WSJ Article "Death of the Slushpile"

 

An interesting piece in today's WALL STREET JOURNAL. If you don't get the printed version, you can read it online, though you may have to register to finish the article.  It's worth it.

Given our consistent position on the importance of marketing, and the last post by our guest, Laura Adams of Storyteller Public Relations, this seemed especially relevant:

"These days, you need to deliver not just the manuscript but the audience," says Mr. [Jim] Levine [of Levine Greenberg Literary Agency]. "More and more, the mantra in publishing is 'Ask not what your publisher can do for you, ask what you can do for your publisher.'"

And, personally, given a recent decision I've made regarding my own slush pile (aka query backlog), I was especially struck by the following paragraphs:

The agent says she receives 30 unsolicited e-mails a day from writers and people she doesn't know who are pushing unknown writers, and she hits "delete" without opening. These days, she is taking on few "baby writers," she says, adding that risks she would have taken five years ago she won't today. "I'll take very few shots on a new voice. It's tough out there right now," she says.

Book publishers say it is now too expensive to pay employees to read slush that rarely is worthy of publication. At Simon & Schuster, an automated telephone greeting instructs aspiring writers: "Simon & Schuster requires submissions to come to us via a literary agent due to the large volume of submissions we receive each day. Agents are listed in 'Literary Marketplace,' a reference work published by R.R. Bowker that can be found in most libraries." Company spokesman Adam Rothberg says the death of the publisher's slush pile accelerated after the terror attacks of 9/11 by fear of anthrax in the mail room.

There was a brief mention in the article about the loss of agents. Add to this that editorial positions have been downsized and publishing spots have narrowed and you'll see an equation which results in very full in-boxes all over. More work for fewer people with less opportunity for success.

I'm not complaining. It's just the way it is. And I think writers would even agree that digging through the slush pile is just not the most efficient place to look for such success.

We receive the majority of submissions via email, so obviously anthrax isn't a threat. Still, I have consistently begun hitting "delete" when I receive unfamiliar emails. It's not that I don't want to discover the likes of Stephenie Meyer or Judith Guest. We all love a good Cinderella story; the Susan Boyles of the world.

It's just that we don't have a staff of wannabes droning around in the basement culling possibilities from the randomly sent queries we receive. We do have an assistant, Amanda, who has a good eye and helps wade through the submissions we receive from folks WHO FOLLOW OUR SUBMISSION PROCESS. And even then, no promises. I know it stinks and isn't "fair". Sorry. Again, it's just the way it is.

For the last couple years I've retained most of unread queries in a "maybe" file thinking I'd have lull time at some point and could get back through them. All the while,  my "slush pile" has continued to grow, and I have continued going to bed at night feeling behinder and behinder.

I've recently given myself a swift kick in my own behinder, and come to the realization that there is no coming lull. And since I don't have a query fairy who works through the night while I toss and turn, I've decided it's time to burn my slush pile.

I simply feel the need to clear the decks and create more mental space to pursue success with the authors I already represent and those I'll likely meet at conferences and via referral in the future.

So, if you've not heard from me to this point in regard to a query you sent sometime in the last two years, the likelihood is that you won't.  Sorry. If I've missed a gem, that's on me. And, if you've found representation or publication after having queried - but not heard from - me, please feel free to let me know --  if that is important to you. I will be nothing but excited for you, and would like to know about your success. 

And if any reading editor might be willing to share a slush pile tale, let me know if you'd like to contribute your thoughts about the process as a guest blogger. 

Sandra

Comments

[patriciazell]

The downside to all the writing conferences and writing courses that have sprung up over the last twenty years is the explosion of people wanting to be published. Add the over 500,000 titles published in one year to all the titles that weren't published--there just are not enough publishing houses, editors, and agents to cover everyone. I hope we would-be writers understand the odds of publication are quickly shrinking. Yet, the internet and blogging do offer opportunities to write on a smaller scale--we may have to downsize our dreams, but reality is reality!

[Gene Jennings]

While I completely understand this, it sure is a bummer for writers who are trying to be a success. It's hard to get motivated to write knowing the steep, uphill battle that awaits my books and ideas.

[Jason Black]

"More and more, the mantra in publishing is 'Ask not what your publisher can do for you, ask what you can do for your publisher."

Well, that's one perspective. However, with ever more examples popping up all the time of skilled writers who have decided to go their own way online and who are making a living at it, I have to wonder this:

If that's the attitude traditional publishers are taking, how long will it be before _writers'_ matra turns into "Ask not what your publisher can do for you, but why the hell you need a publisher in the first place."

I mean seriously. Publishers used to provide a lot of editing and development help to writers, making sure their stuff is really polished before it goes out the door, helping them improve, and wanting to be with a writer for their whole career. Not anymore.

