Is the Penguin-Random House merger actually good for authors?
Joining forces against e-books.
By Martha Gill Published 29 October 2012 13:28
Penguin and Random House announced today they will merge their publishing arms, creating the world's largest simultaneous quip, as everyone on twitter came up with the same line about "Random Penguins". Watching the mounting jokes was, in itself, rather like watching the haphazard flocking of some species of aquatic bird, each generated by chance, and yet, when gathered, identical.
The news may have stripped twitter of inspiration, but will it also lay waste to the literary landscape? The Guardian thinks so: “Authors such as E L James, Salman Rushdie, John le Carre, Pippa Middleton, and Jamie Oliver may become bedfellows. No wonder agents and authors are using words like "scary" and "sad" in reaction to the news.” writes Philip Jones
But this is only bad news for the snobbish – those who think that highbrow authors must be protected from the lowbrow, lest they get infected, and believe publishing houses the best location for such a quarantine.
Even if you do believe this (and most people don’t find it hard to spot a Will Self from a JK Rowling, even with the same symbol on the spine), it’s the smaller and cash-strapped publishing houses that are having increasingly to rely on selling “50 shades rip-offs and cookbooks” (according to one industry member) in order to make ends meet.
With larger franchises like the newly created Penguin Random House there is the breathing space to experiment with new authors, and, as Pearson CEO Marjorie Scardino said, “to share a large part of their costs, to invest more for their author and reader constituencies and to be more adventurous in trying new models."
While it is true that the merger means one fewer individual publisher to negotiate with, (argued by agents in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and BBC) it also creates one considerably wealthier, and therefore more adventurous publisher.
David Kuhn, a literary agent, told the New York Times “If there are 20 fewer imprints, then that means there are 20 fewer publishers with checkbooks willing to make bets on less-known entities”. But with publishers being squeezed by a shrinking industry, these sorts of bets, increasingly, are off.
The enemy is not the merged company, but the behemoths Amazon, Apple and Google that are driving the e-book business and edging publishers out. And as the music business showed last month, with the merging of Universal and EMI, industries that are not the tech industry must combine forces to avoid being subsumed.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















5 comments
The movie industry only makes a small percentage of its profit on theatrical releases. The vast majority is made through dvd/tv sell through. To my mind the likes of Amazon etc should be looked on as the publisher's version of dvd/tv.
There will always be people who prefer to have a physical book to read, much as some people prefer to see movies at the cinema - but e-books should be embraced by publishers as a means of selling more books. providing that copyright remains in place then I don't see the problem. Perhaps publishers just don't like paying authors a higher margin on e-books as negotiatied by the Authors Guild ?
I don't see any reason for this merger in order to 'take on the internet behamoths , as I don't see how they are edging publishers out.
What makes you think that a wealthier publisher will be a more adventurous publisher? Many small publishers have a much better track record for being adventurous. Sadly, one wealthier publisher is just as likely to lead to more emphasis on mainstream, money-making, celebrity-driven publications.
What makes you think that a wealthier publisher will be a more adventurous publisher? Many small publishers have a much better track record for being adventurous. Sadly, one wealthier publisher is just as likely to lead to more emphasis on mainstream, money-making, celebrity-driven publications.
Agreed.
What makes you think that a wealthier publisher will be a more adventurous publisher? Many small publishers have a much better track record for being adventurous. Sadly, one wealthier publisher is just as likely to lead to more emphasis on mainstream, money-making, celebrity-driven publications.