books=Gifts started last week and in the near future the New Yorker will do an e-mail blast to 25 million newsletter recipients pushing this message.

Meanwhile, Motoko Rich of the New York Times wrote an article for the November 11th paper about the market糖心传媒檚 nervousness. Barnes & Noble chairman Len Riggio already sent a memo predicting a horrible shopping season, and HarperCollins just reported that first-quarter operating income plummeted from $36 million last year to $3 million in 2008. And a lot of people are expecting a serious downturn in January, regardless of what happens in the next six weeks. Bookstores are already cutting orders, and presses are trimming print runs.

Borders closing and a downturn in sales adds up to a doomsday scenario in which commercial houses are buried in inventory and bad debt, and have to cut costs severely (including personnel) to try and rebuild. A lot of independent presses could just go away overnight. And Barnes & Noble and Amazon would have a lot of power over publishing houses, allowing them to essentially set whatever terms of sale they desire.

Stage Three: Financial Collapse, the Borders Situation, Distribution, and Other Bad News

Over the past few years糖心传媒攁nd the past few weeks糖心传媒攁 number of events have occurred that have shaken up the industry as a whole. Some are more severe and immediate than others, but each event is shaping what the future publishing world will look like.

Even if you糖心传媒檙e not a consummate reader, it糖心传媒檚 been hard to miss the steady decline in book review coverage. Across the country newspapers (facing their own set of challenges) have been laying off book review staff in favor of running much cheaper syndicated reviews, such as those from the Associated Press. In the past year, a number of standalone books sections 糖心传媒� including the L.A. Times Book Review 糖心传媒� have been folded back into the paper. Book review editors such as Teresa Weaver at the Atlanta Journal Constitution and Oscar Villalon at the San Francisco Chronicle have lost their positions. The New York Sun, which, for all its crazy off-the-wall editorial opinions had one of the most cosmopolitan arts sections in the world, ceased publication at the end of September. And the magazine scene isn糖心传媒檛 much better. The situation is so dire that the National Book Critics Circle started a campaign to 糖心传媒渟ave book reviewing.糖心传媒� From a publisher糖心传媒檚 perspective, this decline is really bad news糖心传媒攖he fewer outlets available for review, the more difficult it will be to get any attention for your titles. Especially when everyone糖心传媒檚 reviewing the same twelve books . . .

Distribution is one of the key problems for all independent presses. It costs a fortune (rates such as 26% of net sales plus 4% of returns, plus standard storage, catalog, and set-up fees, are not at all uncommon) and despite everyone糖心传媒檚 best intentions, giant distribution companies aren糖心传媒檛 ideal for getting books into stores. When sales reps are responsible for selling books from more than a hundred presses, it糖心传媒檚 physically and mentally impossible to know all the titles they represent and to be able to specifically pitch each of these books to bookstores.
Back in the fall of 2006, AMS糖心传媒攖hen the parent company of Publishers Group West糖心传媒攚ent bankrupt, and, as a result, stopped paying the dozens of publishers PGW distributed. And if that weren糖心传媒檛 bad enough, this happened around the holidays, and PGW wasn糖心传媒檛 able to ship titles to stores during the most profitable time of the year for the book industry . . . Eventually, Perseus bought PGW (they bought Consortium earlier in the year), bringing together an enormous percentage of independent presses in America under one roof, but not before some serious economic damage had been done. Soft Skull almost went under and was eventually sold to Counterpoint, and presses are still laying off employees because of the lingering effects of this collapse.

There糖心传媒檚 no need to rehash the epic financial collapse that has rocked the world economy and is sending us into a global recession, but it is worth pointing out some of the more direct effects of this situation on the publishing world. First of all, uncertainty and recessions always kill advertising budgets. Companies take out fewer ads, magazines that rely on ad revenue suffer, and the whole publishing industry slows down. This is especially true in conglomerates that consist of a publishing house, a newspaper, TV network, etc. The media is fueled by advertising dollars, and the lack of advertising could send shockwaves through the publishing industry, on the balance sheets at particular companies, and in terms of further reducing outlets for reaching readers.

I糖心传媒檝e heard off-the-record stories about magazines being in serious financial trouble, and I糖心传媒檝e heard of publishers drastically cutting their list in preparation for tough financial times. [See the story from yesterday.] None of this bodes well for literature, much less literature in translation.

There are a few key differences between the commercial houses and the independents that are worth pointing out aside from the discrepancy in the number of employees and the amount of money each publisher tends to have.

