I still haven’t figured out this trackbacking thing, so I’m posting here, in response to Tessa’s post.

It’s an interesting development, and an interesting dilemma. At first (like most lefty arts students, I imagine) I was horrified by the thought of companies nosing in on the sacred world of literature. And I guess your arguments do make it clearer how we got to this point. But I still don’t think I’m convinced that it’s an ok thing.

Publishing is not a big money business. Unless you’re J.K. or Bryce, you’re not going to make your millions being an author. And that’s not because evil publishers are taking the lion’s share of the profits. Once all the overheads (editing, proofreading, text design, typesetting, cover design, printing, etc, etc) have been covered, barely 10% of the price you pay for a book ends up back with the publisher. And that’s after GST. Given the stiff competition books are up against these days, and the unpredictable impact changing technology is having on the traditional cashflow of publishers, an already tight situation is getting tighter.

If the cash injected in the books were somehow able to underwrite the existence of children’s publishing, this would only be a good thing. Children’s books should still be made, and if that means sharing a little page space with a coke here and a Wii there, so be it. However, I do wonder how much influence the companies will have editorially. Is it so much of a leap to think that before long there will be publishing arms of McDonalds and CoverGirl? (Actually, it probably is a leap, partly because of the reasons given above – there’s no money in publishing!)

I guess my point is that if the involvement of commercial enterprises can be a factor in ensuring the publication of good-quality children’s literature, well, that seems fine. But if the industry can manage to limp along without the cash (and the potential strings attached), surely that’s better? Why should we care that advertisers are losing out on TV ad time? The TV networks have a nice little rort going on, and it’s unlikely the advertisers will withdraw their TV support altogether. I’m afraid my bleeding heart doesn’t extend to the likes of mega-corporations raking it in, regardless of the tricky path the money they pass on to TV stations makes to the doors of screenwriters…

I’m more than a few easter eggs into the day, and I’m having trouble getting the words in my head onto the screen, (there’s holes a-plenty in my argument) but for what it’s worth, that’s my two cents.

2 Responses to “This post was not sponsored by Cadbury…”

  1. tessatessa said

    Hi there, thanks for your feedback – I guess editorial influence is the big ethical issue…I was thinking further about this today after listening to an old song by Outkast “Hey Ya”. In the song they use the line “shake it like a polaroid picture”. Polaroid later used this song in some of their television advertising campaigns. While using popular songs to promote a product or company isn’t new, this one was particulary intersting becasue the song actually made direct refernce to the product. I wonder how long it will be (or perhaps its started already – maybe a PR guru at Polaroid actually wrote that song) before it goes the other way and major corps start paying artists to mention their products in their songs…Would love to get your thoughts on this! – Tess

  2. twoblueshoes said

    Funny you should bring that up… Check this out: http://twoblueshoes.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/look-what-theyve-done-to-my-song-ma/

    They didn’t write the song as such, but they gave it a right going over… And the results are woeful! It wasn’t exactly musical genius before, but oh lordy, it’s really bad now.

    e.

    PS – ‘Hey Ya’ is absolute pop gold. Love it! Especially the Polaroid bit. Andre 3000 is a genuis.

Leave a Reply