Interview: Kristopher Young of Another Sky Press

Who are you serving with this model? Or more broadly, who do you think the audience is?
Well, I think the model — that is, the way we distribute our books, is definitely for everyone. In fact, that was a core goal of mine when developing Another Sky Press: to eliminate as many barriers between artist and audience as possible. One of the biggest barriers is almost invisible at times, because it’s so ingrained into our society: money. Books are a luxury, which is a point made all the more obvious by the current economy.

But even if the economy were booming, the fact would remain that some do not share in that wealth. Entry fees — be it the cost of a product, the price of a membership, or the number next to the entree on a menu — promote a level of exclusivity. Those who can afford, do, and those who can’t, do without. It’s how our society is structured, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it, and it certainly doesn’t mean I can’t work towards changing it. Libraries and free/donation art museums do exist, and I count them as inspiration.

Which brings us back to Another Sky Press. I confronted this issue on two fronts. First, the book itself. We make that available to anyone for the actual cost of production plus shipping plus optional contribution — in other words, for as cheap as possible without us footing the bill ourselves. For example, if a book cost us $1.50 to have printed and delivered to us, that’s what our “base” cost is to our customers. Add in shipping, and then an optional contribution — it’s effectively a sliding scale based on an individual’s own ethical compass and financial ability.

This, however, doesn’t solve the whole issue. Even a few bucks might be too much to ask of some, especially for a book they aren’t even sure they’ll like. So, from the very beginning we’ve put all of our books online for free in PDF format. Now, obviously, one needs access to a computer to read a PDF, but the point is that we make our content available wherever we can for as low cost as possible.

This wasn’t the only reason for putting up our books online. Doing so also helps alleviate another issue I have with current business practices — the industry of hype. We too often are expected to buy things blindly — we pay for a movie before we see it, for example. In these cases, we are actually buying the hype, for they have our money regardless of whether we like the content. In my opinion, this is a problem for many reasons, the most important of which is that we should not reward things we don’t like, rather let it die a Darwinistic death. The hype industry confuses that natural tendency, and terrible content can make a fortune. We should support what we love, what we think is beautiful, what moves us. This is our way of telling the creators that we appreciate them and want them to create more. When we buy into hype, we just get more hype. The content ceases to matter if you can make millions off of, say, the opening weekend box office. All those entertainment dollars are siphoned away from artists we actually love.

So, to mitigate this in the Another Sky Press model, we let people read our books for free before they decide to buy. If they have the inclination or means to do so, they can buy a paper copy or make a contribution. The contribution can now represent a sense of real value — the reader knows how much they enjoyed it, they know how much they can afford. It’s left entirely up to them. We’ve also had readers buy a copy at cost, and then come back weeks or months later (after they read the book, I suppose) to make a contribution. That’s beautiful. There is a very pragmatic reason for supporting something you love as well — doing so increases the likelihood of them producing more content. It lets them know someone out there enjoyed their work, it helps them pay the bills.

And finally, having our books online can only serve to promote them. We want people to read our books, even if for free. Read them, love them, tell your friends. While I think it’s important for an artist to be compensated for their time (we all need to eat), it’s even more important for an artist to have an audience in the first place. Build an audience, and food will follow, or something like that.

Our model is also for the artist. We don’t determine a books royalty structure, our authors do. They start with 100 percent of any profit made, and they divvy it up between others that worked on the project (editors, cover artists, etc) and the press itself. There is no minimum (if someone didn’t want to give the press anything, we’d still publish their book if we loved it, though that’s never happened) — there is a maximum, though — we insist that an author take at least 50 percent of all profit. That is, the author must take the lion’s share. It’s their book, after all. This is harder than it sounds — most authors we work with want to give out more than 50 percent to others and the press.