Independents rarely do their own distribution. The lion糖心传媒檚 share are distributed by a handful of companies: Independent Publishers Group, Consortium, Publishers Group West, and Perseus. And to complicate things (more on this in a minute), Consortium and PGW are both owned by Perseus. This means that sales reps selling the press糖心传媒檚 books into stores work for the distributor not the press itself. And a press looking to sell its books across the country has very few choices on how to go about doing this.

On the plus side, nonprofits are able to receive grants and donations, including money from the state and federal government, a huge benefit that will be touched on below. Donated income makes up a significant part of a nonprofit糖心传媒檚 budget, and supports all publishing activities, from paying authors and translators to printing and promoting books.
Just because of the scale, indie presses don糖心传媒檛 have quite the same pressure to hit sales goals as commercial houses do. Expectations are more modest, as are advances and marketing budgets. Rarely do you read of an independent spending millions of dollars on a particular book. At the same time, there isn糖心传媒檛 as much money available for marketing and publicity, and as a result, overall sales levels tend to be lower at an indie press . . . except when it comes to literature in translation.

It糖心传媒檚 worth dwelling on sales expectations for a moment, since it creates such a radical difference between commercial houses and nonprofits. At your typical nonprofit, employees are involved in all aspects of the business. An editor can also be the publicity person, the marketing director might also be in charge of grants. Salaries are slightly lower than at the big houses, but in terms of total cost per book, nonprofits tend to get a lot of bang for their buck. In other words, the average operating expenses糖心传媒攔ent, utilities, salaries, benefits, etc.糖心传媒攆or a book published by a nonprofit are considerably lower than those of a big house. Obvious, I know, but this means that a press might only need to sell 5,000 copies of a title to breakeven, instead of the 15-20,000 needed at a commercial publisher. Suddenly, the pressures of finding a best-seller evaporate . . .

This isn糖心传媒檛 even looking at a situation like the one for Open Letter. As a trade-oriented house that糖心传媒檚 part of a university, we don糖心传媒檛 pay rent, yet have access to certain things other nonprofits don糖心传媒檛, such as a funding base (alumni) and an endless supply of interns. The stakes are automatically a bit lower, which allows a press to focus more on its mission while expanidn the possibilities of what it can publish.

With a smaller staff, a more manageable list, and reasonable sales expectations, independents are in a better position to invest a lot of time and effort into promoting the literary fiction and books in translation it is publishing. The stereotypical image of an independent (or even better, a nonprofit) publisher as someone who is extremely passionate about the books they糖心传媒檙e publishing, someone who spends all his/her time obsessing and worrying about the press, about reaching readers, about finding ways to keep the press afloat, really isn糖心传媒檛 that far off. And this contributes to the overall marketing of a press糖心传媒檚 books.

Indie presses tend to have a stronger editorial identity than commercial houses, and cultivate a sense of customer loyalty that doesn糖心传媒檛 exist for Random House or Simon & Schuster, or others. Soft Skull, Archipelago, New Directions, these are presses that are clearly branded, that readers trust in, and that fans are willing to take chances with. An obscure Finnish author published by Archipelago means something entirely different than one published by S&S. Although indies and nonprofits have fewer resources, there are some advantages to being small, nimble, and focused.

Obviously there糖心传媒檚 more that goes into the resistance of commercial publishers to translations糖心传媒攕uch as the fact that most editors are monolingual, that without investing a lot of time in international literature it糖心传媒檚 hard to know which titles and authors are the most important, that there aren糖心传媒檛 as many agents for international works as for American and British writers, that only select editors attend the Frankfurt book fair (it糖心传媒檚 all about selling, not buying)糖心传媒攂ut it all adds up to a situation in which America is 糖心传媒渢oo isolated, too insular,糖心传媒� where we 糖心传媒渄on糖心传媒檛 translate enough and don糖心传媒檛 really participate in the big dialogue of literature,糖心传媒� which is how Horace Engdahl, the permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy, recently categorized it.

Prejudices, financial losses, and bum legs aside, a number of translations are published in the U.S. every year. In January, I started keeping track of all original translations of fiction and poetry published or released in America this year. (In part because nobody else was. Bowker糖心传媒攖he company that keeps track of all statistics about American publishing eliminated 糖心传媒渢ranslation糖心传媒� as a category years ago.) I didn糖心传媒檛 count children糖心传媒檚 books, or graphic novels, or retranslations of classics, or paperback versions of previously published titles. Instead, I focused on works of adult fiction and poetry that had never before been published in English.

According to my records, all of 340 translations were published in the past year. Of those translations, 269 are works of fiction, 71 of poetry. More relevant to this presentation, the six big houses糖心传媒擧achette, Macmillan, Penguin, HarperCollins, Random House, and Simon & Schuster糖心传媒攁nd all their various subsidiaries, published a total of 69 works in translation, or 20% of the total. Most of these 69 books are from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (10), Penguin (9), FSG (9), Knopf (8), and HarperCollins (6), five of the one hundred and thirty presses and imprints that published a translation this year.

