Read on Twitter
In the last few months, I've heard—way more often than usual—that agents will refuse to take on a new project by authors whose prior books haven't sold well. I see this as a weak form of rejection, an excuse really, but it's coming up so frequently, I'm starting to worry.
Are publishers in fact rejecting new projects, sight unseen, from established authors based on past sales ALONE? Or is this just a lazy way of dismissing projects that aren't that great in the first place? If it's the former, that appears a flawed position in 2020.
First, and most obviously, every book is different and has unique potential in the market. Maybe an author's backlist will indicate market potential for the future—it will depend on a lot of factors—but using it as THE criterion is reductive and simplistic.
We all know that publishers fail to offer marketing support for many books; it's not necessarily the fault of the author when a book doesn't sell. Sometimes the book is packaged poorly. The timing can be bad. A million reasons contribute to poor sales.
And besides, some books are never going to sell in large quantities simply because of who published them (e.g., a small press) or how they were positioned. Context is important and has to be considered alongside the numbers.
Let's say it is in fact the fault of the author that a book didn't perform well. Authors change, grow and improve. Their platforms are not static. If they've kept active in their field, if they've been engaging readers and learning, their sales potential increases.
Once upon a time, agents/publishers would say, "Oh, if the author's last book didn't sell, the chain bookstores won't order it sufficiently." Hmm, let's see, that was last relevant in...2010? Borders is gone. B&N isn't even taking coop money any more. Amazon is 50%+ sales!
I dearly hope this reason for rejection is in fact a lazy excuse, because it's very depressing (even for me, generally more numbers-focused than others) if publishers are this crude in their decision making or operating as if the same rulebook from 10-20 years ago still applies.
