Audio By Vocalize
Technology should help publishers make better decisions, not make those decisions for them. [iStockphoto]
One of the most common accusations against legacy publishers, especially where creative works are concerned, is that they prefer working with established writers at the expense of new talent.
The common rebuttal by publishers has, over the years, been that as business enterprises, everything they do must generate returns for the shareholder. So publishers cannot ignore a writer whose works have proven themselves and acquitted themselves well in the market, much as they honour the near sacred duty of discovering and nurturing new talent.
Perhaps the deeper, often unasked question is this: could there be a gem among the untapped talent that could possibly do better in the market than even the so-called established writers? Weren't these established writers themselves, at some point, untapped talent that someone believed in strongly enough to vouch for their works? And given that most established writers are older people, where does prioritising the old guard leave the quest for literary continuity and even business continuity?
