Two months ago, I asked a question of the Emerging Church conversation: Are we writing the things we’re writing because we want to sell books, or are we writing the things we’re writing because we want to change the world? And if our bottom line really isn’t book revenues, then why not make copies of some of them available for free, online?
My thanks and respect go out to Carol Howard Merritt, the lone emergent author who, though not completely on board with the idea, at least engaged in the conversation. Emergent Village’s Coordinator, Tony Jones, was asked about his response to the article in an interview, and had this to say:
I’ve read that post, and there are some really good points therein. There are also some naive misconceptions about the publishing industry … In the early days, many of us were committed to publishing everything for free on the Internet. But, at this point, that is just not feasible.
Apparently, however, no one sent that feasibility memo to one of the publishing industry’s oldest and most respected names: Harper Collins. Here’s what the tech-news blog Mashable has to say about it:
HarperCollins will be offering free electronic editions of some its books on its website. In an effort to increase book sales, HarperCollins is adopting a web-based “try before you buy” approach to book promotion, both for online and on the iPhone.
If a profit-driven company can see the wisdom in doing this for good business practice, how much greater would it be for those of us in God’s Kingdom to do it for the sake of spreading the message, the ideas, and the stories that are at the heart of our mission?
And if award-winning author Neil Gaiman can let his fans vote on which of his best-selling novels to put online for free, shouldn’t Tony Jones (or Brian McLaren, or Doug Pagitt) at least be open to considering the idea, rather than dismissing it as naive and infeasible? Surely at least one of Emergent’s three different publishing partners is forward thinking and/or courageous enough to give it a shot?
I had seriously hoped that Emergent, as innovators crying out that “Everything Must Change” could have led the industry on this one and set a bold, generous, example for the secular world. Now my hope is that we can at least not be the last ones to change, as so often happens in the church.
Ah, well. At least Harper-Collins was founded by a Presbyterian. He must’ve had naive misconceptions about the publishing industry…
About Neal Locke
I just noticed that Zondervan is one of Harper-Collins’ imprints, for Pete’s Sake!! And Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life” is one of their free online books! C’mon, people — are we still thinking that this is a “radical, crazy, bad idea”???
I think that the questions come up because the operationalization of “ambiguity” and “postmodern” create problems in defining what a movement or group actually does. If we look at a group like the French Situationists out of which so many postmodern thinking came, it was very clear what their mission was and what they intended to do in the face of media and capitalism. It is not clear what Emergent means when people talk about “being postmodern” or our “postmodern” culture. The movement has far more intellectual weight than evangelicals who are just trying to “be relevant” which is severely problematic on many angles. But for the outsider, the constitution of Emergent is hard to get. It is even for me – someone who has read and written on a lot of different kinds of postmodernism.
I think it comes back to my problem with postmodernism in general – it is no constructive. I think that critical theory offers that corrective since it can be pragmatic. And I think that outsiders see a lot of writing, thinking, and talking and not a lot of help on the pragmatic ends of what we ought to do in our traditionally based congregations that are already there. It is great if it works from the ground up in new church plants since you can build that under any organizational means. But for churches that are already there with numerous generations that have different organizational, social, psychological, pedagogical, and spiritual needs it is a right slippery concept to get a hold of and rather unpragmatic.
Some of this might be because it is new and still under definition. But eschewing definition is not helpful when you have pragmatic business to do as a church leader. Now I am an academic administrator so my questions are always, what does it look like and how do we assess and know if it actually meets clearly stated outcomes. So I think that in general churches need to have clearly stated outcomes and practices to assess them other than the “what do you think”? questions that don’t really tell us much other than if people are “happy” with something. Happiness and development are not mutually exclusive. But I am not sure if Emergent makes this hole in churches only wider because of the stress I hear on ambiguity and postmodernism – however it is conceived…
its a good idea and one that i ascribe to. i have talked to zondervan about this and they said they would be quite open to it.
maybe its not the publishing companies but the authors?
keith green went for both – give it away and sell it – but he just wanted to get it out there, whether he made money or not.
but then he was not a presbyterian.
maybe its not the publishing companies but the authors?
