Free Speech vs Free Market

When Chicago Review of Books editor Adam Morgan made the decision that he would refuse to review any Simon & Schuster books, he was kicking the proverbial hornet's nest. What resulted was a string of abuse, profanity, and even death threats. 

Why on earth should the rank and file care what goes on in the literary world? Especially given the fact that the vast majority of the people hurling expletives at Morgan had never read - or even heard of - his publication.

The answer is that a Simon & Schuster imprint, Threshold,  has offered a $250,000 advance to Milo Yiannopoulos, a notorious right-wing "troll" and editor of Breitbart Tech, for his book, Dangerous. Yiannopoulos has made his fame with outrageous racist, misogynist statements that are so beyond the pale that young white men (his main audience) eventually decided that he was "cool." (Not so Twitter, which banned Yiannopoulos for hate speech after his racist tirade against Ghostbusters actress, Leslie Jones.)

In his refusal to review Dangerous, and in his boycott of S&S titles, Morgan incurred the wrath of "alt-right" (aka white supremacist) Yiannopoulos fans who, among other things, accused Morgan of denying free speech. But Morgan claims that refusing to review a book has nothing to do with free speech, because Yiannopoulos has not been in any way prevented from expressing his views. Nor has S&S been prevented from publishing their books. Morgan is simply refusing to promote them.

What is Freedom of Speech?

Interestingly, many people don't know what freedom of speech actually means. Most assume that it is the right to say whatever they please. Actually, the First Amendment only guarantees that federal laws (and, by extension, state laws) will not be passed inhibiting the expression of individuals or the press.

This is the amendment in full:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As you can see, the statement is fairly open-ended, which means that courts have had their hands full interpreting what "freedom of speech" actually entails. And in some cases, while the federal ban on passing laws restricting free speech has been upheld, laws have been amended to include civil and criminal infractions. Here are the main speech infractions that can land a person in court.

1) Slander. Any spoken statement that defames someone's character or spreads false or malicious information, especially when it results in financial loss or some other tangible harm, is slander. Slander is a civil offense, which means it can result in a lawsuit.

2) Libel. While there are no federal laws covering libel, anyone who knowingly publishes false statements that damage a person's reputation can be sued in civil court. Parody does not constitute libel, and there has to be an element of "malice" involved.

3) Hate speech. Speech that incites hatred against a specific group is prohibited by many local codes and statutes. Although hate speech is not curtailed under the First Amendment, if the content of the hate speech includes incitement of actions that are illegal, and which result in imminent danger or threat to people or property, it is not protected.

4) Violent threats. Threats can be considered assault if directed against an individual. Threatening the President of the United States is a class E felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.

Free Speech vs Free Market

So, where does this leave Simon & Schuster and Adam Morgan? Morgan is absolutely correct when he states that a refusal to review a book is not an inhibition of free speech. The First Amendment does not state that a person has a right to be published in any medium (as writers, we all know that publishers aren't obliged to publish what we send them), or that it must be advertised (through reviews or paid ads), or sold.

The bookstores that have refused to carry Yiannopoulos' book are likewise not infringing on free speech, because there is no law requiring that books - of any kind - must be sold. The First Amendment only has bearing on whether a person can be punished via legal means for expressing an opinion. Once that opinion has been expressed, anyone may feel free to endorse or ignore it.

Why is this important?

The Yiannopoulos case is important for writers because it demonstrates how law and ethics collide. There is nothing illegal about publishing right-wing hatred of minorities and religious groups, and, conversely, there is nothing illegal about refusing to publicize or market it. Neither one has any bearing on free speech, or on the Constitution. However, the maelstrom surrounding Simon & Schuster's decision raises some questions for writers. Do publishers have an obligation to turn down books that are repugnant? Do writers need to watch what they say?

The answer to both of those questions is no. Although we live in a time in which hate speech, racist attitudes, and overt misogyny are becoming normalized, we should not, as writers, call for restrictions on what people can write or publish, because that is a double-edged sword. Those restrictions would inevitably come back to haunt us. However, as consumers, we have the perfect right to criticize publishers for profiting from those views, and we can certainly refuse to purchase anything they publish. And as writers, we are perfectly free to criticize and oppose views which are racist, mysogynist, and which promulgate hatred.

From an ethical standpoint, we should.

Update: In yet another twist, Yiannopoulos' book was canceled by S&S after a conservative Republican blog, The Reagan Battalion, released a tape in which Yiannopoulos condoned sex between older men and young teen boys. Ultimately, it wasn't his trolling that did him in, but his support for something universally shunned. Pedophilia is not regarded by anyone as a challenge to "political correctness." Was S&S within its rights to cancel the contract? Of course. Were they infringing on Milo's right to free speech. Absolutely not.

