HIT PLAY OR READ THE POST BELOW:

It’s a hot topic in writing circles, especially online writer communities on YouTube and TikTok: is traditional publishing dying? Is it still a viable path for publishing? Or should everyone shift gears and embrace the world of self-publishing?

To address this deceptively simple question, I’ll go through three of the main claims that keep surfacing as part of the argument that traditional publishing is dead and giving way to hybrid and self-publishing models.

Of course, as with all of my articles, this is just my personal opinion and my own thoughts on the current publishing landscape, which are informed by my experience in the traditional publishing industry. I have nearly a decade of editorial experience, which includes time at two major US publishing houses, one of the leading literary agencies in New York City, and my work as an independent editor collaborating directly with authors who go on to pursue a variety of publishing methods, including traditional and self-publishing.

The Rise of Self-Publishing

The first claim people make in support of the argument that traditional publishing is dying is: the rise of self-publishing has now eliminated the need for traditional publishers.

There are several examples in the mainstream book world of self-published authors rising to acclaim and making incredible money through their sales. One notable example is Colleen Hoover, who has several books on the New York Times bestseller list, a list which has traditionally been reserved for authors who published through a major publishing house. It's amazing to see these levels of sales coming through a self-publishing platform.

In more recent news, there is Brandon Sanderson's Kickstarter campaign, where he raised more than $40 million to fund his next set of books. So, these examples indicate there can be a lot of money to be made in self-publishing. As a self-published author, you can certainly rise to a certain level and have a ton of sales.

However, my question then becomes: are these two examples simply outliers, whose incredible platforms and talent are why they are able to flourish? Or are they truly paving the way for other self-published authors who aren't as established in terms of platform or writing talent? Do these examples fundamentally change the way publishing works?

Frankly, I don't totally know the answer — no one does. I think the biggest roadblock that still exists in self-publishing and hybrid publishing models is the lack of reliable quality control.

That is where traditional publishers come in, to theoretically be curators in ensuring that the stories being published are at the most polished level possible and at the strongest possible presentation for a mainstream audience.

Of course, you can certainly argue (and not even necessarily be wrong) that there are many examples of self-published or hybrid published books that are better than traditionally published books. Plus, there are many traditionally published books that still have typos and mistakes in them. There will always be examples of excellent, polished stories being published through any publishing venue, and vice versa.

My point is just that in the current industry, the only way to guarantee a certain level of quality control is to go the traditional publishing path. Maybe if we have some more innovation in the industry so that self-publishing and hybrid publishing have more standardization, then I could see traditional publishing diminishing in importance. But unless there is a quality control aspect to the other publishing models, I do see a continuing need and place for traditional publishing.

The other thing to keep in mind is that traditional publishing still has the widest distribution network. They also have media connections and coverage opportunities that are going to be tough to get if you are self- or hybrid-published.

The bottom line here is that I truly do think there is room for both self-published and traditionally published books, and they will both continue to be viable publishing paths for the foreseeable future. When it comes time for you to decide which path to take, it comes down to determining what your personal priorities are.

Publishing Houses Are Struggling Financially

The next point that is often brought up in relation to the argument that traditional publishing is dying is: publishing houses, as corporations, are struggling financially, and they have an unsustainable business model.

To tackle the first part of this claim that publishing houses are struggling financially, I was actually surprised to learn that 2021 was a record year in terms of book sales and profits for most, if not all, of the Big Five publishing houses. That means that the publishing houses are still raking in a good deal of profit and seem to be doing okay financially, if not good.

Claims about their business model being unsustainable is definitely reasonable, and I can see where this argument is coming from.

Traditional publishing houses’ business models involve investing in a large variety of books across different genres, without expecting all of those books to sell well or even make back the invested money. The majority of the business’ profits come from when a book becomes wildly successful, such as Gone Girl did, with the sales and associated money from that book then supporting the publishing house. It’s basically a model of putting your bets out in a lot of places and waiting for one to pay off.

While that doesn't necessarily sound like the most valid business model, it has worked for hundreds of years. If you go back to the roots of the major publishing houses dominating the industry today, you’ll find that they've been around for centuries and have more or less operated in this same way. So while it is definitely an ebbing and flowing business model, I don't think it's fair to say that the model uniformly doesn't work.

Something else that we need to discuss in terms of business models and finances of publishing houses is that as it stands, all of those profits that I mentioned publishing houses making last year do not seem to be trickling down to the employees, the people actually doing the work. This is a huge problem that is now resulting in burnout, people being overloaded and underpaid, and talented people ultimately leaving the industry.

So, at least in my view, publishing houses do still have a lot of work to do in terms of correcting these systemic issues regarding how their corporations treat the people working for them and the authors getting published by them. If the publishing houses are able to figure out how to retain and compensate their talent and their authors, which I do think will take a level of restructuring, then I do think some of these issues could be alleviated and the industry would be in much better shape.

Until then, we'll have to see if these reckonings that the industry has been having in the past couple of years actually amount to anything — I hope that they do.

Mergers are Stifling Innovation

The last claim related to traditional publishing dying is: the mergers of major publishing conglomerates are now stifling their ability to innovate.

The Big Five publishing houses in the US are actually made up of dozens of imprints, which operate as smaller publishing houses within the overarching publishing brand. If you look back in history, many of those imprints used to be independent publishers that got bought up.

So, the merging aspect of the publishing industry is not a new phenomenon, but it has been gaining a lot of attention in recent years, especially with Penguin Random House’s attempt to buy Simon & Schuster. This would have merged two of the Big Five publishing houses and made them the Big Four publishing houses. This got a lot of attention and concern both from people inside and outside of the industry, and the merger was blocked by the Department of Justice.

One of the biggest concerns with mergers is that, with fewer publishing houses controlling the industry and ultimately fewer people at the top making high level decisions, there will be less room for new authors and less creative risk taking. After all, corporations are trying to reach a bottom line at the end of the day, and so they may be resistant to taking more risks or bringing in new voices and perspectives.

This is absolutely a valid concern and it is one I have heard from other publishing professionals. In fact, there was a petition signed by many industry professionals against the Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster merger.

Literary agents, as well as acquisitions editors at publishing houses, don't want to have to be creatively limited or do wrong by their authors. If publishing houses merge even further, then it limits the places books can be published and the number of publishers who can buy books, which can diminish competition and ultimately lead to lower payments for authors.

It is true that with other publishing models, particularly self-publishing, you're the only gatekeeper. You don't have to worry about pleasing anyone else or making sure that a corporation like Penguin Random House signs off on your story idea, so there is a lot of freedom in that. But hopefully the traditional publishing industry does still continue to be a place for new authors with different perspectives to bring stories to the table that the world really needs to hear.

To summarize, I do think there is some level of truth in each of the statements above. I completely see why those claims are being made and I think they're good conversations that we should be having. So, is traditional publishing dying? I personally don’t think so, and I believe that it still continues to be a driving force in the book world and the media at large. I will continue to support authors who want to pursue the traditional publishing path and do everything I can to help them reach their goals.

That said, the same goes for authors who decide the industry is not for them and want to self-publish instead. Know that whichever publishing avenue works for you is always going to be the right one.

Thanks so much for reading and happy writing!