ebook reader
Image via Wikimedia

Editor’s Note: The notion of the “editorial fallacy”, the misconception that all a publisher must focus on is producing high quality material, has popped up recently in several posts on The Scholarly Kitchen. I thought it worth revisiting Joe Esposito’s now classic 2010 post on the subject. Despite a few dated technological references (does the Nook feature heavily in anyone’s strategy these days?), it holds up quite well.

The editorial fallacy is the belief that all of a publisher’s strategic problems can be solved by pursuing and publishing the finest books and articles.

I first encountered the editorial fallacy when it was not entirely fallacious. This was some time ago, when the most striking thing in the business environment was the growth of the national book chains, at that time Walden and B. Dalton. How to publish successfully to these impersonal, financially driven entities?  “In publishing,” my colleague said, “the best book wins.”

That comment was not entirely fallacious at the time. While one could argue about what is meant by “the best book” (a question among scholarly publishers that is a matter of some importance), when the landscape for the distribution of publishing products is more or less stable and even showing some growth, having superior editorial products is the best strategy. Indeed, it may be the only successful strategy. Imagine a world where library budgets are growing, where bookshops stock books of intellectual merit, where the economy and demography provide a bit of a tailwind:  publish the best book in this environment and its sales are assured.   Excellent editorial work becomes a differentiator, since all journals and books have access to the same distribution channels. All things being equal, the best book wins.  The question is, what happens when all things are not equal?

The publishers of journals know that not all things are equal. There are significant advantages to those few publishers that can offer bundling (the “big deal”) and technology platforms. These are not editorial matters. As the pressure on library budgets increases, the market share of the larger journals publishers is likely to grow, as smaller publishers are more vulnerable to library budget-cutting. While editorial concerns are part of every budget-cutting exercise, the resilience of the larger publishers in the face of such cuts has little to do with editorial quality and much to do with market position. The independent publishers of distinguished journals can bemoan the fallen times, but they would do better to understand that their editorial strategy and their business strategy are not one and the same. Even strategies designed to work around libraries’ budgetary limitations play into the hands of the larger publishers as they have resources for business development (that is, personnel equipped to open up new markets) that smaller organizations can only dream of.

This situation is even starker in the book business, where I have put most of my attention the past year. What is a book anyway? A long-form text issued in print, which is then shipped to Baker & Taylor and ultimately finds its way onto the shelves of academic libraries? Or is a digital text intended to be read on the Amazon Kindle or Barnes & Noble Nook? Is it something a publisher makes available for the Apple iPad? If so, of the many ways (at least 4) to get a book onto the iPad, which one should a publisher choose? What about the surge in Android-based devices; should we work in that format, too? And what to do about Google Editions? Not having the right strategy for digital formats and the new online venues can mean that outstanding books may simply not come to the attention of discriminating readers. A purely editorial strategy is not enough to cut through the thicket of new ebook options.

A contributive and unanticipated factor to this problem is the emphasis on outsourcing. Outsourcing can be a good way to lower costs and get access to capabilities that a small publisher could not afford on its own (the management of a physical warehouse is perhaps the best example), but it comes with a hidden price:  what happens if the outsourced capability once again becomes strategically central in a changing business environment?

Many small publishers have chosen to outsource everything but their editorial departments, and if there is a better example of the editorial fallacy at work, I am not aware of it. Some of these very publishers are now frustrated by their outsourcing partners because the partners cannot or will not move quickly enough for certain new initiatives. Who is going to get them onto the iPad? Who is going to help them with the complex issues surrounding PCI compliance?

This is a disruptive period for the publishing industry. No one knows what the industry will look like in 5 years, though few doubt that it will be substantially diffferent from today. In a dynamic environment, scholarly publishers have to look beyond their editorial departments to secure a position with their readers. The challenge is immense, as no one in the world of scholarly communications wants to publish anything but the finest work available. How to broaden an organization’s range and outlook without downgrading the essential editorial function? The success of outstanding editorial programs depends on finding solutions to a growing number of non-editorial issues.

Joseph Esposito

Joseph Esposito

Joe Esposito is a management consultant for the publishing and digital services industries. Joe focuses on organizational strategy and new business development. He is active in both the for-profit and not-for-profit areas.


2 Thoughts on "Revisiting: The Editorial Fallacy"

One might guess that this fallacy even has relevance to open-access publishing where sales are not a concern. Some people may imagine that just posting a work online for free access will ensure that the best books or articles will gain maximum use and exposure. But I daresay marketing will continue to play an important role in OA publishing as well, since “discovery” remains an issue.

Like so much of Joe’s writings, perceptive and insightful. But I hasten to add a comment.
The “big players” CAN add supportive tools,etc., but that perhaps ignores that they are increasingly dependent on delivering “growth” to the investment communities. And all those supportive tools can often end up as marketing expenses, since no one goes down that route without the competition looking for a one-up. In the event, it can – and often does – erode margins,etc. In journals, 2-3% growth can be nothing more than price increases.
As the former CEO of 4 leading medical publishers, I look at developments these days and think many firms are driving towards a financial cliff. I see OA,etc. as stop-gaps, simply because the outlets for publication available to authors are increasing, and the ties to most of the established outlets are not what they used to be. One can come up with after-publication peer review as an example. That kind of approach led to the thalidomide disaster in drug testing,etc.It’s a creative response, and a dear friend is at the forefront of one such initiative, but I for one don’t think it serves the user community to the fullest extent.
In fine: the audience is not sold on the costs certain firms are charging for their publications. The nexus between “need” and “would like” will not, in my opinion, hold up forever. The “big deal” kind of package is turning off numerous user/purchaser constituencies.
Again, thanks to friend Joe for a stimulating essay.

Comments are closed.