← Generate a Random Story on WhereTheMapEnds.com

Great Content Needs Great Design →

President of Nelson Believes Christian Publishing Has Room To Grow

February 23rd, 2007 | CSFF, publishing, responses

Yesterday Michael Hyatt wrote this about Christian publishing:

It’s no secret that this channel is facing significant challenges. Everything needs to be on the table. None of us can afford to keep doing something because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.”

The market has changed. To remain viable, we all have to change with it. Someone once defined insanity as “doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result.” If this channel is going to grow—and I believe it can grow—we are going to have to do things differently. I’m not sure what all that means, but I am not content to keep doing the same things in the same way and hope for a different result.

This is good news! 

Earlier this week, I wondered out loud about the future of Christian publishing—especially as it relates to the expansion of the market. I have a lot of friends who hope there is a viable market for Christian fantasy and science fiction. I hope so too.

For that to be possible, Christian publishing (and specifically the CBA) needs to show it can reach an audience outside of its standard demographic.

No one understands this better than Jeff Gerke. In an interview with Rachel Marks for CSFF (the best one this week in my opinion), Jeff said,

If my theory is right that this group (white, American, Evangelical women of child-raising or empty-nest age) is the main demographic the CBA industry reaches with fiction, then Christian speculative fiction is going to have a hard row to hoe.

See, that’s what I meant by CSFF possibly being redundant. The general SFF market already includes books with Christian themes—Tolkein, Lewis, Koontz (sort of), Orson Scott Card (sort of).

But I’m not going to end on that dour note. If Hyatt says there’s room to grow, then I believe him. If Jeff Gerke thinks POD can work, then I believe him. Gerke here’s to your dream!

And oh yeah, Jeff, when do you start taking submissions? ; )


Viewing 12 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Nelson seems to be an interesting place... I read that they pulled out of CBA winter...

    and are they the ones who also just started something in Brazil?
    • ^
    • v
    P.S.

    You must tell me why you'd be Sushi.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm not in the writing/publishing business so I'm speaking as an outsider but any industry where the channel controls the business is not healthy and needs to be overhauled. I'm not saying this is true in the case of christian publishing but a channel just connects buyers with the product they need....so if there is an appetite in the readership for CSFF, you should eventually get traction with the publishers, otherwise it's a dysfunctional distribution channel.

    Also, you used the acronym POD - I'm guessing here...does it stand for publishing-on-demand or something else all together? Because, I think self publishing on demand is one way that you can circumvent a dysfunctional channel.

    OK, I'm rambling here and boring everyone...sorry.
    • ^
    • v
    L.L., I don't know anything about Nelson in Brazil, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    As for pulling out of CBA Winter, Michael Hyatt explains that really well in the blog post I quoted here. That's the larger purpose of his post, in fact, I just pulled a quote that I found interesting for another reason.
    • ^
    • v
    Andre, you are not boring anyone! I always value your insight and business perspective.

    POD is print-on-demand. I should have explained that.

    You said, "Any industry where the channel controls the business is not healthy." That's exactly the kind of point I was trying to make about CSFF. A few vocal readers (including myself) want the channel to be viable. But I'm not sure our interest translates into broader interest. I'm glad to hear that you think POD could circumvent a dysfunctional channel.

    For me the verdict is still out on POD. It seems like a natural innovation given the state of desktop publishing. But it also feels like a POD book hasn't been "really published."
    • ^
    • v
    I may have overstated the "dysfunctional channel" point without explaining - I think the more commoditized a product is, the greater power the channel has.

    For instance if there are no essential differences between the products in the market, power shifts to the channel because getting products to customers becomes all about distribution channels and lowest pricing.

    The intriguing question is whether that's where the publishing industry is currently at. Has the mass availability of content over the Internet made fiction a commodity?
    • ^
    • v
    Andre, I have to think about this some more. It's right at the edge of what I can understand.
    • ^
    • v
    Marcus -- I always appreciate insights into the industry that you provide here. Even though I think of myself as a writer, I'm definitely an outsider at this point.

    I often wonder exactly what industry it is that I'm looking to be inside of, however. Andre's comments have me thinking more about books/authors as commodities. Even though I don't like being thought of simply as a consumer, I'd resist being thought of simply as a commodity even more.
    • ^
    • v
    Charity, my last comment was partially intended to be a little provocative, but mostly musing out loud.

    For the record, I don't believe that books are commodity products, the way say, bottled water or toilet paper are. There are too many nuances in what constitutes good writing for that to be the case. And, good writers should never feel like commodities. :-) There are far too few of them around!

    Let me finish on a positive note - I actually believe that POD is a good thing and will to some degree, open new opportunities for writers and readers alike. Essentially, POD creates a "direct channel" to the reader by dis-intermediating the traditional publishers and book sellers. You can take your work to the masses and let them decide. Writers like you can now publish CSFF books and if there is an appetite for it in the broader market, presumably the readers will find you.
    • ^
    • v
    Charity, you are much more than a consumer or a commodity!

    But... when writers make it a goal to be part of a business system, their book (and their marketable self) will work best when they fit into a specific role in the system.

    To publishers, books are products. And so are writers in a certain sense.

    Michael Hyatt posted some really good content on this topic last week about the ideal publisher and the ideal author.
    • ^
    • v
    I’ll agree with Mark that an author is much more than a consumer or commodity, but I feel that I must add to that.

    If an author has something good to say, it matters that it will end up being read by someone, right? But, if it doesn’t sell, that won’t happen. I was at one publishing company where I saw that the editorial department was being trained to understand the mindset of sales and marketing. That was great to see them make the effort!

    I don’t want to scare authors, but if you don’t think like a sales person, it could make a big difference to get advice or feedback from a sales/marketing type of person.

    To that end, it would be beneficial to momentarily think of yourself as a commodity, even though you are much, much more.
    • ^
    • v
    Craver, you're spot on. Thanks for the post, brother!

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus