February 20, 2012
Derek White on Art, Economics, and ARK CODEX ±0
A worthwhile Monkeybicycle interview with Derek White re: Calamari Press’s ARK CODEX ±0.
DW: Obviously I didn’t start a small press to make money, i don’t think anybody in their right mind would, so I’m just happy to have more readers, that’s what’s important in the end. But yes, it is disheartening, it is disheartening that in the past 10 years people have expected to get art—music, movies & books—for free, & they don’t consider the implications of what the lack of support will do to the quality of art. I think the quality of music has suffered as a consequence—only big commercial acts are able to “make a living” at it. But there is no sense lamenting, it’s just what has become of the world in this digital age, it’s nothing anyone can change. Whether i put out more “pay what you want” dbooks, i can’t say—it depends on the author. As a publisher, it is my responsibility to sell as many books as I can (and also try to at least recoup my costs) & by giving away the dbook, you are essentially shooting yourself in the foot as those people are not so likely to turn around & buy the “real” book. But a dbook can certainly be a lot more affordable.
Note that as of the moment of the interview with Derek, over 6500 people had downloaded ARK CODEX ±0 via the “pay what you want” scheme — and none had donated a cent.
comments
Leave a Reply
Wait, no one had paid!
Nope. Not for the download. Not as of the interview. I assume people have been ordering the print copy. But 6500 is an awful lot of people/readers, and 6500 people/readers didn’t contribute a cent or a dollar or two.
I think that shows something about the value of being established economically before employing the pay what you want tactic. It seems to work really well for those who have an established fan base. Otherwise, not so much.
By established fan base, I mean on the Radiohead/Louis C.K. scale.
Yep. The established fan base for Radiohead is, like, big. For such publishers as Calamari Press, whose reputation is greater than their income . . .
We live in interesting times.
Hey, thanks for posting Sheila. Yeah, was an interesting experiment. A few people have donated since, and some have perhaps bought the book after previewing the PDF, so it’s not as grim as it sounds. From the book’s p.o.v. it’s a good thing, lots more people checking it out than would get a chance to view the book in a bookstore. I haven’t even seen the physical book yet.
It’s interesting though, with a band like Radiohead (i think i was reading the avg person “donated” $6), you might think people would be less inclined to donate, thinking that Radiohead doesn’t “need it” (being already financially successful), maybe justified because you bought other albums or saw them in concert. But for an unknown artist with no financial backing people are more reluctant.
For those interested in more economic details of running a small literary press, i recently divulged the harsh realities: http://5cense.com/12/economia_parole.htm
As i say in that post, you just have to think of “currency” in a different light for it to make any economic sense.
I’m mystified by the apparently prevalent thinking that prompts people to give more to those who’ve “made it” financially and less (or zero) to those who are clearly breaking even at best or, more likely, taking a loss. Something to do with a crude and emotional risk-to-return ratio that your average person constructs in his mind? “I know Radiohead, so I know they’re worth something, but I don’t know what this ARK CODEX ±0 noise is.” Someone who has written about the psychology of gambling might have something to say.
I like “the secret is not to expect anything. Or at least don’t expect anything financially, but rather think of the books themselves as a form of currency. We all die penniless, what really matters is what you leave behind to the world.” Hell, hardly anybody ready Shakespeare’s sonnets during his lifetime. Of course, he made a very good living off his plays, so he is not the best example, but you get my drift.
Well, in all fairness, Radiohead is really good. That counts for something.
Oh, yeah. Radiohead does count. Those guys deserve recompense.
I have a story coming out soon in a ‘little mag’, Chicago Quarterly Review. An old friend recently expressed interest in reading it and asked if I’d send him a copy of the story. Said friend has worked in bookstores for many years, buys many books, reads voraciously. But he seemed confused and a bit put off when I explained, no, I can’t send it to you. Not now; CQR has first rights to it. Why don’t you buy or order a copy of the new issue? (All of $8, I think.)
You’re right–many people don’t expect, even less want, to pay for creative work. We’ll pay oodles for endless schlock cable TV, maybe–maybe–an occasional movie in a theatre, a monthly couple bucks for Netflix or whatever. But for ‘stories, poems, essay’? Never mind the fact that most lit mags cost relatively little…
And, yes, the net, for all its populist glory, which I as much as anyone, delight in, has made this worse…
An idea I’ve had recently is to start asking local bookstores and libraries to carry, at least, the lit journals that are produced in their area. In the Chicago area, that means at this point, only four or five magazines. Why, when I stand at the mag rack in our local B & N, bending down to the floor to peer awkwardly at the lit mags (always shelved, right?, very high or very low), do I only see the old standbys, the Paris Reviews, Glimmer Trains, and such? Great mags, those, of course, but why not carry the ones produced by writers, presses, and printers right there, in that area?
So that’s one of my latest ideas, small that it is. Think it might well work with our library here (a good one)…
Good luck with your mag. Btw, Issue 14 of Chicago Quarterly Review will be available very soon, and is well worth a look.
Pamela Martin