Lindblom Media

Thoughts about Epstein’s Book Business and Schiffrin’s The Business of Books

“The ideal of publishing would be a forum where all sections of humanity could have their say, whether their object was to instruct, entertain, horrify, etc. Nevertheless, there are certain rules of quality and relevance, which can only be determined by some sort of selection and this the publisher, representing humanity at large, attempts—with many mistakes—to make. Or, to put it differently, artists, saints, and the other more sentient representatives of the human race are, as it were, on the frontier of time—pioneers and guides to the future. And the publisher, in the capacity mentioned, must make some sort of estimate of the importance and validity of their reports, and there is nothing he can base this on but the abilities to judge that God has given him.”
— Maxwell Perkins

Max Perkins is the patron saint of publishers. Many editors entered the profession with the conviction that his was the way that publishing should be, and they like to invocate his name whenever complaining about how far publishing has strayed from its ideals. Perkins’ ghost haunts two of the books assigned for this book report: Jason Epstein’s Book Business and Andre Schiffrin’s The Business of Books. Both books describe in rosy terms their authors’ introduction to publishing and the height of their successes with books, and they both describe in varying detail how the industry has been negatively affected by conglomerates and the accountants and marketing people that run them.

Despite these similarities, both author write with distinctly different perspectives. Epstein speaks with a bit of detachment and equanimity, while Schiffrin’s passion for his subject often borders on bitterness. The difference is immediately evident in their respective subtitles: Epstein’s “Publishing Past, Present, and Future” compared to Schiffrin’s “How International Conglomerates Took Over Publishing and Changed the Way We Read.”

Both men entered publishing as young men. Epstein spent 8 years at Doubleday before moving to Random House. Schiffrin writes from the perspective of coming from a publishing family. His father emigrated from France and worked at the recently formed Pantheon Books. Schiffrin also found himself working with Pantheon in the early 60s, after a brief stint with New American Library. Both authors speak of the books that they were most proud about publishing.

Schiffrin especially speaks about these books and authors with loving detail. He also speaks with equal detail about the changes that befell Pantheon when Random House, its parent company, was sold to RCA.

To Schiffrin, this acquisition typifies everything that has gone wrong with publishing. On a micro level, this corporatization has de-humanized the process of publishing books. The new owner enters the picture stating that it has no intention of changing anything (in Schiffrin’s words, they “intended to allow us to continue what we were already doing so well, only with greater resources”). However, this owner quickly realizes the inefficiencies inherent in the publishing industry and starts to take steps to increase profitability. The cherished publishing ideal of a hearty back list and a few best sellers (which Epstein describes as “lucky accidents”) subsidizing the “serious” books is swept away, and it was replaced by the decree that each book was expected to contribute to the company’s G&A and profit.

The profit expectations start to grow to unrealistic levels. Traditionally, a successful publishing company had a good year if its profits were 4 percent; in today’s environment the profit expectations are closer to 12-15 percent. Publishing thus becomes a search for the next best seller, pandering to the mass market, and limiting the acquisition search to books that would guarantee ever greater sales at ever higher prices.

The way each author characterizes these matters provides a good contrast between their different attitudes and writing styles. Schiffin will call someone “thuggish” and “anti-intellectual,” basically falling just short of calling these people evil. Epstein, on the other hand, is more reserved: “the consequent devolution of once proud publishing houses into units of impersonal corporations is not the work of thoughtless people or malign forces…but a morally neutral market condition.” Both believe these developments are bad for publishing (and in many of the same ways), but one sees it as the result of a collection of villains while the other sees it more like a hurricane, a force of nature that can wipe out whole cities.

On the macro level, each acquisition represents another step toward the coalescence of the publishing industry into massive conglomerates. When Schiffrin published his book in 2000, he said that five major conglomerates control 80 percent of American book sales, with the top 20 percent representing 93 percent of sales. This trend has only continued, with no sign of the government stepping to investigate anti-trust charges. Part of this may be the result of a ephemeral sense of gaining efficiencies.

Why is this wrong? Perhaps Schiffrin’s most effective argument regards the censorship that is rising from this movement toward fewer and fewer publishers controlling more and more of the publishing companies. The first form of censorship is described in the chapter titled “market censorship,” in which publishers pander to the mass market (or the lowest common denominator). This means that dissenting viewpoints from the minority will not be heard. Instead, it represents an aggressive status quo that creates its own feedback loop: sell bestsellers that will appeal to the largest possible audience, and the market buys these products with the rationale of “it’s got to be good because it is popular.” As Schiffrin states,

Belief in the market, faith in its ability to conquer everything, a willingness to surrender all other values to it—and even the belief that it represents a sort of consumer democracy—these things have become the hallmark of publishing.

