The Wrong Business Model?

I did a little searching, and meandering, and researching through several local Ottawa and City literary websites, compiling a list of Ottawa-based publishers.

(I excluded online publishers, online magazines, online journals, electronic formatted publications, (any "publisher" that had "no skin in the game"), 'publishing companies' that exclusively publish a single author's work (self-published indie-authors under a title than their own name), and scientific, medical, and university papers publishers).

I was left with 40 (allegedly) local Ottawa-based publishers. After a little bit more digging, 7 were not actually in Ottawa, so these were removed as well.

Of the 33 remaining, only 12 still exist. 63.64% went out of business and/or closed.

When we consider the current trend of the significant rise of the small to mid-sized presses/publishers, the question needs to be asked; Why? Shouldn't we be seeing the successful rise of small-mid-sized publishers?

Some degree can be attributed to outdated websites. Some degree could be attributed to simply bad-run businesses, but doubtful at a level of nearly 2 in 3. If we factor Ottawa being the nation's capital - meaning there's money in Ottawa, and that, as a government city, Ottawa is mostly insulated against major economic swings, it poses a question: Why have so many Ottawa publishers failed or gone out of business?

Ultimately, I can only imagine one reason: That they've attempted to use the same model as the traditional publishers; they've attempted to mimic The Big 5.

The Big Five:

I believe that's a mistake, because, ultimately, the Big 5 are multi-billion dollar companies. They have resources unattainable for the average small-mid-sized publisher. 

They can afford to throw marketing money at a title, whether financially successful or not. In fact, it is debatable that their business model includes and incorporates suffering massive losses and continue functioning. The mystery of Penguin Random House/Simon & Schuster antitrust trial attests to it. (It could even be a form of accounting fraud or financial statement manipulation).

Historically, traditional publishers have always played it safe. Historically, traditional publishers don't know good literature from bad. Historically, traditional publishers have played the roll of literary gatekeepers and not facilitators. 

But equally concerning, on the other end of the spectrum, are the predatory Vanity presses or publishers. Vanity presses/publishers charge significant fees upfront at the author's expense, for various services along with questionable quality, a lack of transparency, and lack of control, often followed by little to no support in book sales and/or distribution.

The Canada Council of the Arts:

What about grants, or more specifically in Canada, what about the Canada Council of the Arts?

I've always found Canada Council of the Arts very peculiar. For example, you would not be eligible to get a grant as a self-published author.

To be considered for most Canada Council grants as an individual, you must be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and be recognized as a professional by your peers in the literary community. Being a self-published author does not quality. You need to have an established professional reputation as a writer, poet, or author. Although they do not acknowledge self-published authors, they list possibilities such as having a history of paid publications in literary magazines, anthologies, or journals, or having a track record of being a paid professionally. (Doesn't this sound suspiciously like gatekeeping?)

This is ironic on several levels. Firstly it is the entry-level Catch-22 dilemma. (Can't get experience because I can't get a job. Can't get a job because I don't have experience). This, once again, works towards the Gatekeeper scenario.

What makes it increasingly comical at best or frustrating at worst is, I myself, as technically a self-published author, could not get a grant. But one of Broken Keys Publishing's authors could be eligible for a grant. The irony drips.

What about grants for publishers, or presses, or publishing houses? Without going into excessive detail, they require book publishers to meet a publication minimum based on their operating history.

With less than 3 years in business, they have needed to have already produced 15 trade books or 10 educational or scholarly books. For those with more than 3 years in business, the added caveat is the additional option of 12 trade books AND 6 educational/scholarly books combined. (Translations do not count as additional titles).

I've had one individual who claimed to be from one of these 67% of local publishers that have closed, stating that they needed to produce 8 titles in two years to even be eligible for Canada Council grants, and a further 4 more titles to attempt applying for next year's grant. Citing a lack of media coverage alongside a lack of funding opportunities.

In short, Canada Council of the Arts really doesn't help that much, especially in earlier times. However, having said this, it isn't the intention to criticize Canada Council of the Arts. But to bring the topic back to following the wrong business model.

Why must we be reliant on handouts, grants, or charities? Could it be because we are attempting to mimic traditional publishers, and there is no way to viably do this without government handouts? Again, we return to the wrong business model.

A Different Perspective:

Ultimately if a publisher were to embrace the model of being a facilitator of literature (allowing the reader to determine good from bad literature) rather than gatekeeper, yet without being a Vanity press/publisher, what can this look like?

Aside from traditional publishers, the only other apparent options would seem to be predatory Vanity publishers, or self-publishing. (And the challenge with self-publishing for many is a lack of sufficient knowledge, contacts, and skillset).

And from a publisher's point of view, there has to be another, viable option. And I think it would be a Hybrid model. I know this term is often demonized and unfairly used derogatorily and synonymously with Vanity publishers, but it is and has to be different.

I believe this newer model must take positive and affordable traits from all three avenues, combining them into something that works for the publisher, authors, printers, and retail storefronts. (Because all too often, the retail storefronts are forgotten in this equation).

If this were a Venn diagram, where would this model find itself? I would like to believe somewhere in the middle.

Although having a bad rep, the Hybrid model is likely the best option. And it lines up well with the model of a publisher being a facilitator and not a gatekeeper.

The Hybrid model includes authors paying for certain fees upfront, likely at a discount. I should think at a discount because these businesses would offer these services separate from their publishing contract/model - formatting, layout, editing, cover-design, printing, etc. I'd imagine these services, for a signed author, would come at a discount considering that there are still revenue being generated by the book's sales.

The Hybrid model also protects the publisher because they con immediately recoup some of their initial costs. And I think this is important to stress. With nearly 67% of Ottawa's listed publishers being no more, closed, bankrupt, or failing, it seems obvious there are problems with other models.

---

Keep up to date with breaking news, new releases

and events, and keep your thumb on

the pulse of Ottawa's literary scene.

Subscribe and follow us on social media -

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Threads, & YouTube