Milo Yiannopoulos' controversial book is canceled

Informative articles:

Provocateur or Punk? How publishing houses weigh tricky ethical and commercial decisions like giving Milo Yiannopoulos a book deal. (Slate)

Publishing Milo Yiannopoulos’ book is wrong. My magazine is fighting back Adam Morgan announces that his publication will not be reviewing Yiannopoulos' book.

Why the Milo Yiannopoulos Book Deal Tarnishes the Publishing Industry the editorial director of FSG Books for Young Readers explains that when a major publisher "legitimizes old-fashioned hate and lies rebranded as alternative, our authors lose, our books lose, and our country loses."

The Booksmith Boycotts Alt-Right Memoir, Takes Financial Aim At Publisher The Booksmith announces it will not sell Yiannopoulos' book, or any other book published by Threshold, and that it intends to cut back on orders of all Simon & Schuster publications.

Milo Yiannopoulos Book May Not Be Coming To a Store Near You Many independent booksellers are planning not to stock Yiannopoulos' book.

Free Speech Groups Defend S&S Yiannopoulos Deal The American Booksellers Association, Association of American Publishers, Authors Guild, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, National Coalition Against Censorship, Freedom to Read Foundation, Index on Censorship, and the National Council of Teachers of English release a statement that, while supporting the right to boycott a book or company for any reason, argues that to do so risks "undermin[ing] intellectual freedom."

Milo Yiannopoulos' book deal is publishing business as usual An LA Times article explores the financial decisions behind publishing controversial books.

S&S Children's Authors Protest Yiannopoulos Deal More than 160 children's book authors and illustrators have signed a letter to S&S CEO and president Carolyn Reidy protesting the deal.

And Other Stories Announces It Will Only Publish Books by Women

The news that most literary prizes are won by men should come as no surprise. The chances of getting published - and reviewed - are much greater if you are male. (There are two literary strongholds for female novelists: romance and "women's fiction." The rest are dominated by male authors, and feature male protagonists.)

Kamila Shamsie has challenged publishers to address this disparity by making 2018 the Year of Publishing Women, in which no new titles should be by men. So far, only And Other Stories, a small British press, has taken up Kamila Shamsie's challenge.

A point of interest is that And Other Stories accepts submissions directly from unpublished authors, and for translations of work into English. If you are a woman who has not yet published a novel, you may want to consider submitting. 

Further reading: 

Research shows male writers still dominate books world

Kamila Shamsie: let’s have a year of publishing only women – a provocation

____________________

No men allowed: publisher accepts novelist's 'year of women' challenge

The Guardian: Alison Flood, Thursday 11 June 2015 03.00 EDT

Small press And Other Stories has answered author Kamila Shamsie’s provocative call for a year of publishing women to redress “gender bias” in the literary world.

The novelist made what she called her “provocation” in Saturday’s Guardian, revealing that just under 40% of books submitted to the Booker prize over the past five years were by women, and pointing to everything from the author Nicola Griffith’s research, which found that far more prize-winning novels have male than female protagonists, to the Vida statistics showing that male authors and reviewers command more space than female.

“At this point, I’m going to assume that the only people who really doubt that there is a gender bias going on are those who stick with the idea that men are better writers and better critics,” wrote Shamsie. “Enough. Across the board, enough ... I would argue that is time for everyone, male and female, to sign up to a concerted campaign to redress the inequality ... Why not have a year of publishing women: 2018, the centenary of women over the age of 30 getting the vote in the UK, seems appropriate.”

And Other Stories, the literary press that uses a network of readers to source its titles, has become the first publisher to accept the challenge. “I think we can do it,” said publisher Stefan Tobler. “And if we don’t do it, what is going to change?”

Read the rest of this article HERE.

Do you know what an author brand is? And do you actually want one?

At last, I understand what an author brand is! It's Heinz! It's Dinty Moore! It's Walmart, Home Depot, McDonald's!

What do all these things have in common?

They are completely uniform, completely predictable, and completely marketable.

To create an author brand, just do what any of these other brands have done. Write a series (Dijon mustard, honey mustard, German mustard). Make sure each book provides the same reading experience (mustard). And churn your "products" out on a schedule (New this week! English mustard!). The combination of predictability and availability (more, more!) is what is known as "trust." And once readers develop "trust," you've got yourself a heap of consumer loyalty.

