3 ms·

Spotify’s returns to creators are pitifully small, and since they’re basically a distributor not a publisher, they don’t offer advances on royalties. So maybe

• com2kid 6y ago
  I was thinking of everything being under one publishing house, basically a company that just writes high quality documentation and nothing else. The "like spotify" was more in reference to pay once, get everything imaginable.
  • inopinatus 6y ago
    Sure, but the functional aspect immediately unpacks into commercial consequences. This also explains the difference between publishers and distributors, and the dissimilar risks they accept. I'd suggest something more like Netflix as a model; they are primarily a distributor and only very rarely a publisher; their library has a selection of standard classics, recently(ish) popular content for which the original publisher has more incentive to license than sell direct, plus rotating items of interest to keep the catalog feeling fresh for ongoing customers. (note that even so-called "Netflix Original" content is mostly produced by other companies). It's been thought of, of course. The search history of "Netflix for e-books" is in practice a mixture of junkyards like Scribd and "what-if" questions on Quora. There's likely a causality dilemma with achieving the catalog scale necessary for success, mediated by the conservative strategies and revenue fears of existing publishers, all of whose investors/owners are entrenched incumbents that see their businesses as perpetuities (steady, low-margin cash printers) rather than growth ventures. Basically, they won't do it, until they see it can be done.