3 ms·

This is not specific to publishing. The diagram tells the story: it's consolidation. Consolidation is bad. Giant companies are bad. In publishing as in othe

This is not specific to publishing. The diagram tells the story: it's consolidation. Consolidation is bad. Giant companies are bad. In publishing as in other domains.

idle_zealot 8mo ago
Correct. That's why even though the specific complaint from the article no longer applies, and small-volume books are easier than ever to publish, things are still shit, only in different ways. Consolidation in a market is just about the worst way to run anything; all the worst elements of a government agency and a profit-seeking business with none of the moderating factors of democracy or competition.
encrypted_bird 8mo ago
It's almost like competition is critical for a healthy marketplace! (Seriously, I _don't_ understand why this is such a hard concept for a lot of people to understand...)
- conception 8mo ago
  It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. Upton Sinclair
jomohke 8mo ago
I'm curious how much this is the cause or effect, though? The publishers have been saying that their ability to promote books has drastically reduced with the internet, along with changes in reading and information habits. It seems like a book needs a far bigger push today to rise above the noise of the internet (and people's over-abundance of content to consume), and this unfortunately meant that small publishers struggled unless they "joined together" to make a bigger push. There's extremely small (self published) books and extremely large hits, but the middle is increasingly less viable, it seems. Similar to films.
rznicolet 8mo ago
And, with publishers, you can get both monopoly _and_ monopsony problems. The latter is, I believe, one reason the attempt to consolidate from Big Five to Big Four failed -- I'm forgetting which two publishers were trying to merge, but angry authors talking about having difficulty selling books, and reduced pay for them, was a key argument.
- Finnucane 8mo ago
  CBS/Viacom was trying to unload Simon & Schuster. PenguinRandomHouse wanted to buy, but it ended up selling to a private equity company. A rare instance where that was actually the better option.
SoftTalker 8mo ago
Bookstores themselves are a good example. Borders and Barnes & Noble put all the local bookstores out of business. Then Amazon put them out of business. Now most towns don't have a bookstore at all.
- hullo 8mo ago
  This is a good example of something that sounds true but is actually not. Private equity put Borders out of business (famously). Barnes & Noble is now private but by all reports (still) doing fine. There are more independent bookstores today (in more towns) than ever before.
  - mistrial9 8mo ago
    people give books away here in California with "tiny house" library stands. In a major college town, previously full of specialty and trade bookstores, now very empty.
    - schlauerfox 8mo ago
      It's a community called "Little Free Library" or imitators. they're all over my nighboorhood. https://littlefreelibrary.org/ https://littlefreelibrary.org/
      - PaulHoule 8mo ago
        These are common in Tompkins County New York but I've seen them in Montreal and Philadelphia
  - hedora 8mo ago
    Some of the ones in the Bay Area were quietly acquired by Barnes & Noble in the last 12 months. I hope that's not a national trend, but I suspect it is. On top of that, Barnes & Noble is closing their larger locations, and replacing them with tiny ones that simply aren't compelling if you're looking for something specific.
  - 8mo ago
kalkin 8mo ago
I'm willing to believe this but the explanation given in the article doesn't make sense to me: > When Random House was a tiny independent company, it could make a tidy profit by publishing books that sold just ten thousand copies. But when you’re part of a billion dollar corporation, those books don’t move the needle—you need something bigger and splashier. What? There's no rule that every item sold by a megacorp has to "move the needle." If I order some unscented shampoo from Amazon that doesn't move the needle for Bezos, and neither do all the orders for that particular brand put together.
- dsign 8mo ago
  Yes, but you can't replicate a bottle of unscented shampoo ad-infinitum for basically zero additional cost. With books, print-on-demand and digital particularly, you can. Then it all becomes a huge one-off cost with a huge profit potential.

This is not specific to publishing. The diagram tells the story: it's consolidation. Consolidation is bad. Giant companies are bad. In publishing as in other domains.

idle_zealot 8mo ago

Correct. That's why even though the specific complaint from the article no longer applies, and small-volume books are easier than ever to publish, things are still shit, only in different ways. Consolidation in a market is just about the worst way to run anything; all the worst elements of a government agency and a profit-seeking business with none of the moderating factors of democracy or competition.

encrypted_bird 8mo ago

It's almost like competition is critical for a healthy marketplace! (Seriously, I _don't_ understand why this is such a hard concept for a lot of people to understand...)

conception 8mo ago
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. Upton Sinclair

jomohke 8mo ago

I'm curious how much this is the cause or effect, though? The publishers have been saying that their ability to promote books has drastically reduced with the internet, along with changes in reading and information habits. It seems like a book needs a far bigger push today to rise above the noise of the internet (and people's over-abundance of content to consume), and this unfortunately meant that small publishers struggled unless they "joined together" to make a bigger push. There's extremely small (self published) books and extremely large hits, but the middle is increasingly less viable, it seems. Similar to films.

rznicolet 8mo ago

And, with publishers, you can get both monopoly _and_ monopsony problems. The latter is, I believe, one reason the attempt to consolidate from Big Five to Big Four failed -- I'm forgetting which two publishers were trying to merge, but angry authors talking about having difficulty selling books, and reduced pay for them, was a key argument.

Finnucane 8mo ago
CBS/Viacom was trying to unload Simon & Schuster. PenguinRandomHouse wanted to buy, but it ended up selling to a private equity company. A rare instance where that was actually the better option.

SoftTalker 8mo ago

Bookstores themselves are a good example. Borders and Barnes & Noble put all the local bookstores out of business. Then Amazon put them out of business. Now most towns don't have a bookstore at all.

hullo 8mo ago
This is a good example of something that sounds true but is actually not. Private equity put Borders out of business (famously). Barnes & Noble is now private but by all reports (still) doing fine. There are more independent bookstores today (in more towns) than ever before.
- mistrial9 8mo ago
  people give books away here in California with "tiny house" library stands. In a major college town, previously full of specialty and trade bookstores, now very empty.
  - schlauerfox 8mo ago
    It's a community called "Little Free Library" or imitators. they're all over my nighboorhood. https://littlefreelibrary.org/ https://littlefreelibrary.org/
    - PaulHoule 8mo ago
      These are common in Tompkins County New York but I've seen them in Montreal and Philadelphia
- hedora 8mo ago
  Some of the ones in the Bay Area were quietly acquired by Barnes & Noble in the last 12 months. I hope that's not a national trend, but I suspect it is. On top of that, Barnes & Noble is closing their larger locations, and replacing them with tiny ones that simply aren't compelling if you're looking for something specific.
- 8mo ago

kalkin 8mo ago

I'm willing to believe this but the explanation given in the article doesn't make sense to me: > When Random House was a tiny independent company, it could make a tidy profit by publishing books that sold just ten thousand copies. But when you’re part of a billion dollar corporation, those books don’t move the needle—you need something bigger and splashier. What? There's no rule that every item sold by a megacorp has to "move the needle." If I order some unscented shampoo from Amazon that doesn't move the needle for Bezos, and neither do all the orders for that particular brand put together.

dsign 8mo ago
Yes, but you can't replicate a bottle of unscented shampoo ad-infinitum for basically zero additional cost. With books, print-on-demand and digital particularly, you can. Then it all becomes a huge one-off cost with a huge profit potential.