From the seashore the poet could not be sure if she saw waving or drowning. And so it is with nations, if you are a London correspondent of the New York Times (16 February: Roger Cohen/Intelligence): “It is not difficult these days to imagine Britain as a flooded speck of land bobbing around in the North Sea, reduced to rump status by the secession of Scotland, cut off from Europe by its exit from the European Union, ruled by a bunch of Old Etonians squabbling over how to dredge a river, plagued by officials issuing frantic edicts on “health and safety” and criss-crossed by a barmy prince declaring that “there is nothing like a jolly good disaster to get people to start doing something.””

Yet appearances are deceptive. This land is flooded, but all the other statements in this quotation contain truth, or are aspects of truth, but none are absolute truths. Yet what has been written is perfectly valid. And I was thinking of angles and aspects of the truth when studying the mass media as I have done since Marshall McCluhan identified them for my generation) when this week a wise friend in the US sent me this idea ( “There are in fact no masses,” said sociologist Raymond Williams, “there are only ways of seeing people as masses.”

So I was well-prepared for this week’s new battle ground – how big is self-publishing and how much of a threat is it to the natural order of things (e.g will it displace publishers from the top of the heap)? The big story of the week was Hugh Howey’s assertion that most fiction publishing is now digital self-publishing. And as the dams burst on blogs and innocents were drowned in a millrace of speculation and accusation on self-publishing, I took comfort in that old (and now electronic) stand-by, The Times Literary Supplement (13 February), whose NB column records “Self-publishing has a rich past, as well as a digitally-enhanced and off-puttingly successful future. “The past is represented, says the TLS, by Proust, Blake, Walt Whitman, Jane Austen, Beatrix Potter and Stephen King, but it turns out that the only target here is the unfortunate Ms Debbie Williams (no relation?) who has had the temerity to launch what they describe as the world’s first MA in Self-Publishing at the University of Central Lancashire. And if this claim is wrong, tell them, not me.

I am sure that they see things differently in the USA. It all depends where you are sitting. Self publishers buried blogger and self-publisher Hugh Howey last week in accolades, praising his research into statistics derived from Amazon on the proportion of eBooks self-published in popular fiction genres. Here is a pleasing sample:

“There’s a second and equally important reason to doubt a 25% e-book penetration number: The other 75% of those titles includes textbooks, academic books, cookbooks, children’s books, and all the many categories that are relatively safe from digitization (for now). Print remains healthy in these categories, but these aren’t the books most people think of when they hear that percentage quoted. E-book market share is generally spoken of in the context of the New York Times bestsellers, the novels and non-fiction works that are referred to as “trade” publications. If we look specifically at this trade market, it’s quite likely that e-books already account for more than 50% of current sales (some publishers have intimated as much). Factoring in self-publishing and further limiting the scope to fiction, I’ve seen guesses as high as 70%. But that can’t be possible, right?…
“Did the smelling salts work? Are you with us? It turns out that 86% of the top 2,500 genre fiction bestsellers in the overall Amazon store are e-books. At the top of the charts, the dominance of e-books is even more extreme. 92% of the Top-100 best-selling books in these genres are e-books!”

So at the heart of this is an argument that states that when publishers say that the market is 25% eBooks, they are grossly misstating the position, since they are not counting self-published eBooks who account for the difference between the 25% that publishers acknowledge and the higher figures that Mr Howey discovers in his Amazon data dump. Please go and get the full story at – the report is long, but the effort is worth it, if only to enable an appreciation of the publisher backlash, which starts with the politics of dispute – the man knows nothing of statistics – and ends with the politics of envy – how dare he speak so when his own self-publishing is backed by movie contracts!

For the fight back against the Howey Heresies see and Like the author of the latter, I too have “no dog in this hunt”. But I have heard hunts like this before, some baying sonorously and some anxiously in pursuit of an inadequate argument. Mr Howey’s samples are probably too small, his arguments too far-reaching and his data source too limited. But he has put his head above the parapet to say that traditional publishing business models are threatened and that the publishing value position, in mass market popular fiction, is being disintermediated. A few weeks ago I made similar comments here about the rise of self-publishing of academic research articles. And having observed the impact of the network – global scale inter-networking on the level that we now know it – I have to say that it twists every business model out of shape, flows around obstacles like flood waters and leaves few real world players of the previous generation intact. Mr Howey may be wrong on current measurements, but he is almost certainly right on direction of flow and eventual outcome.

Lets step back a bit and put ourselves in the position of confidential and trusted advisors to Rupert Murdoch, or Arnaud Lagadere or Dr Thomas Rabe (interestingly not a native born American in sight when it comes to the ultimate decisions on global consumer book publishing). Can Harper Collins, Hachette and Random House continue for ever on the Big Bestseller model? Will the agents let them? Will the stance of Amazon be decisive? Will initial publishing be self-publishing – and will consumer publishing be selecting already published winners to be groomed for stardom? Will social media be the marketplace and will advertising/sponsorship be part of the business model? We have already had Amanda Hockings and Fifty Shades – how many signs in the night sky do we need? Above all, can the big players re-invent – not transition/migrate – themselves in alignment with this new world. If the answers are negative, then should we advise these managers of assets to re-invest in consumer publishing in their current major holdings?

There are other games to be played, as the Netflix/Game of Thrones story in a parallel entertainment market shows us. Perhaps we should stop criticizing Mr Howey’s statistics and start fundamentally re-thinking what all of this means for a global networked society which shows interesting signs of reading more, by all measures of that word, each year.


Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind


2 Comments so far

  1. David Worlock on February 19, 2014 11:06

    After this was posted I saw this news story on Romance on the listserv Read 2.0

  2. Waving And Drowning « P U B L I S H I N G on February 19, 2014 12:29

    […] more: […]