On the basis of one anecdote about a corrupt publisher, it would be very
mistaken to assume that most of the many presses that now publish poetry are
paying their editors and staff exorbitant salaries. I think Tony's example
about Peter Jay's Anvil would give a very different and not unrepresentative
picture of most publishers who do it out of dedication and enthusiasm for
the art. As would his own: he explained that he was not having to pay
himself a salary, if I understood rightly, and therefore could manage
withoput an AC grant.
In the last few years Salt, Anvil and Enitharmon, and probably others,
have had to close which would indicate how unstable a business it is to
publish poetry.
I think you are also mistaken about the prevalence of print-on-demand. It
might be economical in the short term, but it's very inconvenient for the
buyer. Some publishers are adopting it as a way of avoiding storage costs,
and it may well become more extensive. Since I'm not at all sure about the
economics and the efficiency of this form of publishing, perhaps Tony could
explain?
Jamie
-----Original Message-----
From: David Lace
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 4:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Liverpool Poets
My understanding is that many poetry publishers use print on demand even if
they don’t sell on Amazon. It seems to be the accepted and economical method
now for many publishers—even established ones. Given this, why do they need
such excessive funding. Does it all go on salaries (or even wine cellars) I
wonder?
—————————Original message————————-
Jamie McKendrick wrote:
Amazon, which David mentions, may not be the answer, it may even have
contributed to this drop in revenue.
|