Attention, besieged publishers! Maybe you can restore yourselves to former glory by banning spreadsheets—and paying more attention to traditional editorial values. Remember the days when publishers actually bought original, well-written books without worrying if they’d be potential bestsellers? Back then editors didn’t have to genuflect so often before the MBA crowd and their notions of what was trendy or not.
E-books would also help, of course—since they’re cheaper and you can take more chances with them rather than fret over the what-ifs. But maybe publishers should also read John Dvorak’s latest rant, which laudably uncelebrates the invention of the spreadsheet thirty years ago:
2009 marks the 30-year anniversary of the now-ubiquitous spreadsheet program. And society as a whole has deteriorated ever since its invention. It was the spreadsheet that triggered the PC revolution, with VisiCalc the original culprit. Can anyone say that we’ve actually benefited from its invention? Look around: I think we’ve suffered.
For one thing, the spreadsheet created the “what if” society. Instead of moving forward and progressing normally, the what-if society questions each and every move we make. It second-guesses everything. Because of the spreadsheet we’ve been forced to “do the numbers” whenever possible; once the numbers are in the spreadsheet, the what-if process can begin.
In fact, the spreadsheet has resulted in the rise of the once-lowly accountant/bean counter to a position of influence—and often the executive suite. How often in years past—the pre-spreadsheet era, that is—did an accountant take over a company? When and why did the CFO become a title? These people, at best, were once known as comptrollers.
Within publishing, editors are often required to get into financial predictions rather than just follow their instincts and work with marketers to create a demand. Spreadsheets have ruined few industries as thoroughly as they have publishing, a me-too stronghold. Time to ban such apps from the offices of p- and e-houses alike?
Oh, I disagree profoundly. Instead, I would say that it’s time that EVERYONE in publishing be able to integrate three different aspects of the books they make: the merit of the content, the book’s place and appeal in the market, and the likelihood that the book will earn enough to justify the investment of time, money and creativity. We’re all responsible for making our companies survive and thrive, so that we can continue bringing good books to those who want and need them.
Spreadsheets make it easy to quantify and estimate complicated situations, and to get a gut level understanding of the risks and rewards. Successful editors have always done this in some instinctive fashion. The goal, with spreadsheets, is to make the process conscious, and maybe even teachable.
Unfortunately, many publishing folks don’t use spreadsheets well. That’s one of the reasons I go to such efforts to teach classes on the subject, and to write so often on the subject. It can add so much depth to the acquisitions and marketing process, especially if it’s not done with a scornful, disconnected, “because the bean-counters said I had to” attitude.
The alternative to a business enterprise driven by “bean counters” is a “cult of personality.”
Thats blasphemy nothing less then that 😉
As long as you remember that spreadsheets only gives answers to the questions we know how to ask, and even those is given that out model is perfect something it almost never is. But still, better the spreadsheet you know then the datamining package you dont.
Theres however much truth in it Spreadsheets used blindly blinds people more then they have to, but still people were just as clueless before spreadsheets as Dvorak claims theyve become in later ages.
Books are like music things that take up mindshare and media space dispoportionally to their actual spread in the population, running the numbers will tell you that and of cause thats changing the way we value books, the day where artsy books noone bothered to read to the end was the premier product of the publishing industry are gone.
Thanks, everyone. Hey, Marion, if you wanna do a post on the Five Biggest Spreadsheet Mistakes that Publishers Make, that would be terrific. It’s okay to link to your past writings.
David
I’d love to do a post, although I’d rather talk about how to do things right. For now, the most common error is: using really poor sales estimates. I think most publishing folks, including in marketing, have very little idea how to do sales estimates. I’ve even had people tell me that sales on future books CAN’T BE estimated. (Which is, I’m afraid, a very good indicator of how little the speaker knows about the market for the book or estimation techniques, or both.)
Perhaps the trouble is not the spreadsheets (useful tools and the businesses need to make money to survive), but rather that the business is being led by the spreadsheet rather than the other way round. The old publishing businesses often stayed afloat by publishing a ratio of profitable best sellers to finance the quality, slower selling stuff. Then someone worked out that by ditching the quality stuff they could make more money with the high sales stuff. The only problem with this is that your business then loses all credibility. I mean – Rolex don’t make cheap plastic watches do they? They might sell millions in the first year of trading on their name, but after that they would just be another cheap watch manufacturer.
In this day, with the low overheads of electronic publishing (and no wastage or returns!) you would think it would pay to have a sales list of high quality stuff just to boost the firm image.
Thanks for the link. I don’t claim to know much about the nuts and bolts of the business of publishing, but think if Faulkner’s publisher had consulted a spreadsheet before publishing The Sound & The Fury: it never would have happened. I imagine that spreadsheets have killed similar projects in the last 30 years.