Two Interesting Articles
Or to be specific, links to articles that have interested me in the past week.
Separate and Unequal, A Review of “The Price of Inequality” by Joseph E Stiglitz
The first one is a book review that appeared in the New York Times last week: “Separate and Unequal: ‘The Price of Inequality’ by Joseph E Stiglitz. Stiglitz is a is a Nobel laureate and a professor of economics at Columbia University. The review is by Thomas B. Edsall, the Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore professor at the Columbia School of Journalism. The review is definitely worth a read and possibly the book even more so. The thrust of the book, as set out in the review, is:
“… our bleak [economic] present [is not] the result of seemingly unstoppable developments — globalization and automation, a self-replicating establishment built on “meritocratic” competition, the debt-driven collapse of 2008 … that has produced a two-tier society, Stiglitz argues, but the exercise of political power by moneyed interests over legislative and regulatory processes. “While there may be underlying economic forces at play,” he writes, “politics have shaped the market, and shaped it in ways that advantage the top at the expense of the rest.”
Further interesting quotes include: “It is not just democratic politics that is threatened by huge disparities in wealth and income. Much of Stiglitz’s book is devoted to demonstrating that excessive inequality amounts to sand in the gears of capitalism, creating volatility, fueling crises, undermining productivity and retarding growth.”
And: “The news media and the Congress are ill-equipped to address the role of economic power in shaping policy. Both institutions are, in fact, unaware of the extent to which they themselves are subject to the influence of money.” (I personally find this latter assertion very difficult to believe—and if members of the institutions named are not aware of it, they should be, because everyone else is. Just sayin’)
Given international economic events of the past four years though, I believe the review is definitely interesting and worth a read. Again, the link to it is here.
—
“Why Social Media Isn’t the Magic Bullet for Self-Published E-Authors” by Ewan Morrison
The second article appeared on The Guardian and is titled ‘Why Social Media Isn’t The Magic Bullet for Self Published E-Authors.’ The article is by Ewan Morrison, a novelist who has also worked as a writer-director in television and film for ten years. The article is rather long (although interesting!) but the overall thrust is probably best summed up by the following:
“The bad news for social media companies is that after all the hype and the projections, there are stats … In publishing terms it has recently been revealed that 10% of all self-epublishers make £75% of all the money; that 50% of self-published ebooks make less than $500 a year (£320, or 87p a day); and that 25% doesn’t cover the costs of production. Broadly, what this means is that if you went out on the street with a book in your hand and tried to sell it to a stranger for 88p, or 99p, and you did this every day, you would still be making more money than 50% of all self-published authors on Amazon and all the other new epub platforms.
It also turns out that the ebook market now looks a lot like the old mainstream model. A small number of writers make a lot and everyone else wallows in the doldrums of minuscule sales. The only difference is that those at the top are selling 100,000 copies at 99p, not at £4.99, or £8.99 – which in real terms represents a massive shrinkage of the market. Furthermore, it signifies the passage of the publishing industry into the hands of the internet companies that can capitalise on a million small sales by a million small authors.”
Interesting, huh? I certainly think he makes some intriguing points and that the article is well worth a read and some serious cogitation by all of those involved in the writing game in these changing times.
Again, the link is here.
—
So what do you think?
So there you go, two articles I found interesting. Do have a read if you have the time—and if so inclined, share your thoughts here. 🙂
Hi Helen,
Here’s a response to the Morrison article. It is written by a self-publisher, so it comes from the other side of the debate, but it makes some very good points as well, and it also points out some misquotes and misunderstandings in the Morrison article. I think it would be good to consider both articles together to get a balanced view of the subject.
http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-bonfire-of-the-straw-men/
Hi Catherine, Thanks for the link. Always good to read alternate points of view, in addition to those contained in the comments on each post.:) And I do think there is a confusion between “independent publishing” (in any format) and the efficacy of social media as a “selling tool” (for anything.)
Yes, I know Stiglitz well. In fact, Stiglitz’s theories of information economics go a long way to explaining Morrison’s chagrin about Social Media. I’ll take this a step further — Morrison’s ridiculous premise, that anyone actually thought Social Media was a silver bullet (for what? And why?), is perhaps the most unsettling (truly, truly disturbing) aspect of much of today’s Social Media. In the early part of his career, Stiglitz brilliantly explained, using economic theory, the barriers we humans face in our communication; and why we’ve been so bad at it for so many thousands of years. But today the technology exists that can completely resolve these barriers, overturning Stiglitz’s theories. Nobody knows, nobody cares. In fact, Stiglitz himself would probably be surprised to hear about this — especially from the comments on a poet’s blog — because so much of today’s Social Media (and Google, or Googlin, is a real culprit here) has become nothing more than commotion. From Communism to Commotionism. Who can hear the science? Who can appreciate the art? And socialized art? Collective writing? The terror!
Hi Zireaux, I am a little confused, as I had thought the Stiglitz book that was the subject of the review was about the current economic forces at play in (mainly US, I understood) society and not about communication and/or social media?