I’m sure there’s a bit of truth to this, and I think Green’s exampleis one to follow.
Or perhaps the new “Radiohead business model” of “pay what you think it’s worth.
Keith Green was truly awesome that way. I think Shane Claiborne is in a similar mold, today.
You’re right, Andrew, that authors are part of the equation: It “takes two to tango,” and either side can (and often does) scuttle the concept. Zondervan, of course, is going to be open to it because Harper-Collins is their parent company.
I think even Radiohead’s model would be an improvement — from a Kingdom & Social Justice standpoint, it would allow people of varying income levels to pay what they can afford. From a financial standpoint, Radiohead seems pretty pleased with their results. Of course, they cut out the publisher (and associated costs) entirely, recouping some of that money.
The publishing industry (like the music industry) is headed for some very drastic changes in the next few decades, but today I’d just be happy to see more Emergent books freely available in digital format online. I know several young people who might actually start reading them that way, who would never be caught dead in the Christian section of their local bookstore (let alone an *actual* Christian bookstore). Add to that the folks for whom $15.00 just isn’t in the budget for every Emergent book that comes out. They’re not lost sales, since they never would have made the purchase anyhow. But they’re certainly gained audience…
From a different point of view, I don’t think that authors should be criticized for selling their work. I’ve done some writing myself on a much, much smaller scale than the guys you are talking about. It doesn’t take hours, days, or even just weeks to write a book. It takes months of commitment and time – time that you would otherwise be doing some other kind of work to support yourself and your family. It is reasonable to expect income from that kind of work. If they were in a marketing frenzy that was making them millionaires . . . well, that’s a different story.
I do think that at least some of these leaders in the movement try to make their materials as accessible as possible. I attended the Everything Must Change tour in Charlotte and it was the least expensive conference I’ve been to in 11 years in mininstry. A huge selection of books by various authors was available at the conference at a discount. I’m willing to bet that if I had gone up to Brian and said, “I am really interested in such-and-such book of yours, but I really can’t afford it,” he would have given me a copy right then and there, no questions asked. That’s just the kind of guy he seems to be. (Can’t speak for the others. Haven’t met them yet.)
And Rick Warren’s book may be free now, but I’d love to see how much it netted in just it’s first year out when it wasn’t free! And Purchase Driven everything was quite the merchandising frenzy for a long time!
Yes, we need to get the word out. Yes, materials need to be as accessible as possible. But really, let’s be fair to those who are dedicating their lives to writing/compiling these materials for us.
Totally agree. Obviously your idea is a very uphill battle, but I am one who can’t afford to go out and get the new cd and the new book and then find the time to listen and read to all that new stuff. I would certainly take the time to read emergent books if they were available for free. I don’t think we are too far from this change because for now, people would rather have a paper book, not a computer book. But the electronic book is something that is feasible now and not just an idea. All it takes is one big success and then every author can’t dismiss it but must consider it.
Jan — I can’t say this enough, obviously, but I’ll say it again: No one here is criticizing authors for selling their works.
I’m just asking them to do what you’ve said Brian McLaren seems like he might already be perfectly willing to do: give to those who otherwise wouldn’t buy. And when you give a digital copy, there is no “cost” of printing, so you lose nothing you would have otherwise had.
If you are worried about authors making a living (which is a good thing to be worried about, and I strongly believe our word-artists should have a respected, sustainable place in our community), it’s been shown in many different mediums (including book publishing) that giving away online copies actually *increases* sales for tangible ones. If this weren’t the case, would HarperCollins and Zondervan really be doing it? I mean, their stated purpose in providing free online copies is to “increase book sales.” Smart, progressive authors (and I really believe that our Emergent authors are among the smartest, most progressive) should jump at the chance to do something like this, where they have the potential to both increase their books sales (and hence, their income) while simultaneously modeling the values of generosity and sharing (that we talk a lot about) to the world?
It’s an easy choice. But change is hard, because it’s not what we’re used to.
Good for you, Neal. Way to keep the conversation going.