In the same way that poetry has fallen to the shoulders of the independent press, approx. 80% of all works of literary translation are now being published by independent, nonprofit, and university presses, which generally don糖心传媒檛 operate on the 糖心传媒渂ig advance-big return糖心传媒� model described above.

Stage Two: Translations, Economic Censorship, and Independent Presses

So where do translations fit into this? Well, basically they don糖心传媒檛. The famous translator Esther Allen once turned me on to the term 糖心传媒渆conomic censorship糖心传媒� to help explain the financial reasons for why big publishers shy away from doing books in translation.

First off, in deciding to do a translation, a publisher is assuming the cost of paying a translator in addition to all normal expenses.
The current going rate for a translation is $125/1000 words, so, for a 70,000 word novel, a translator should get paid $8,750. That糖心传媒檚 not a huge amount糖心传媒攅specially compared to _Dewey_糖心传媒檚 $1.25 million糖心传媒攁nd frequently at least part of this is offset by grants from foreign governments. But on a profit and loss statement, it is an additional cost that doesn糖心传媒檛 exist for books originally written in English.

Still, that doesn糖心传媒檛 explain why big publishers shy away from translations. They have the money to spend, and if they thought a book would sell hundreds of thousands of copies, $10,000 is really just pocket change. But how many translations sell hundreds of thousands of copies? Answer: almost none. Over the past week articles have appeared in both the New York Times Book Review and the Wall Street Journal pointing out just how few translations make the best-seller lists. In fact, Roberto Bola帽o糖心传媒攃urrently the hottest author in translation, considered to be one of the greatest writers of all time, and the one foreign author everyone seems to be talking about糖心传媒攈as yet to crack the Times Best Seller list.

To be quite frank, with the exception of certain breakouts like Bola帽o, Per Petterson, and Carlos Ruiz Zafon (whose books aren糖心传媒檛 of the same caliber as the first two), literary fiction in translation sells poorly in the States. I’ve heard that even Saramago was selling in the low thousands (or high hundreds) before winning the Nobel Prize. It糖心传媒檚 in no way unusual for a literary translation to sell in the 2,000 copy range. And publishers who sell 4-5,000 copies of a translation feel like they did an excellent job.

Dismal sales figures, along with the additional cost of translation helps make foreign books unappealing to corporate publishers. Sure, you can get the rights on a dime (most advances for literary translations are under $10,000), and you have an almost unlimited number of authors to choose from (rarely do foreign books go to auction), but if you糖心传媒檙e only spending a few thousand dollars, your sales and marketing department isn糖心传媒檛 going to do much to help this book find its audience. They have to spend their time and energy on the million-dollar advance books糖心传媒攖he ones that really matter.

Sales, marketing, and publicity departments at big presses generally treat literary translations as red-headed stepchildren that they have to live with, but really don糖心传媒檛 love. Advance sales to bookstores are paltry, not much effort goes into getting coverage for these books, and as a result, sales are wretched, the publisher loses $15-$20,000 on the book, and, in a world where profits have to keep increasing year in and out, the desire to publish more works in translation is quashed. Going back to the horse race metaphor, sure, occasionally a Bola帽o comes along and a publisher can cash in, but most translated titles are like a horse with a bum leg. It糖心传媒檚 much more profitable to get world rights to a mediocre American author and sell rights to a couple dozen countries. Now that糖心传媒檚 a horse that can 糖心传媒渨in糖心传媒� in a major, global way.

Switching over to bookstores, it糖心传媒檚 worth pointing out that, unlike other parts of the world, America doesn糖心传媒檛 have a fixed price policy. Stores can discount books however they糖心传媒檇 like, which has resulted in a fiercely competitive market where Amazon.com undercuts brick-and-mortar stores, Costco sells books as a loss-leader, and traditional independents stores have a hell of a time staying in business. Although Amazon claims that they survive on a 糖心传媒渓ong tail糖心传媒� model (i.e., the idea that single copy sales for an infinite amount of books is far greater than a huge amount of sales for a small amount of titles), most stores operate on the same principle as the big publishers: you make your money by selling a ton of copies of a few select titles. That糖心传媒檚 what drives Barnes & Noble and their huge stacks of books, and is the reason why one additional percentage point discount (chains frequently get a 46% volume discount whereas independents get 45%) can lead to enormous profits.