The second form of censorship is described in the chapter “Self-Censorship and the Alternatives.” The new conglomerates hold not just publishing houses, but also all sorts of other media interests: newspapers, movies (and the resulting merchandising), magazines, television. With each new acquisition, it becomes more and more likely that one of the media companies will not publish material that might decrease the profitability of another company in the same “family.”

Self-censorship is not new to publishing. As the Perkins quote above illustrates, publishers, by their very nature, are filter between the author and the reading public, determining which book was worthy and which was best forgotten. Publishers have always exercised their right to screen out material that they did not approve of. During the world wars, it was accepted fact that publishers would not publish material that might harm to war effort. But underlying this is a belief in Voltaire’s maxim: “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Now, the belief would be closer to “I don’t agree with what you say, but does it matter? Will it sell?” Just look at the O.J. Simpson book, If I Did It.

Reading these books, it is easy to grow depressed over the state of the industry. There is the temptation to sign and say, “the good days are over and I came to the party too late.”

Fortunately, Schiffrin presents a number of alternatives to the current situation, some more practical than others. One suggestion comes from the example of the London’s Observer, which is a public trust. Before Allen Lane sold Penguin to Pearson, his executives tried to convince him to take that route. Another possibility also comes from Penguin; it was divided into two sections, one for commercial publishing and one for serious work, with both side drawing necessary revenue for operations from the company’s rich backlist. W.W. Norton is owned by the company’s executives, which has protected it from acquisition and enabled it to continue publishing worthwhile material. In another passage, he hints that the pro bono work commonly done in the legal profession could be emulated. He also sees a possible solution in (and then immediately discounts) government intervention: “The most effective solution to the increasing conglomeratization is in the hands of the government. Unfortunately, in the United States and Britain…conglomerates’ control of key media is so powerful that governments have been afraid to invoke the provision of antitrust legislation.” (Incidentally, this is another form of censorship resulting from conglomerates dominating the publishing industry.)

Two alternatives that seem to me to have the most potential are: taking the non-profit route and going online. Schiffrin found success with the former by launching The New Press, which is best described by the company website: “The New Press is a not-for-profit publishing house operated editorially in the public interest. Like the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio as they were originally conceived, The New Press aims to provide ideas and viewpoints under-represented in the mass media.”
The second viable alternative is online publishing. Schiffren gives this option short shrift, while Epstein is a bit of a Pollyanna (“That these technologies have emerged just as the publishing industry has fallen into terminal decrepitude is providential, one might even say miraculous”).

Schiffrin says as much when he says toward the end of his book, “Many editors who have been around long enough to remember the times before conglomerates keenly regret the decimation of thoughtful publishing. People joining the ranks of publishing today have no such comparative vantage point. To them, the present situation is normal, and that is in itself a worrying development.”

But this is not exactly fair. As with the complaint that the next generation is more illiterate than the generation before (I read plenty of books, thank you), this seems a bit like Chicken Little. It may in fact be somewhat gloomy for establishing publishing, but it is worthwhile to note that if the sky is falling, it is falling on them. It does not mean the end of books (though in fact the paper-bound book may one day disappear), and it does not mean the end of culture or stories. These things are innate in human society, and they will always survive. Maybe since the 40s or earlier, book publishers have been the most effective way to transmit culture, but that does not mean that it is the only way.

The question is, what form will these new stories take? As publishers, it is our responsibility to identify and disseminate it. To fulfill this mission, editors should arm themselves with the tools to survive in this new world. Maybe the conglomerated will survive or collapse under their own weight. Either way, publishers need a firm grasp of business practices and practices, essentially turning the corporate model on its head: instead of publishing only books that will make a profit, we need to learn how to make worthwhile books profitable.

This goes for publishing online. Maybe the book will disappear or maybe it will never be replaced. Either way, publishers must understand and be absolutely comfortable in the online world. The Web and online publishing are not the future; they are the present. If the conglomerates are not able to adapt to the online world, we need to learn how to exploit this opportunity. Small publishers (by which I mean anything other than the conglomerates) are relatively fast and light on our feet, which are traits that the online world rewards.

I once spoke with my father about his MBA. He told me that he’d focused on Finance. That surprised me because I knew his work had nothing to do with banking or any other financial career. In response to my question, he said, “I chose Finance because I never wanted to be intimidated by bankers.” Publishers would benefit from adopting some of this attitude. The conglomerates may have spoiled publishing and, as Schiffrin states, achieve “the remarkable result of lowering the intellectual value of the firm, cheapening its reputation, and losing money, all at the same time.” But our response should be, “So what. If they have lost sight of their responsibility to society, we will gladly take their place.” At least it is something we can hope for.