Right now, I’m on the verge of moving from Internet-based writing (my blog) to print-based (starting my second book). I wish I could do both, but I have a mere two hours in the day to write, and I have to be pretty judicious about how I spend it. So, I’ll probably post less often.
This is why I’m doing it. For now, I’ll take the economics out of it and focus on the other reasons.
The first has to do with getting the word out. My book has simply reached more people than my blog. My blog hits vary greatly. Most days I have 400 to 500 hits. On a really big day, I’ll have 1000. But, that doesn’t really compare that with the number of book sales. We were getting ready for the second printing after a couple of months.
The second reason is because I can develop more complex thought in a book. In the comments of your last post, Tim Keller said:
I reject that notion. Completely. In fact, I’m offended by it. But I will say that the writer has the ability and space to move and play around a bit in the printed word. Internet readers (at least my blog readers) do tend to like shorter posts. Actually, I do too. (But, Mr. Keller, believe me, that doesn’t mean I can’t read a book. It’s just a different sort of medium.)
The third reason is because I’m committed to intergenerational ministry, and I can reach broader demographic in print.
But, of course, I understand that you’re talking about print and on-line. Working together. Which is pretty much what I’ve done and will continue to do. But there is one other example that nags me…you’ve rightly pointed out huge successes (i.e., Radiohead), but what about RLP?
Neal, thanks for clearing that up. I guess I was misled by your statement, “Are we writing the things we’re writing because we want to sell books, or are we writing the things we’re writing because we want to change the world?” On first reading, that sounded like the two were mutually exclusive, which colored my reading of the rest of the post.
Thanks for bringing up Real Live Preacher, Carol. As he says in the post, it’s turned out to be a good thing for him (and he’ll probably make more money from the sales of his “remainder” than he would have if the publisher had continued to take its cut).
Also, thanks for drawing a critical distinction here: Blogs vs. Books. They are indeed entirely different mediums, with different styles, different formats, and different (but overlapping) audiences.
RLP was kind of an interesting case, in that his book was a blog trying to be something it wasn’t: a book. As you pointed out, books allow a writer to develop more complex thought at a different pace. Still, I think RLP also benefited somewhat from the inter-generational effect you mentioned, reaching those who might never have read his blog. He’s actually kind of the reverse of what I’m hoping Emergent writers can target: the wired young person who would never walk into a Christian bookstore.
To be honest, as with anything else, there will be both huge successes and huge failures in the new publishing paradigms to come. Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) is another person who was disappointed with the results of his “pay what you want” experiment. Personally, I think it’s because the product just wasn’t that good. By comparison, in a “free online copy” book market, bad books will still be bad books. They just won’t be quite as able to hide behind attractive cover art.
And I look forward to your new book, Carol — keep up the good “together” work.
Sorry Jan — I can see now how it sounded that way. I was going for the whole post-modern BOTH/AND thing instead of the typical modern EITHER/OR model. Although I did use the word “or” didn’t I? I guess if there is something that’s mutually exclusive, it would be the primary rationale for what we do. Not to say that a secondary one can’t be complementary, but only one can be the “big one?” If we aren’t writing because we want to change the world, then perhaps we should just write harlequin romance novels. But if we can write to change the world, share our gift generously, and make a decent living at the same time, I have absolutely no objection to that. In fact, I’d love to do it myself (and I think it’s entirely possible).
There is another angle that hasn’t been considered here perhaps quite seriously enough– and that is what the publishers want. Simply put, there are publishers who simply will not allow texts they own the publication rights to to be distributed except in print. We can talk about the ethics of that or even whether that is a sensible business model at this point, but if that’s how the publisher handles things there aren’t any both/and options to be had with that publisher.
Perhaps that was also part of the realities of the publishing industry that Tony Jones was talking about.
I hear about good books that sounds interesting quite frequently. I may put a book on my Amazon wish list or send a Gmail to myself with the title, but 90% of the time the book passes in and out of my perception with no further action.
But, if I come across an interesting-sounding book and can immediately click somewhere to read it online, I will do so. And if that is done the chances of me buying it are much greater. I’m not going to read a whole book in electronic form, so books offered for free in digital form are never going to replace my purchase of a dead-tree book, but e-books will get me to purchase more paper books.