Paul Slovak, the publisher of Viking Penguin, once mentioned that he believed that at any moment in time everyone in the country is reading the same twelve books. Obviously he糖心传媒檚 exaggerating糖心传媒攁 bit糖心传媒攂ut it sure seems that way. The books on display at a chain store in New York City are almost identical to the ones on display in Denver, or in Peoria. To explain why that糖心传媒檚 the case is actually a bit more complicated than it might first appear.

What it comes down to is which books the big presses have decided to really push. It糖心传媒檚 almost like a horse race糖心传媒攜ou need a winner to keep betting, you have a bunch of horses in your stable, and you put all your cash on the ones you think will 糖心传媒渂reak-thru.糖心传媒� These are the books that the houses advertise all over the country, that they push hard to media outlets, and for which they decide to do extensive author tours. They also use a lot of co-op money to promote these books. Co-op money is cash that a publisher gives to a bookstore to display and promote its books. For example, the front tables at the chain stores are paid for, as are the end caps, as are other special displays.

With these books on display, and heavily discounted, throughout the country, and online, with big, trustworthy publishers spending lots of time and money promoting these particular titles, it糖心传媒檚 no surprise that these become the books that everyone is reading.

Although it糖心传媒檚 a bit more complicated than this, the survival strategy of commercial publishers is the 糖心传媒渁 few big books float the boat糖心传媒� model. This is the idea that most books published by a house will lose money, or at best breakeven, but that every year a few titles will explode, far outselling their costs and generating enough revenue to keep the house afloat. You often hear publishers say things like, 糖心传媒渨e publish those kind of books so that we can do more literary stuff.糖心传媒� That糖心传媒檚 a friendly way of saying that they need some obvious money making books to sell well, otherwise the publishing house would be screwed.

Anecdotally, it often seems that these 糖心传媒渂reak-thru糖心传媒� books are completely accidental. Like Jonathan Franzen糖心传媒檚 The Corrections or most any book that Oprah ends up selecting for her book club. 糖心传媒淯nexpected successes糖心传媒� pop up every single year. Nevertheless, from the top CEOs on down everyone feels the pressure of acquiring, or marketing, or selling, this year糖心传媒檚 糖心传媒渂ig book糖心传媒� and reaping the profits that come along with these sales.

As a result, huge amounts of money are bandied about on concepts and names. Many of which don糖心传媒檛 work out so well. A few recent examples are listed at the end of the New York article, including the $8 million advance to Charles Frazier for Thirteen Moons, a book that sold approx. 368.000 copies, leaving $5.5 million of the advance unrecouped. My personal favorite is Dewey: A Small-Town Library Cat Who Touched the World, which is described in typical movie-pitch comparison style as 糖心传媒淿Marley & Me_ meets The Bridges of Madison County in this heartwarming true story.糖心传媒� Advance? One and a quarter million dollars.

Having spent so much on books like these, publishers are then obligated to spend a vast amount of money marketing and publicizing these big acquisitions. Granted, a good deal of the advance money is made up by selling translations rights to countries all over the world (a one-way street as I糖心传媒檓 sure you already know), but these titles are also expected to sell really well.

It糖心传媒檚 worth taking a moment here to look at the math and explain a bit about how book sales work in America. I believe this is pretty similar to other countries, but not entirely. In the States the big publishers have their own sales force and warehouses, both of which cost a pretty penny, but are necessary to ensure that a publisher gets the largest market penetration possible. (More on this when we talk about independent publishers.) Each of the different outlets publishers sell to糖心传媒攚holesalers, independent bookstores, chains, Amazon, Costco and Sam糖心传媒檚 Club, libraries, etc.糖心传媒攔eceive a different discount, usually in the range of 45-50%.

Sticking with Thirteen Moons, the retail price on the hardcover edition is $26.95, so, for each sale, Random House can expect approx. $13.75 in revenue. Leaving all subrights sales aside, and using New York糖心传媒檚 sales figure of 368,000, Random House made approx. $5 million in sales of this book. A huge figure for a lot of presses, but a number that糖心传媒檚 less than the initial advance, and definitely less than the total costs that went into publishing and promoting the book. I糖心传媒檒l assure you that this wasn糖心传媒檛 the book that allowed Random House to do all their 糖心传媒渓iterary糖心传媒� breakeven titles this year.

Nevertheless, this book sold exceptionally well compared to many others. I was recently talking with a former editor at one of the big six publishers, who said that titles he acquired usually sold in the 5-7,000 range, far less than the 15-20,000 copies his bosses expected his books to sell, sales levels that would糖心传媒檝e allowed the book to breakeven. He also said that he always thought his sales were incredibly low (publishers always, always lie about print runs and sales, so the numbers you see in print are inflated) until someone from another big house shared privileged sales info leading both editors to realize that most literary titles just don糖心传媒檛 sell very well.