SPD, Author's Equity, and Distribution

#Slatepitch!

First, let me start by saying I’m going to make some points partially because I find, in the discourse around publishing that comes into my feeds, a uniformity of opinions, and I think it would be salutary to add some “but actually” arguments. Trigger warning: not your expected takes below? (Also, this is a post that is going to assume you are up on the latest controversies in publishing. If you are not, I suggest—as always—you get a subscription to The Hot Sheet, where Jane will always start from the beginning and walk you through.)

First, let me tackle why I’m not torn up about abrupt closure of SPD.

• This was the least surprising news. The writing has been on the wall for a long, long time. If presses they distributed were shocked, they either had not done their research or felt they had any other choice (not a wrong feeling!) No one should have been shocked.
  

• SPD was not necessarily a friend to small presses in that they have long been known to have had terrible working conditions and their financial instability that have been well-publicized for years now. But more importantly they took a usurious cut of sales. That meant their clients were unlikely to survive based on sales alone, what they were paying SPD to do for them.
  

• There are precious few options for conventional, printed books distribution in the U.S. SPD had the lowest barrier to entry. Too many of the options are all owned by the same conglomerate (Ingram). This is a big huge problem that is not solvable with any quick fixes or other nascent replacements.
  

• While conventional distribution is basically fucked, there are incredible, unforeseen developments in publishing that make them also unnecessary. Why has self-publishing done so well? The lack of conventional distribution. Sell directly. Shopify plans are cheap (Belt has been happy w/Shopify for years). You can list your books on Amazon easily. IngramSpark and KDP eliminate the need for middlemen.¹
  

• That the SPD-world tends to cling to a nostalgic model of offset printing and precious print runs is fine, but this model is only possible because of non-profit grants and, importantly, universities (within which reside creative writing departments) which are also non-profits. There are many people who work in those universities whose jobs indirectly incentivize (ugh sorry ugly word) perpetuating small press books and magazines read by very few, that have no viable or sustainable business model, and have not updated their operating systems (offset printing, conventional distribution) since the first Apple laptop was sold at campus tech stores in the ‘80s. The academic world that is involved with small press publishing should take a hard look at its possible complicity and use the enormous resources at its disposal to work on developing new & sustainable models. (Outrage culture over “loss of great literature!” without an NPR-type disclosure really bugs me. There are systems at play here, and few are outside of it.)

• Maybe a small point right now but also: distribution is so, so, so very very very environmentally wasteful. Trucks going to and fro, moving tiny cartons of books. (Way back in 2019 I tried to count how many miles a book traveled from printer to distributor to other distributor warehouse to bookstore to customer).

• There are lots of convos about starting or supporting the few distribution options for small presses now, but I think we should have another conversation as well: fund printers and printing. I looked into this two years ago (and wrote about what I found here). It is eminently doable to buy or lease a Xerox or similar machine that prints perfect bound books and use it to do short runs and galley printings. One of these machines could print books for a lot of SPD clients, I expect. I kinda wish I had tried harder to raise the funds for one back then. I even took a meeting with a guy from Xerox! And had some convos with the folks at CMLP! If there is money anywhere in the publishing ecosystem, it might be in printing (or sprayed edges!). And if there is power to be had in publishing—well, the means of production and all that. Fuck superstructure: focus on structure.²

Remember, I’m being rhetorical here. In Belt’s early days our distributor, Partners, went under, and we would have too, as a direct result, if not for financial help from an individual who got us over the hump. I am happy to help any SPD client who doesn’t know what or where to go now. What happened to you sucks, and it’s going to be hard to know what to do next.

Now let me move to an opposite but actually aligned topic of recent conversation: Author’s Equity.

• It’s smart. It is very much what I’ve been arguing more authors should do in these newsletters. Advance are ruinous on so many levels: anything that shifts the same money from years before there are sales to afterwards, based on actual sales, is simply smarter and further away from what the kids like to call late capitalist logic.
  

• It will work for experienced, well-connected, well-selling authors who know how to market. Period. That is who it is for, and who it was created to serve. It is not trying to revolutionize anything, or help the common man.
  

• I disagree on almost every point made in this piece. I was happily self-employed as a publisher for the past decade. I was able to leave my benefits-bearing job when the ACA passed—isn’t this part of what we were fighting for?! All of Belt’s staff have always been independent contractors. It is a choice many people make for good reasons. Also: staff editors who are salaried and with benefits at other publishing houses absolutely have to consider potential sales all the time.
  

• The only part of the Author’s Equity model that stings me is that they are being distributed by Simon & Schuster from the jump. This is only possible because they have deep connections (I think you need at least $5 million in annual revenue for S&S to consider taking your call re: distribution, and I’m probably way low there). That is where the true privilege lies.
  

• If I were to start a similar press (which is some ways I already did? I mean Belt and Author’s Equity basically are the same, re: low advances, higher royalties, and independent contractors who work closely with authors) I would never ever be able to get S&S distro. That sucks. The distribution landscape sucks.

And that, folks, is what links these two publishing scandals. Distribution is a mess; distribution is also unnecessary. You don’t need it to to get your book to consumers: anyone can list a book on the largest bookstore ever in the history of the world. You don’t need it if your readers are okay reading digitally (which they probably do for every other thing they read). You don’t need it to house printed books because of POD and digital short-runs.

I really really really hope we don’t reinvent small presses from the ashes of SPD. I think that would be to preserve a 20th century model and would not do a service to writers and publishing going forward. Look around and come up with new models. It’s fun! It’s very creative! (writing!) It’s even “oppositional”. You could still do weird quirky books that few will ever read or buy and have fun with your friends. And if you have a lot of money sitting around, go beyond buying a digital printer and fund a POD alternative to LSI and KDP. You will make a lot of money if you do that. And if you do it ethically and responsibly, you might just make people’s lives, and American writing, better.

---

Book proposal course is filling up! Get the deets here.

1. Absolutely terrible that the viable options are also monopolistic conglomerates, yes, I absolutely agree. Fund printers!

2. Yup, the paper situation is also a mess. I know! Mills have closed; mills have shifted to cardboard. I have old newsletters on this, too, lol