“The book publishing industry is going to be wiped off the face of the earth soon.”
Tech enthusiasts often make bold predictions. Amazon-Hachette Dispute – Publishers Weekly Sometimes, these forecasts hit the mark. Other times, they miss completely. The quote above falls into the latter category. It represents a specific moment of digital optimism and disruption fever.
In 2014, the literary world faced significant turmoil. Amazon, the retail giant, engaged in a fierce battle with major publishers. During this conflict, observers questioned the value of traditional institutions. Matthew Yglesias, a prominent journalist, penned this controversial statement. He argued that publishers offered little value to the modern world. In his view, the industry stood on the brink of total collapse.
However, history took a different path. The publishing industry did not vanish. Instead, it adapted. Today, we look back at why this prediction failed and what it teaches us about the resilience of books.
The Context of the Prediction
To understand the quote, we must look at the landscape of 2014. The Amazon Kindle had launched seven years prior. E-books were gaining massive market share. Many tech experts believed physical media would disappear entirely.
At that time, Amazon fought with Hachette, a major publishing house, over ebook pricing. Tensions ran high. Yglesias sided firmly with the disruptors. He suggested that publishers acted merely as unnecessary middlemen. According to his argument, they stood between authors and readers without adding substance.
He even went a step further. Yglesias questioned why the government protected these companies. He felt that antitrust authorities wasted time defending a dying business model. In his eyes, the extinction of publishers would benefit everyone. Authors would earn more. Readers would pay less. The “middleman” would simply fade away.
This perspective relied on a specific worldview. It assumed that distribution was the only challenge in publishing. Since the internet solved distribution, Yglesias reasoned that the rest of the industry served no purpose.
Why The Argument Missed the Mark
Critics immediately challenged this ruthless assessment. “The Nation” magazine published a direct rebuttal later that year. They highlighted a crucial flaw in the “death of publishing” narrative.
Publishers do more than print and ship books. They provide an ecosystem for creation. Complex literary works often require extensive support. Professional editors shape messy manuscripts into polished gems. Without this guidance, many classic books would never reach their full potential.
Furthermore, publishers manage financial risk. This function remains vital. Most books do not become bestsellers. In fact, many lose money. Publishers use the profits from hits to fund experimental or niche projects.
An author needs time to write. Publishers provide advances, which function as venture capital for creatives. If the industry vanished, authors would bear 100% of the financial risk. Only the wealthy could afford to write serious literature.
Therefore, the industry offers essential infrastructure. It nurtures talent and ensures quality control. Self-publishing platforms exist, but they have not replaced the curated role of traditional houses. The market demands both options, not the elimination of one.
Other Failed Prophecies of Doom
Yglesias was not alone in his skepticism. The early 2010s produced a flurry of dire warnings about print media. Tech leaders often overestimated the speed of adoption.
For example, Nicholas Negroponte founded the MIT Media Lab. In 2010, he made a startling claim. He told a conference audience that the physical book would die within five years. He didn’t just mean sales would drop. He predicted they would become obsolete.
Obviously, this did not happen. Five years came and went. Physical books remained on shelves. In fact, a strange trend emerged. E-book sales eventually plateaued. Meanwhile, print sales stabilized and even grew in certain genres.
Readers pushed back against the all-digital future. People enjoy the tactile experience of reading. They like the smell of paper and the weight of a hardcover. Additionally, we retain information differently when reading on paper versus screens. The physical object holds value beyond the text itself.
The Resilience of the Industry
William Deresiewicz explored these themes in his 2020 book, “The Death of the Artist.” He analyzed the struggle creators face in the digital age. He specifically cited Yglesias’s 2014 prediction as a prime example of tech hubris.
Deresiewicz noted that big tech companies often devalue the creative process. They view content as mere data. To an algorithm, a profound novel is just a file size. However, to a human reader, it represents a connection.
Publishers understand this human element. They market books as cultural artifacts, not just downloads. This understanding helped them survive the digital onslaught.
Moreover, the industry modernized its operations. They improved supply chains. They adopted digital marketing strategies. They embraced audiobooks, which became a massive growth area. Rather than dying, they diversified.
The Modern Publishing Landscape
Today, the landscape looks different than Yglesias imagined. Amazon still dominates retail, certainly. But the “Big Five” publishers still wield significant power.
They continue to act as gatekeepers, but in a positive sense. They curate the flood of content. In a world of infinite information, curation becomes valuable. Readers trust certain imprints to deliver quality.
Self-publishing has also flourished. It provides a pathway for authors who don’t fit the traditional mold. However, it has not wiped out the establishment. The two models coexist. Successful self-published authors often sign deals with traditional houses later. They seek the distribution muscle and editorial prestige that only a major publisher provides.
Consequently, the ecosystem expanded rather than collapsed. We have more books than ever before. We have more formats. We have more voices.
Conclusion
The prediction that the book publishing industry would disappear proved false. It underestimated the complexity of bringing a book to life. It also underestimated the affection readers feel for physical books.
Technology changes how we read. It changes how we buy books. But it has not eliminated the need for professional curation, editing, and risk management.
Matthew Yglesias and other commentators viewed the industry through a purely economic lens. They missed the cultural and artistic dimensions. Publishing is not just about moving units. It is about nurturing culture. As long as people value high-quality storytelling, the industry will find a way to survive. The “middleman” turned out to be an essential partner after all.