The Forgotten Consumer

When you are a writer, one of the hardest things to gauge is whether or not the things that seem obvious to you as a writer will be obvious to the reader.  This isn't just restricted to fiction, it applies to all forms of writing really.  I write fiction and non-fiction.  The fiction I write features LGBT characters, as a gay man I want to increase representation in literature, but one of the pitfalls that many writers encounter, myself included, is the realisation that experience is not universal, what you assume everyone has gone through at some point might not be as universal as you think. 

When it comes to non-fiction that too has the same pitfall, once again experience comes into play when creating a structure and adding detail for others to follow.  One area of non-fiction that I focus on for example is teaching others how to program, this is something that heavily incorporates abstraction - the idea that you don't need to know exactly how something works, just how to use it - which can encourage you to gloss over the finer details of the inner workings of some mechanisms and concepts.  The trouble in both situations arises when that deeper level of understanding is either necessary but is glossed over, or is unnecessary and bogs down the reader in trying to grasp concepts they really don't need to dwell on as much as they do.

Being able to gauge the experience of others, and determine what others will find easy to follow or too confusing to follow is one of the many reasons why feedback and criticism is important.  Without it, you only have your own impression of your work to rely on which is unavoidably biased, no matter how objective you think you are, you can never truly judge your own work without any bias at all.  In situations where this is crucial to the integrity of the work, there exist communities which can peer review those publications.  These are most prevalent within non-fiction, particularly anything of a scientific background.  Finding people to review fiction however, is not as easy as you might think.  This is one reason why most independent authors don't get very far, whereas those who are signed to publishing companies have the benefit of the experience of their editors, publishers, and their marketing departments all of which give you access to a wider view than your own narrow viewpoint.  It's important to note here "narrow" is not intended as an insult, the use is not intended to be derogatory, it is deliberately grating to make you realise that one person alone cannot accurately represent the views of many. 

The question inevitably arises as to why creators pursue independent publishing at all then, if conventional publishing routes are preferable.  There are two main reasons why people pursue this route as a preference, the first is control, as this route allows the creator to produce content that stays as close to their original vision as they can get, with no interference from any outside source imposing changes or revisions.  The second reason, which I think is the most prevalent, is the failure to find a publisher that likes your work and wants to publish it.  This isn't always a case of the standard of the content you have created, it can simply be the inability to accurately identify your niche, or your target audience, and match with a publisher that focuses on such content.

Conventional publishing is not as lucrative as it once was, the industry has many issues, but the rise of self publishing and the ease of its use is often regarded as one reason why it is in decline.  I would argue however this isn't technically true.  Whilst I recognise the threat that it poses to their continuity, I would actually argue the focus is misplaced.  I believe in reality the reason self publishing is becoming more and more dominant is actually because of the concept of a universal marketplace.  If you consider apps for example, when Apple came along with their App Store, they created a unified marketplace, a one stop shop where all consumers were directed to; such was the success of the marketing of this approach that the App Store, and the others of rivals became the first place their consumers go without even thinking about it.  When it comes to publishing in a conventional sense, I believe the real issue is the disorganisation of the industry and the complexity that authors have to overcome if they want to succeed.  To put it more bluntly, it's easier to submit a work once to Amazon for approval for Kindle Direct Publishing [KDP], than it is to research dozens of publishers, determine their focus, submit your work, and wait for the inevitable back and forth discussing the work - if you even make it that far.

If you wanted to save conventional publishing, I don't believe KDP is the problem, the problem is the lack of a Publishing Marketplace, a single central entity that creators can submit their work to, and all publishers who participate in the marketplace can then view it and approach the author or bid for their work.  One of the reasons that this does not exist (to my knowledge), or has not gained a greater presence if it does, is the fact that conventional publishers are still competing with themselves, as well as Amazon and others, whereas Amazon really isn't competing with them.  In my experience those who prefer physical books aren't easily persuaded to embrace digital, and vice versa.  I don't believe there is as much crossover between the two consumer groups as the industry believes.  Focus on your own product, and address its shortcomings.  Publishing in a conventional sense is as much about selling the publishing service to the author, if not more so, than selling a book to a consumer.  In this regard I think the author is the forgotten consumer in this business model, KDP et al are services explicitly marketed to those authors, they are the focus of the product.