This is about the evolving laws of competition, tight marketing dollars, limited shelf space and a finite number of book buyers. This rule doesn’t only apply to the small indie presses, but the large houses are impacted as well. If an editor has the choice between two terrific manuscripts where one author has a great platform and the other doesn’t, it’s not hard to figure out who will be chosen. I’m not here to defend the practice but to explain it.
There are more writers out there looking for a piece of the publishing pie, and this has forced the bar to raise a notch higher. Is this right? I doubt it because the best writing isn’t necessarily being published - it’s about making the sale. If publishers can sell more by showcasing an author with a great platform, they’d be insane not to do it. That's how we stay in business.
Maryn, I could read the pain in your post. My heart goes out to you because you’re not alone in these thoughts of defeat. Keep in mind that there are a number of ways to create a platform. It’s not always necessary to be on television. If your story is compelling enough to catch an editor’s attention and they love it enough to want to buy it, they’ll go to great lengths to discuss creating a platform. They’re trying to find a bridge between you and your book.
At the forefront of every publisher’s brain is, “How can I sell this book and the author?” If you’ve written articles for magazines that are germane to your book, or perhaps your job plays some role in how and why you wrote your book, this is helpful to creating a platform. The publisher is looking for any kind of link that makes you saleable. They may arrange for interviews on the radio or print media.
In short, please don’t give up because you think the current paradigm is against you. If you’ve written something brilliant, look a little deeper as to creating a bio that will capture the attention of an agent or publisher.
