After all, calling any publishing operation “full-service” implies that you actually are getting a full range of services from it. But I’ve seen more complaints than I can count from authors who claimed they were getting short shrift when it came to the publicity and marketing side of things. Most recently, a survey of 300 authors found a considerable majority were unsatisfied with the degree of marketing and communication support they were getting from their publishers. It seems a lot of publishers reserve their “full service” in marketing and publicity to their bestselling authors, and their midlisters have to shift for themselves.
Of course. to spend too much time harping on that term is to miss the actual point Shatzkin is making—that these traditional publishers might be able to offer services, such as editorial support, to self-publishing writers for a fee.
Should publishers have editorial services for rent? Should they try to scale and use technology to handle editiorial (sic) functions — certainly proofreading and copy-editing but ultimately, perhaps, developmental editing — as a commodity to assure themselves a competitive advantage on cost base the way they do now for distribution? Should publishers try to scale digital marketing? Should they have teams that can map out and execute publishing programs for major brands?
Shatzkin again cites Murray, who thinks that the “synthesis of market intelligence and skills” traditional publishers have to offer are what make the difference—not just having your story well edited or (allegedly) well-marketed but having all these things done together by the same firm. And it is this, not just individual services, that publishers need to find a way to deliver to individual writers.
Apparently the idea is that traditional publishers can be the ultimate “self” publishing shops because they already know all there is to know about traditional publishing so they should be best equipped to offer those same sorts of services for money to people who want to do it themselves. (Though, to be fair, he does discuss this in the context of traditional publishers buying or developing their own sorts of services aimed at such writers rather than just resting on their laurels.)
This is, Shatzkin posits, the reason Amazon has done so well as a self-publishing firm itself—it synergizes the value of all the other services it offers into its self-publishing arm. Traditional (or “full-service”) publishers, he suggests, need to figure out how to do the same thing.
That’s all well and good, but it occurs to me that if traditional publishers really were in such a good position to benefit self-publishing writers, they should have figured out a way to do so before now. And it also seems there could be a potential for harmful confusion in self-publishing services offered by major publishers.
Writers could be misled into thinking they could pay to have their book “really” published by these publishers in the same way as the books they publish traditionally. But that’s never going to be the case. If one of these publishers wants to publish something you wrote, they will pay you for it. That’s a bright line that we shouldn’t ever blur.