Book, journal, zine: Independent Bookselling in a Mainstream Economy ~ by Laurie Steed [05.03.2010]

My old boss used to often tell me that in bookselling, you don't need to read every book. Some books simply sell themselves.

Why (or indeed how) these books sell themselves is another matter altogether, and involves a combination of cover design, author endorsement, shelf placement and demographically-aligned advertising. For those publishers on a smaller budget, the selling of their product involves awareness, a consumer friendly format, and, dare I say it, a quality aesthetic...assuming the publisher has found an adequate distributor to ensure booksellers stock them in the first place.

Independent publishers face an uphill battle in an increasingly streamlined bookselling environment. In my last bookselling post, new releases had two months on the front table before being shelved with the rest of the backlist, or worse, being sent to the returns shelves. Throw in Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy, monthly new releases and film-tie ins (and increased discount on said new releases for bulk purchases), and you have a very small sales space for smaller publishers to work with.

Larger publishers realise that titles need a presence in the bookstore: they offer reading copies, posters, free giveaways and window displays. This is not to say that all these methods work, but they do eliminate the "who?" factor that sometimes accompanies independent releases.

Social networking sites, blogs and online previews can increase an independent title's visibility, but in truth what is needed is one-on-one engagement with buyers. Again, this a huge topic, but in handing over distribution to larger representatives such as United Book Distributors, Macmillan and Australian Book Group, independent publishers again risk being lost in a deluge of titles from each particular distributor.

I found the in-store reality of this situation a couple of weeks ago. Bob Franklin's Under Stones, published by Affirm Press, had arrived in what was a slightly smaller format than standard lit-size. I immediately put our two ordered copies on the front display table, but found it dwarfed by larger piles from the major publishers. Countless copies of Stieg were sold. No Bob. I wanted to put in the front window, but with only the two copies, doing so would have meant only one being available for purchase, and its subsequent removal from the front table.

This is not the fault of the publisher. The book's design is exquisite, and though it is smaller than traditional trade paperbacks, is close to standard size for lit-fiction and/or short story collections. As an interesting postscript, the same book is number #3 on the Readings chart this week, so it would be interesting to see how much in-store promotion and shelf-placement have helped increase book sales. I have no doubt that Franklin's in-store launch helped make his title a release worth noticing.

SPUNC titles, in general terms, face unique challenges. Some titles are journals, some books, and some are closer to zines. In all cases, these definitions provide both restrictions and expectations from the reader.

What then must we do? Is SPUNC better to have it's own specialist shelf (as in Readings Carlton), or to blend in, with each publication reaching it's allotted definition? Should journals be classified as such, should Affirm's long story shorts battlle head to head with Peter Goldsworthy, Andrea Levy and Ian McEwan in new release fiction? In short, how best do you sell a product that's very strength is in it's difference from standard releases?

A quick comment:

Journals such as Harvest and Stop, Drop and Roll combine quality design and literature. In terms of size, they fit better in a magazine/journal display than in standard bookshelves, but doing so means bookbuyers miss their presence each and every time they bypass that section of the shop. Other SPUNC journals also have to potential to expand their audience if their products are placed more firmly in the standard bookselling environment, but is that what independent publishers want? Is there some sense of solidarity in maintaining independent publishing's status as 'other'?

Leave a Comment