Frankly, I find the application of assembly-line consumerism to literature to be somewhat appalling. But that did not prevent me from reading the article below. (Or from reading every single one of Alexander McCall Smith's No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series.) At least, I now know to avoid agents who talk about developing "author brands" for their clients.

Ouch.
___________________________________________

The Strongest Brand In Publishing Is ...

By David Vinjamuri, Forbes, March 4, 2014

When comparing authors, publishers tend to focus on book sales.  But sales figures tell only part of the story.  Expensive advertising and a strong push for distribution and display at bookstores might yield strong initial sales but create lots of returns and low profitability.  An early and fortuitous movie deal might overexpose a book that doesn’t meet the promise of the movie.

A thousand other externalities make sales data inadequate to measure the strength of an author’s franchise.  To understand which authors are worth investing in, publishers need a better measure of an author’s value.

Brand, Not Platform

The metric often used to evaluate new or developing authors is platform – roughly defined as the social reach of the author though Facebook fans, Twitter followers, blog views and speaking engagements.  But according to Peter Hildick-Smith of the Codex Group, which polls thousands of readers to determine their preferences and purchase behavior, platform is a misleading metric.

"We’ve seen celebrities with extremely high name recognition and very large platforms fail miserably in book sales.  Being famous or having millions of Twitter followers alone is not enough to build a strong franchise as an author."

Hildick-Smith points out that only about half of adults read books and just a fifth are regular book buyers.  So a celebrity with a large and dedicated following will not automatically become a bestselling author.

Read on to find out which author has the strongest "brand"  more...

What Do Authors Want?

Not too long ago, Digital Book World and Writer’s Digest conducted an enlightening survey of 5,000 authors - "What Authors Want: A Survey of Authors to Understand Their Priorities in the Self-Publishing Era."

The survey was prompted by the enormous jump in revenues from self-published books. The migration of authors to epublishing, and of the book-reading public, which took advantage of the accessibility of low-priced self-published ebooks, took a huge bite out of the traditional publishing market, leaving, as the report put it, "publishers ... scrambling to explain to authors, agents and the rest of the world how they add value to the publishing process."

Explanations demand research. The input of 5,000 writers provided information useful to the publishing industry (which, for some reason, does not already understand what writers want). More to the point, it provided useful information to writers - especially aspiring authors, who, hopefully will one day join the ranks of the published.

Four types of authors

Of the 5,000 authors who participated in the survey, 90% wrote fiction. The writers had completed an average of roughly six manuscripts, and were currently working on their next book, which means they took their work seriously on the whole.

The survey identified four types of authors:

1. aspiring authors, who have not yet published 
2. traditionally published authors, who have only published their books with traditional publishers 
3. self-published authors, who have only self-published
4. hybrid authors, who have both traditionally published and self-published their work.

Of the four groups, published authors had completed an average of roughly nine manuscripts, while aspiring authors had completed only two. Not surprisingly, published authors also garnered the greatest income.

Priorities: Why do writers publish their work?

What was most interesting about this survey was the way the priorities, and subsequent behavior, of these four groups sorted out.

Dana Beth Weinberg, in her analysis of self-publishing, wrote that "emotions run high when writers and publishers debate the merits of self-publishing." Although many writers like to believe that the debate centers around income (traditional publishing houses are notorious for the tiny percentages they allot to writers), or perhaps artistic control, a brief look at the survey results gives a different picture.

The principal motivation behind an aspiring author's desire for publication is not money, or fame - it is personal satisfaction. They wish to publish their writing to fulfill a lifelong ambition ("living the dream"). Self-published writers don't differ much from aspiring authors, but they have a greater drive to share a personal experience.

Hybrid authors have the most interest in making money. This is not a surprise; those who self-publish and have the backing of a publishing house can reap the benefit of higher royalties from self-published ebooks, as well as enjoying the wide print distribution offered by a publisher. Those who take the traditional route are primarily interested in building their careers. For these writers, having a pedigree is more important than raking in big bucks.

Priorities determine behavior

Because each group of writers has a unique set of priorities, they approach the business of writing using entirely different strategies. For example, if a writer's desire is to build a career, it will be crucial to build a platform - to become known. (Of course, this is the area agents and publishers are most concerned about. If you are well known, marketing and promotion are that much easier.)

Aspiring writers spend relatively little time on building a platform, in part because they have no idea what the publishing world is really like, but in part because their motivation for writing is strictly personal. Aspiring writers are, in that regard, similar to aspiring mothers. Women looking forward to having their first baby seldom envision life with a teenager.

