Playing the editorial joker

Modern-day trade publishing in large houses is a game of numbers, employed in the service of reducing risk. In the world of the Big Five, acquisition meetings can be characterised as boardroom affairs, where data, market analysis and profit projections hold sway. They are gladiatorial events in which editors pitch book proposals to sceptical investors in the sales, marketing, PR and rights teams, overseen by publishers as referees. A consensus is reached that homogenises decisions to publish books that provide incremental insights to concepts that have already sold well in the marketplace.

The acquisitions process agrees with Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four when he says, "The best books… are those that tell you what you know already". With technology at stakeholders’ fingerprint – and trends only a Google search away – predictions for future book sales are made on what happened in the past regarding comparable titles. Participants in acquisitions meetings are playing Moneyball: decision-making is reduced to making predictions by algorithm. As the Party slogan in Nineteen Eighty-Four states: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past".

However, in the ever-evolving landscape of the book trade, major literary prizes often find their way into the hands of small, independent publishing houses. Their triumphs, underscored by their ability to unearth literary gems that resonate with readers and critics alike, raise pertinent questions about the state of acquisition at the Big Five publishing giants. How can these industry behemoths, with vast resources and immense reach, compete in a game where the underdogs seem to have the upper hand?

The disparity in major literary prize wins between independent and large corporate publishers is striking. Companies – like Oneword, Fitzcarraldo Editions and Sort Of Books – have consistently made waves in recent years, clinching prestigious accolades. What is it that enables these David-sized publishers to take down Goliath?

Imaginative a scenario where each commissioning editor at a large publishing house would have an annual opportunity to play a trump card

One factor that sets small houses apart is their editorial freedom. They are often driven by passion and a genuine belief in the literary merit of their acquisitions. The editorial autonomy that fuels independent publishers allows them to take risks on books that may not conform to mainstream market trends but possess unique voices and narratives that resonate deeply with readers. Acquisition meetings tend to be conducted in a more intimate and collaborative fashion where passion and intuition shine: a book’s potential is gauged not solely by sales projections, but by its ability to captivate hearts and minds. Independent publishers are more inclined to take chances on outlier books, the ones that defy conventional wisdom but possess an intangible quality that makes them stand out.

So, what can large corporate publishing houses do to level the playing field and compete for those elusive major literary prizes? Here’s my suggestion: introduce a game-changing rule —the editorial "Joker".

Imagine a scenario where each commissioning editor at a large publishing house would have an annual opportunity to play a trump card, the "Joker" which would override objections raised by their sales-led colleagues. Imagine the editor stepping into the role of a start-up entrepreneur, passionately pitching their chosen manuscript or book proposal to a panel of potential investors akin to an in-house version of "Dragons’ Den". This bold move would infuse a much-needed entrepreneurial spirit into the acquisition process.

The books acquired through the "Joker" system would be subject to rigorous scrutiny, measured against key performance indicators (KPIs), and assessed according to the Moneyball model. If a "Joker" book at least breaks even, its champion editor is awarded a bonus trump card to be used at subsequent acquisition meetings. This incentivises risk-taking and rewards editors who have the conviction to champion books they believe in, even when faced with objections from colleagues who prioritise projected sales figures. The "Joker" rule would not only inject fresh energy into the acquisition process, but also address the fundamental challenge faced by large publishing houses – how to harness the potential of undiscovered literary gems that might otherwise be overlooked in the quest to reduce commercial risk.

By empowering acquiring editors to champion unconventional and potentially ground-breaking works, the "Joker" system acknowledges the importance of intuition and passion in publishing. It also recognises that major literary prizes often gravitate towards works that challenge the status quo, stimulate a love for the art of storytelling, and spark important conversations that redefine literary landscapes. It’s time to tweak the rules of the acquisition game in larges houses, giving talented authors and their unique voices the platform they deserve while maintaining profitability. Only then can big publishing truly compete for the literary laurels that have eluded them recently. Sometimes, it makes perfect publishing sense for the "clocks to strike thirteen".