Among equals

Traditionally, there were three key players to take publishing decisions: the editor, the accountant and the marketing head. The editor made the presentation in terms of language, style and relevance of the subject matter; the accountant, together with the production department, estimated the costs of production; and marketing decided whether they could sell the edition in 12 months, and its price, with suggestions for design and cover. It was always a joint decision, with the editor as the first among equals.

This is no longer true: the editor has been marginalized as the third player, with marketing and accounts calling the shots. This conflict does not show in the day-to-day workings, but the editor knows that whatever proposals are put up, he needs the approval of marketing and accounts to get them passed. The editor’s role these days has been reduced to either commissioning (or soliciting) works (with the tacit approval of marketing) or to the relatively simple task of fact-checking and making the ‘copy’ user-friendly by removing inconsistencies — English or American spellings, standardization of dates and other minutiae.

What has brought about this erosion of the editor’s role? Can he regain his former status in the publishing hierarchy? Above all, is it a good thing for editors, who are the only persons in a publishing house who know the work, warts and all, to be sidelined?

There is a simple reason why marketing and accounts have taken over: publishing is a business and like all businesses, it has its priorities — returns and margins of profit. The earlier notion that publishers should seek to improve public taste or disseminate knowledge at all levels has become antiquated. It is a far better idea for books to become a subdivision of the entertainment industry.

Editors are not blameless, though. They have shirked their responsibility by ignoring the needs of the market and looking at the business of publishing through the narrow prism of academics. Above all, they have ignored the importance of investments and returns. They have to keep their noses close to the ground, and stop living in imaginary worlds. Like salesmen, they have to walk the streets to know the ground realities; and, like accountants, they must accept that without a regular flow of money, no business can carry on for long.

To get back their former position of decision-makers, it is important that editors get a hang of two functions: first, simple costing, or how much it would cost to produce, say, 1000 copies or more of a manuscript; second, he must work in tandem with the marketing department and monitor sales on a monthly basis. Else, editors would lose ground further. And that would be sad, because editors are the guardians of the temple at a time when standards are dropping by the hour.