Publishers used to routinely send authors on book tours. Not anymore.

Publishers used to understand that production and marketing was _their_ job. Now, they expect writers to do about half of that job too.

Publishers used to give a decent advance. Not anymore.

And as if that weren't all, now publishers expect the author to chip in by bringing the audience, too?

Ok, so let me get this straight: The author is supposed to write the book, develop the audience, forgo an advance, and sign on for what amounts to another full-time job as a marketer, in exchange for... what? The same parsimonious royalty rate as ever?

Or, since the writer has to do all that anyway, they could just as easily LuLu.com the book if they want to do print, keep the audience for themselves, still do all the same marketing, and raise their royalty rate immediately up to 100%.

Look, I get that there's a total glut of manuscripts out there. I do. In that environment, publishers can naturally afford to be choosy. That's fair and reasonable. But from where I sit it looks more and more every day like publishers want to do nothing more than sit back and collect the money while insisting that everyone else in the industry does their jobs for them. I have no doubt industry types feel differently about the whole situation, but that's how it looks to me.

I guess that's their prerogative. So hey guys, good luck with that.

In the meantime, I'll see ya 'round the internet. You know, where _my_ audience is.

[Jennifer L King]

Great blog, Sandra-- thank you for sharing. I, too, saw that article in the WSJ yesterday, and thought--wow. A must-read.

With the selection process in publishing houses becoming ever tighter, and with agents' jobs becoming ever more overloaded, maybe another tier of helping writers along the process is emerging ... or needs to emerge. Some sort of mentoring or apprenticeship with people who have published, and continue to publish, who feel a call to helping serious, but unpublished writers along, up to the next level.

Certainly that's what writer's groups and conferences are about, along with critique groups and editing services, etc. But somehow, the gap between published and unpublished, or agented and unagented writers seems to have grown exponentially wider in recent months and years.

I think for writers really hungry to be published, they will find a way, and learn the virtues of patience in the process. Now, maybe more than ever, critique groups and relationships with published authors are of high importance. Because somehow, in some way, the called writer will persevere the process, and continue working toward the goal, improving and reaching a higher quality along the way, and knowing the time and energy invested along the way will be well-spent. And once they reach that long-awaited goal, maybe they'll be interested in investing in helping another writer along in their journey toward publication. For sometimes it's not the end goal that brings the biggest rewards, but the journey along the way.

[Katie Ganshert]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I do that sometimes as a teacher. I keep all these papers (that aren't AS important as other ones) and think I'll be able to get to them at some point to look over. I never end up having the time. And about once every two months, I just end up chucking them all. It feels SO refreshing.

I don't know if you remember me or not, but we sat at the same table at the ACFW conference for lunch this past September and had a conversation about how much we LOVED Home Another Way by Christa Parrish. I'm sure you know (since you're entrenched in this business), but she has another book out - Watch Over Me. I'm SO excited to read it! Sorry...this has nothing to do with your blog post, but I can't help myself when it comes to chatting about authors I love. :)

[Cindy Thomson]

Jennifer said: Some sort of mentoring or apprenticeship with people who have published, and continue to publish, who feel a call to helping serious, but unpublished writers along, up to the next level.
Jennifer: Check out the Christian Writers Guild.

Sandra: After discussing your post with my husband, he said, "Well, then it seems like the time has come for a show called 'American Bestseller'." Think you and Chip could be judges? ;-)

[Sharon A Lavy]

I understand an agent can only do so much. I expect you feel relieved to have the slush pile off your back.

[N. J. Lindquist]

Hi Sandra,

I appreciate yours and Chip's honesty.

As a writer who took the plunge ten years ago to become an independent publisher, as well as co-founder of a Canadian association for writers called The Word Guild and co-directer of the Write! Canada conference, I'd have to concur with your post. Yes, tons of people want to get published, and usually they want to have a book. And yes, these are crazy times for both writers and publishers.

The value of having a publisher used to be that they A. ramped up your book's quality and B. knew how to market it.

When my own first book was published years ago by Moody Press, they did very little promotion except that they had it in their catalogue and presumably their sales staff mentioned it. And stores who knew them (think branding) bought it, and the first print-run quickly sold out.

But nowadays, as you say, the onus is more and more on the writer to not only write a masterpiece (which usually involves hiring an editor) and then sell the book. I've heard that publishers expectations might be that the author sell as many as 60% of the books from the first print-run. Unless you're a celebrity or a well-known speaker, how on earth is a new writer to do that?

Having done both - six royalty published books and eight books I have published myself - I quite honestly feel it is very unrealistic to expect authors to become jacks and jills of all trade, and succeed where entire companies cannot.