Here are some key ways in which the groups differed:

1) Published authors are far ahead of aspiring writers when it comes to social media and self-promotion:

• 54% of published authors post writing-related Tweets on Twitter versus
• 30% for aspiring authors
• 66% of published authors have an author or book page on Facebook versus 18% for aspiring authors
• 52% of published authors maintain an author presence on Goodreads versus 10% for aspiring authors
• 24% pin writing-related items on Pinterest versus 14% for aspiring authors
• 59% of published authors write a blog relating to either their books or writing versus 37% for aspiring authors.

2) Their increased efforts have led to increased results in terms of platform building:

• Published authors have, on average, 1,271 more Twitter followers
• Published authors have, on average, 715 more “likes” on their Facebook fan pages
• Published authors have, on average, 277 more friends on Facebook
• Published authors have, on average 176 more followers of their boards on Pinterest
• Published authors get, on average, 2,012 more visits per month on their blogs

Attitudes and platitudes

The report not only revealed a striking, if expected difference, in the priorities and behavior of published versus aspiring authors. It also showed some important differences in attitude.

According to the report,

"While self-published authors seem to be fairly invested and in favor of the institution of self-publishing and traditionally published authors seem to be slightly more wary of self publishing and invested in and in favor of the world of traditional publishing, hybrid authors-those who have done both self- and traditional publishing-are mostly in favor of self-publishing and critical of traditional publishers, even more so than the self-publishing group."

The reasons for the critical attitude of those authors who had opted for both routes - traditional and self- publication can be chalked up to experience. The vast majority of writers who publish their work through traditional publishing houses receive very little compensation for their work. Their royalties seldom exceed their advances, and publishers - as a rule - spend very little time and energy promoting works by authors who are not already famous. In short, they get a raw deal. And if they wish to devote themselves to a career as writers, they have no choice but go hybrid.

The writers of this report consider the critical attitude of hybrid authors towards the publishing industry to be "unreasonably" bitter, perhaps due to "some slight they experienced at the hand of a publisher." This has more than a grain of truth to it, not because authors are unreasonable in their quest for recognition, and perhaps even reimbursement for their efforts, but because publishing houses treat authors - at least the non-famous ones - the same way dairy farmers treat their cows. 

The good news, according to this report is that "aspiring writers still believe in publishers' ability to help them. It’s not too late for publishers to improve their services to authors to attract and retain the next generation of best-selling authors."

The question is, will those aspiring writers turn into embittered authors once they get published? My guess is that they will. While it's not too late for publishers to treat authors with a modicum of respect, it's also not very likely.

Correspondence From My Pen Pal at Random House

I love getting letters from Random House. They always spice up their communications with such inspiring phrases: "sacred trust," "supply chain," cutting-edge," "market analytics capabilities," and, most stirring of all, "penetration of emerging markets." (Be still my heart!) 

What does this letter actually mean? Nothing, really. For those who like to read between the lines, one could infer that RH/Penguin feels left out of the ebook market. (We don't feel their pain.) Unfortunately for them, Amazon moves faster and more efficiently than traditional publishers. What's more, Amazon has captured the hearts (and market) of self-published authors everywhere.

Run, Markus! Run!

MARKUS DOHLE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MEMBER OF THE BERTELSMANN MANAGEMENT SE EXECUTIVE BOARD

July 1, 2013

To Our Authors, Today, Random House and Penguin are officially united as Penguin Random House. For us, today is a beginning, and I very much want to reach out to you on our first day as a new company, because it all begins with you: you and the books you write and entrust to us to publish. For us, this is a sacred trust, one that before today Penguin and Random House have honored separately. Now it is a commitment and a privilege that unifies us. Going forward, we will be defined by our mission for publishing with passion the books you write. In our author-focused, publisher-empowered culture, we respect that your most important day-to-day relationship is with your editor and your publishing team, and that will remain untouched at Penguin Random House. Continuity within Penguin Random House will benefit all of us: The continuity of nearly 250 imprints and publishing houses worldwide, which will retain their individual identities and autonomy. The continuity of experienced, knowledgeable global and local leadership teams, drawn from both Penguin and Random House, who will fully support our publishers in realizing their objectives and your vision for your books. The continuity of vigilant protection of your intellectual property and copyrights. Over time, as we gradually begin to integrate our companies, we will learn from one another and evolve to better serve you and your readers. With both businesses performing well, we can take our time with this process, to better understand and analyze the complexity and nuances of these important decisions. One key development I am personally most excited about involves the future investments we will be making on a global scale for growing your readership in all markets. We will be strengthening our supply chain and our support services for physical booksellers while broadening opportunities in the digital arena. We will be developing more cutting-edge marketing tools and programs, further expanding our consumer insights and market analytics capabilities, and continuing to accelerate our penetration of emerging markets worldwide, all of which will allow us to maximize the number of readers we reach on your behalf. The creation of our new company is the strongest possible affirmation of the future of trade publishing, and of the importance of maintaining strong and vibrant publishing companies, with diverse and innovative editorial teams. Our unprecedented alignment of resources and relationships is built on this foundation: the passionate belief that connecting authors and readers is at the heart of all we strive to accomplish together. On behalf of my colleagues, I deeply thank you for the opportunity to publish your books. All my best,