I am also uncertain why a poet and author’s blog should be an unusual place to comment on the review of a book, albeit on the political and economic trends in wider society rather than poetry or other works of fiction? I commented recently on the biography of Queen Anne that I am currently reading, which also discusses the wider political, economic and social events of her time, without anyone seeming to find it untoward. And even poets and fiction authors, after all, are part of the wider world and may be interested in the views others express and/or publish on wider events, whether the context is historical or contemporary… In my humble opinion at any rate.:)
As for Emerson’s premise that there are those who have touted social media as a silver bullet for selling many things, including books (whether independently published or not), I have also read articles and opinion that have discussed the role of social media in those terms. So although as a premise it may indeed be ridiculous, I don’t think it is necessarily ridiculous for Emerson or anyone else to seek to examine it. Whether he has done so fairly and accurately may be another matter; the article to which Catherine’s link refers suggests that there are some who think not. But I still find attempts to scrutinise the hype around social media interesting, even if I suspect that you are indeed quite right and that much of it is little more than ‘commotion.’ As to whether the possibility of commotion (or “noise and haste”) means that “socialized art” and “collective writing” must necessarily equate with ‘terror’—to date, I remain “unterrified.”
Yes, you’re right, Stiglitz’s most recent book is about the role of politics in the US economy, but he’s an even bigger giant in the field of information economics — for which he won the Nobel Prize in 2001. E-publishing is all about information economics. Morrison is arguing that e-publishing doesn’t live up to its promise. Stiglitz would ask, what promise? Stiglitz would argue that there can never be a perfect market, let alone a perfect market for the buying and selling of something like e-books (“and why hasn’t Morrison read any of my work!”). Zireaux, meanwhile — in the comments section of a post by a very charming poet and writer named Helen Lowe — is arguing that the technology, the know-how exists to vastly improve the e-publishing market. It’s been around for some time. But unfortunately, as Stiglitz’s theory suggests (and seems to prove itself), the chronically ill-dressed information market — balding, lumpy nosed, with thick-rimmed glasses and utterly incompetent — gets in the way of itself. So any technology, any solution which might make the publishing market more fair (in terms of, say, money going to good writers rather than good sales people) will inevitably meet resistance. What solution? Who is Zireaux? How many followers does he have on Twitter?
Stiglitz would argue that the politics of money is destroying America’s ability to prosper (how expensive it is these days to cast a meaningful vote in US elections!). Sometimes — but there is hope, alas — Zireaux laments his beautiful literature in the same way, and snarls at Facebook, Twitter, Google, the whole gang, for the poor Cordelia in his arms.
Hi Zireaux — OK, now we are more on the same page, or perhaps I mean that I am following the script on your page better.:) Interesting commentary re Stiglitz and his background (I had never heard of him but was interested in the direction of the review.) I definitely think one can get lost in the ‘commotion’ of social media but in the end, is it so different from the impact the telephone would have had, a century ago?
I guess I’d be interested to see those self-published stats compared to traditionally published stats. There are many traditionally published authors who never make their advance back. What percentage of traditionally published authors make what percent of the money? I would guess that the comparison (a small amount making the lion’s share of the money) would be similar. And then I would like to see those stats compared to what PUBLISHERS make on traditionally published authors compared to what their authors make.
I just feel like this is a bit of smoke-and-mirrors to mask the real issues. NO self-pubbed author that I know of thinks there is a silver bullet other than hard work, writing good story, and building an audience over time- the same bullet authors, however they are published, have understood since writers first started wriitng.
Hi Ripley, as I think I mentioned in an earlier comment, I think there’s a blurring between independent publishing (in any format) and the premise that social media is a selling tool, going on between the various articles and comments.
My reading of Emerson’s article is that he did discuss traditional and independent publishing data and point out that they’re fairly similar (in the final analysis) — a few people make it, a few do ok, and most don’t. The difference in the equation that I understood him to be pointing out is that the e-publishing venues that support independent publishing currently don’t need to make their money from actually selling books (ie they don’t need to be commercially committed to the independent author’s product) because they are really making their money from the authors, not the sale of the products—the latter being an incidental benefit. This resonated with me because I can see the parallel to network marketing — sure it’s possible to make money from the product if you work at it, but where the network marketing companies are really making their money is from the “independent distributor’s”, i.e.through selling their “distributors” the brand, the kit, the resources etc (which is constantly being ‘upgraded’ necessitating further purchases.) So for me, this was a big part of the interest in what Emerson was saying.
The other part was in fact exactly what you’re saying in your final paragraph: that despite a great deal of hype around social media (as opposed to independent publishing) these tools are not effective for direct selling — this is done by exactly the methods you cite. The reason I find Emerson’s article interesting is because it addressed the widespread perception — and I do believe it is out there, in both the traditional and independent sectors — that if you throw out a tweet or have friends on Facebook, your work of publicising/marketing your product is done. You are I both know that is very far from the truth, and Emerson’s article is in the same quadrant, but given the number of folk who have assured me that I’m doomed as a writer because I’m not on Facebook, I suspect there are some out there who still believe in the ‘silver bullet.’
Whereas of course, as per your last para, there is no such thing — imho ever, period. (Although there may be Luck, but that is an entirely different kettle of fish-shaped silver bullets.)
Or who was it that said: ‘Be realistic, plan for a miracle.’) 😀
Sorry, make that magic bullet. I seemed to be getting my vampire/werewolf lore and my publishing magic mixed up, but then I always do tend to mix the two:)