Does every book count?

Edward Russell-Walling writes in Publishers Weekly, in a story called Every book counts that while '... the giants slug it out, huge tracts of territory are won or lost ... nipping between the tanks and the shell-bursts are nimble squads of guerrillas, partisans and secessionists -- the independents.' He is, of course, writing about the publishing industry, not the retail end. The latter is another story. (There too, the independents who after being clobbered for decades by the 800-pound gorillas are now resurgent in a small way. The fact is, the 'war of the worlds' scenario between the King Kongs is also taking its toll: Borders might be looking for a buyer and Barnes and Noble has been mentioned as the possible one -- though it lost money last quarter. Be ready on Ebay when the bidding starts. In the same breath, Waterstone's continues to reduce in size. What's going to happen to book retail in Malaysia? You guess.)

There are reports of bloodshed on the publishing front as well -- the 5.6% drop in sales and earnings of Random House last year -- but the story is not about that.

The story says that in UK the independents are those not one of the 'Big Four (Hachette, Random House, HarperCollins and Penguin) or the Not-Quite-So-Big Three (Pan Macmillan, Bloomsbury and Simon & Schuster).' The Independent Publishers' Guild in the UK is said to have 460 members and a GBP 500 million turnover with the numbers increasing, with the cost of entry getting lower and lower. (Theoretically, anyone with a computer can become an independent publisher.)

The wonderful thing about being independent is that you can choose to publish anything you want -- they can be as exclusive and precious to the max, or as leze faire as they want and publish anything that will sell.

"The bigger you are, the more you're affected by the market. If you're small, you make your own success," Tim Hely Hutchinson, CEO of UK Hachette Livre UK is quoted as saying.

Big publishers have to spread there risks across the whole spectrum of the market. Ironically, in that process they avoid risks and stick to safe territory, publishing books on tried and tested subjects and authors. While independents can almost live, if not on fresh air and sunshine, on very low profits while they wait for one big-one to lift them out, large players need to be constantly on their toes, seeking to maximise profits not only for shareholders' returns but also to pay massive staff costs and other overheads. Not surprisingly, independents also have more fun.

Atlantic Books managing director Toby Mundy says: "It irritates (the big publishers) that most of the best publishing people are outside the conglomerate sector ..."

So are the more interesting books published by independents? Every year during the Booker silly season, commentators will take pains to point out the number of independents on the shortlist. Perhaps, there will come a time when we will be more surprised when major publishers get on the list.

Does it make a difference to the book buyer? The answer to this type of questions is always an irritating 'yes and no'. If, as a normal book buyer, I am looking for a particular author, or title, the answer is no. I would not care who the publisher is -- though the quality of production, cover design and price could decide which imprint I choose. Most book buyers will fall into this category. This is the 'sugared water' end of the industry which the big boys operate in. (And many independents, too.)

However, if as a book lover, I want to try something new, I would allow an imprint to influence me somewhat (unless something comes highly recommended.) These are some of my personal prejudices and knee-jerk reactions (possibly misinformed): Faber: hmmm ... I wonder what this is like ... sounds interesting. I will risk it. Ditto Cannongate, Harvill, Serpent’s Tail, Saki Books, and several others. Vintage and Picador ... mmm ... maybe. Harper Collins: rice and sugar merchants, not worth the bother unless it is for a specific author I am looking for. Penguin: good for classics, otherwise 'boring'. And so on. So, as a book lover, imprints do make a difference, though quite small.

How about as a bookstore owner? As a book buyer for Silverfish Books, all the prejudices above do apply. My buying is about 70% based on imprints and 30% on authors and titles. (For those who are not familiar with us, we don't stock best-sellers, self-help and management. So there.)

I have often wondered how much an author thinks of which imprint he (or she) would like to be published by. But I suspect that these are merely short-lived fantasies. I mean you might think how wonderful it would be to be published by Faber (for example). But reality has a way of putting an end to those type of dreams pretty quickly for most new writers. (The established authors, naturally, will have more choices.) You grab the one that makes you the best (or any) offer although, logically, an independent publisher specialising in a specific genre would be your best bet, for not only will they know how to present and develop you, they will give you a longer shelf life. The big boys will give you three months, if that, and if you don't make it in that period, you die. You're remaindered.

(I do not mention any of the Malaysian imprints for obvious reasons: self-preservation.)

Publisher's Weekly