But I have hope for the future. I think it's time we looked outside the box and came up with a whole new publishing model.

(If anyone is interested, I blogged about the unreal expectations on authors at the link below. Too long to repeat here.

http://www.writewithexcellence.com/2009/11/as-publishing-changes-what-can-writers-do/)

[N. J. Lindquist]

OOps - my link above doesn't work - the end ) got into the url. Should be:

http://www.writewithexcellence.com/2009/11/as-publishing-changes-what-can-writers-do/

[Linda Yezak]

I'm curious--and forgive me if someone mentioned this already, I just glanced through the comments: Thomas Nelson has a group of volunteer reviewers, why can't Chip MacGregor Literary have a group of volunteer cullers? Or, perhaps it could turn into a bit of a business deal: the cullers would get a 3% commission on any novel they found that actually got published.

I would love to be involved in the selection process. For me, it would be interesting to see what you guys are up agains--or to see what I'm up against as a wannabe novelist. I'd be willing to do a bit of culling and send what impressed me to Amanda, who could cull further.

Perhaps the cullers could be comprised of ACFW Genesis Contest finalists (which would include me :D) who could serve a term for a year. Or maybe I'm not the only one interested--you could advertise for volunteer cullers on your site.

It's a thought . . .

[Lauren Sylvan]

Sandra, the issue of supply and demand extends beyond agents and publishers. It starts with readers. There are more things (not just books) screaming for the attention of every potential reader all the time.

Everybody in the book-production chain is going to have to accept that the days when an average novel sold upwards of 10K copies and was NOTICED are gone. There will be fewer blockbusters; the market is fragmenting as people can get exactly their own flavor of the 1,287 flavors available.

As to the future, I think the glamor of being published will die out in the next several years. This will reduce the number of starry-eyed wannabes who are not willing to put in the work. But the desire for self-expression is so basic to humanity that there will still be too many really good writers out there, competing for the same number of readers. Which means the value of the oversupplied product will drop until the offering is free, and what is precious is not people's money, but just the attention they might spend reading a given work. And then the business part of publishing will focus not on the reader, but as a service provider for the writer.

This won't be the first industry where supply overstepped demand until those who loved making a product were willing to work for nothing, even investing money from other sources to support it, even paying the consumer for taking the end results. Already been there.

I still have to tell stories, so I focus on slowly building a following among the listeners I can reach.

[Pam Hillman]

Economicss boils down to supply and demand with a hefty dose of quality mixed in. (At least, that's my short version of the way I see it.)

As a Purchasing Manager in my day job, I turn down a lot of potential vendors selling wares. I'm sure I refuse many whose products would be beneficial to the company I work for, but I can't buy materials from all of them.

And I can't look back and worry that I've made the wrong choice in telling them no.

Also, come to think of it, I've never had a vendor refuse to sell me something because I turned him/her down in the past. lol

Enjoyed today's post and the insightful comments.

[Sandra]

Phew. I have to admit I was a bit nervous about hitting publish on this post. And not because I worried I would leave a negative impression. But because I would panic some people I'd contacted long enough ago that they might think their projects were included in my tossing frenzy.

I'd like to clarify that if you've so much as received a "please give me some time to get back to you" email, I consider that contact. If you've received such an email, and care to, please do feel free to email and see if I've still got your material set aside.

As far as volunteer cullers, Linda, ultimately, it's such a subjective process, it just doesn't make sense at the agency level. For us, that's where referrals come into play.

And Cindy, "American Bestseller"? If we could pick 'em beforehand, we wouldn't be having this discussion, trust me! However... maybe "The Great American Novelist" would fly. I've often thought about just such a thing. How fun that would be.

With Chip as Simon, of course.

[Mike Morrell]

Hi Chip, its been a coupla months since I've been here - enjoying your archives. This post reminds me of something that screenwriter Josh Olson put far less kindly than you: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/09/i_will_not_read.php :)

[Mike Morrell]

Ah - Sandra! I now see that it's you who posted this. No less true - and the article linked to here is no less funny.

[Kathi Macias]

Great article/comments about the uphill publishing climb and the alternative methods springing up. With nearly thirty traditionally published titles to my name and a couple of self-published besides, I've seen the pros and cons to both. Though we'd all prefer to be traditionally published for the prestige and distribution perks, there are times when self-publishing is the best option. And with the market getting tighter and more newbies jumping in all the time, I think it's safe to say that self-publishing is here to stay. I for one hate the marketing aspect of any sort of publishing, but when I understood that it was market or die, I applied the "if you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly" mantra, and it seems to be working. Of course, I no longer sleep or have any sort of personal life....