Another One Bites the Dust – Hachette Acquires Hyperion

Technically, Hyperion bit the dust before it was conceived, but the recent sale of the Disney-owned imprint marks another step in the trend toward reducing the publishing world to a few powerful giants. In this case, Hyperion, whose list includes bestsellers such as Michael J. Fox’s autobiography, “Always Looking Up” and Mitch Albom’s, “The Five People You Meet in Heaven,” will join Hachette, increasing the Hachette Group’s backlist by more than a thousand titles.

The news should come as no surprise. Hyperion announced it was selling off most of its adult backlist last March in an effort to reorient the imprint “synergistically” with its ABC programming. In this case, synergy does not mean “the combination of multiple elements to produce an effect greater than its parts.” There is only one part: TV.

The creation of print tie-ins to television shows hardly qualifies as an addition to the content, or the impact, of the original. However, in limiting its scope to what it can profitably sell, Disney is only doing what everyone else in the industry is doing -  hiding from Random House/Penguin and the other Big Five. It is only by focusing on undesirable, or unpoachable, products that everyone else in the industry can escape being swallowed at a future date, or simply being chewed up right now into an unprofitable pulp.

The clock started ticking, not last March when Hyperion announced its backlist sell-off, but last September, when Hyperion president Ellen Archer – known for her forward-thinking views on cutting author advances – hired former talent agent Laura Hopper as editorial director for franchise publishing. This marked Hyperion’s first serious move to increase “product” at the expense of whatever it was writers once did. The following January, Ruth Pomerance, a long-time veteran of the Hollywood talent scene, was brought aboard as senior editor, where she continued to do what she had been doing for the last 30 years – “synergy” (i.e. reformatting books into other media, and vice versa).

In spite of these last-ditch efforts to stay in the game, Hyperion was a lost cause. Transforming TV shows into original content (what we used to call “books”) wasn’t enough to convince the Disney execs that they should stick to their publishing guns.

According to Publisher’s Weekly, Disney announced that it would be retaining its children’s imprints and any media-related titles, such as its Castle series, which ties into the ABC television show about the fictional detective novelist, Castle. In what can only be described as nearly excruciating synergy, the “Castle” books are authored by the fictional character Richard Castle.

Originally published on Blogcritics. 

Turow on Amazon/Goodreads: This is how modern monopolies can be built

Scott Turow

Shortly after reading the news that Amazon had purchased Goodreads on Publishers Weekly this morning, I received this message from The Authors Guild. Need I say more?

Author's Guild Blog Post 3/29/2013

Amazon’s garden walls are about to grow much higher. In a truly devastating act of vertical integration, Amazon is buying Goodreads, its only sizable competitor for reader reviews and a site known for the depth and breadth of its users’ book recommendations. 

Recommendations from like-minded readers appear to be the Holy Grail of online book marketing. By combining Goodreads’ recommendation database with Amazon’s own vast databases of readers’ purchase histories, Amazon’s control of online bookselling approaches the insurmountable.

“Amazon’s acquisition of Goodreads is a textbook example of how modern Internet monopolies can be built,” said Scott Turow, Authors Guild president. “The key is to eliminate or absorb competitors before they pose a serious threat. With its 16 million subscribers, Goodreads could easily have become a competing on-line bookseller, or played a role in directing buyers to a site other than Amazon. Instead, Amazon has scuttled that potential and also squelched what was fast becoming the go-to venue for on-line reviews, attracting far more attention than Amazon for those seeking independent assessment and discussion of books. As those in advertising have long known, the key to driving sales is controlling information.”

One example should make it clear how formidable this combination is. For “Animals Make Us Human” by Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson, Amazon has 123 customer reviews, and B&N has about 40 (they report 150, but that figure includes ratings as well as reviews). Goodreads swamps these figures, with 469 reviews and 2,266 ratings for the book.

As an independent platform, Goodreads, with its 16 million members, posed a serious competitive threat to Amazon. No more.