Taylor, you are most likely right. But my hope is that among Christian, emergent-friendly publishers there is at least a willingness to explore new ways of doing business. If not, perhaps an organization that is calling for “everything to change” needs to find publishers willing to take that call seriously. Obviously (see Harper-Collins and Zondervan above), they are out there.
If that was indeed part of the “realities of the publishing industry that Tony Jones was talking about” then I would remind us all that at the inception of Emergent, that’s most likely what we heard from the institutional church: “This is the way we’ve always done it, and this is the only way we’re ever gonna do it.” Emergent formed because a group of people said, “Wait a minute…is there another way?”
My prayer is that Emergent has not become so institutional in its thinking that it dismisses out of hand anything that goes against convention. And if I really, really thought that it had, I wouldn’t be writing this, would I?
What doesn’t seem to be surfacing here is substantive discussion of the relative strengths of these different forms of media.
Neal has pointed out…and I think most folks here agree…that it’s not an Either/Or dynamic. It would seem more constructive to frame the question in terms of how to most effectively integrate the strengths of new media into the life and growth of the church, understanding that this could have significant impacts on the broader structure and life of the church. From a historical perspective, I see a real possibility that the more discursive, decentralized and collaborative dynamics that are possible utilizing new media could have a similar impact to other revolutionary changes in the..cough.. “way we do church.”
Without Gutenberg, there would have been no Reformation.
David — I agree wholeheartedly. I think you’re looking at the big picture (an excellent thing to do) while I’m zooming in on one little application of that picture that I think could really help the emerging church conversation especially.
And just as Gutenberg preceded the Reformation, digital publishing of all varieties: ebooks, blogs, even email, will change the face of the church once more. And I’m excited about that.
Several of us from around the blogsphere are reading “Everything Must Change” together and discussing our thoughts. We’ve just begun, but we’ve set it up in a way where it’s never to late to participate.
If you have any interest, you can visit us at:
http://readingforchange.wordpress.com
Thanks, Shane — I hope in your discussions about how “Everything Must Change,” you’ll take some time to talk about changes to the publishing industry and how we, as Christians, should interact with the marketplace on this one.
amidst the desire for every blogger to increase their hits and their celebrity, i think you make a great point. an even better one might be to write anonymously so that it is clear you are writing for the glory of god and to focus eyes on god, rather than for your glory and to focus eyes on you.
Anonymity breeds irresponsibility. Humility does not mean you receive no attention. There will be folks that write for fame. Let God sort it out.
Are any of us utterly absent of pride and desire?
Neal-I pray that this is only the beginning. I also hope that in 50 years the stuff we do now is shit all over by a new generation and I am seen as out of touch. Then I will know it is time to pass the torch.
If we’re truly emergent. If we’re truly missional. Then, aren’t we by our very nature more concerned about Kingdom than World? Why is this even an issue. PDF the books and make them available. Period. What’s the worst that could happen? We all dry up financially, and a few people’s worlds might be radically transformed for God?
Need I remind us all of Matthew 19:24?
Dan — I can agree with your sentiment, but not your solution. I think that printed, purchased books need to co-exist with free digital ones, at least while the publishing industry is in transition. Spreading the Kingdom of God should definitely be first priority, but where authors making a fair wage for their labor is not actively in conflict with this, we should be in support of our thought-and-word artists.
There is, however, quickly coming a day when the old model of publishing will no longer be able to financially sustain itself or its wordsmiths. For this reason, I hope and pray that we, as “Emerging Christians” can be on the forefront of exploring new ways to share our message and compensate our “literary missionaries.”
Neal:
I do wonder what a “fair wage” for labor is in our evolving media context.
I’d suggest that to be fulfilling a calling as a “teaching elder” to a generation raised in an age of electronic media, then we need to be active and public theologians. The question, I suppose, is how thems of us who are Ministers of Word and Sacrament see our forays into the blogosphere. Are they an opportunity for personal discursive journaling? Or are they a way to extend the reach of our proclamation of the Word?
It’s both, of course, but where it’s the latter, I’d think that the fair wage for that labor comes from my congregation.