So, and here’s where I tie the knot of tangents together, in the end I think this model is for everyone. It’s for the artist, it’s for the audience. It’s as pure as I could make it — and by pure, I mean that, when presented with a choice or dilemma as to how to go about something, I chose the more idealistic one every time. For example, how much should the author get? Hmmm. Let them decide! It’s their book! We put our faith in our authors, we put our faith in our readers. It’s a non-exclusive, all empowering, purely positive idealistic beast of a model. And it works.

Now… the question begs one other point. Our books themselves are separate from the model. Many of our novels have an edge…grit-lit, if you will. No book is for everybody, and we have no interest in publishing romance novels or easy beach reads. Just as I want an audience to support what they love, we publish what we love and wouldn’t have it any other way.

And we do love the books we put out. It’s crucial that we do, for in order for our model to thrive, we actually have to have good books behind it, supporting it as a foundation. It’s also important that we love what we create; it’s an old fashioned concept, I know, but I still think how one feels when they hold their creation in their hands is important. Getting paid to do something one hates might pay the bills, but it’s still pretty brutal.

So to that end, I think some people will appreciate the novels we publish more than others. There is no way around that, though we hope we appeal to as many people as possible — we have a number of art books out as well, more on the way… and we’ve got some children’s books and other new projects in development as well.

Do authors ever balk at having their work distributed this way?
In regards to putting up a free PDF? I’m sure some do. But I suppose they simply don’t submit to us. Even though it’s becoming more popular, it’s still pretty fringe. And I can relate — I still remember the feeling I had when I first posted Click as a PDF… it was a pretty intense release — “there it goes, it’s free to all, I hope I’m right about people.”

But the fact is, everything that can be digitized is already free if you know where to look. Piracy is rampant. And yet, artists still make art. And some artists still make millions. Imagine that.

So, perhaps one way of looking at it is that we skip a few steps. Instead of waiting for someone to scan our novels and distribute them “illegally,” we do a high quality PDF, watermark it with our website, and let it out into the wild. Flow with technology, don’t fight it.

I think, with time, even those authors who balk will slowly change their minds, or the industry will change around them. Technology waits for no one. A musician, for example, can complain all they want about MP3s of their songs being widely available, but it’s pointless. Not to mention, they still collect their royalty check from all the people who checked them out for free on MP3, then bought the album, a t-shirt, and went to their show.

And here’s another point, as if I haven’t made enough already: in this day and age of media overload, should we really expect people to pay for every single thing they read, play, listen to, or experience? There simply isn’t enough money in anyone’s budget. So again, I say, let people read your books, listen to your music, view your art, for free. And those that love it will come back and support you. Better a kid spend his or her allowance on albums or books that he likes rather than those he doesn’t.

Now, I’m sure some also balk at the contribution system. It’s a completely different model than our culture currently uses for transactions. It puts faith in people at a time when it’s popular to have faith in nothing, when it’s common to have a distrust of humanity in general. But I think this too will change. I think technology dictates that things will change, and that it’s up for us to examine what we’ve got and make the best of it. And given all the tools at my disposal, and a healthy dose of idealism and optimism, this is what I came up with. As more authors, musicians, and artists continue to try their own experiments, the ideas we’re discussing here will become more commonplace. Common sense has to start somewhere.

Are any writers paying the bills with their income from publishing with you?
As in, sole source of income? Not yet, but that doesn’t mean the concept isn’t feasible. That said, I’m not sure anyone should be able to pay the bills with a single work of art. But, it’s quite possible.

Remember, the single hardest obstacle to overcome is obscurity. I point this out again simply because it’s important to remember we’re a small press, and even our best sellers are low sellers compared to any mainstream author you can name. But that can change, and has been changing, over time. Word of mouth is slow but powerful.

We’ve been lucky in that regard. Click, for example, has had some great press and has been part of numerous book clubs (perhaps most notably, it was the book club’s book of the month on Chuck Palahniuk’s official website, chuckpalahniuk.net).

Obscurity is a significant obstacle even if you have your first novel published by any of the large publishing firms. Our culture loves to glorify book deals and records deals, but the unfortunate truth is that most traditionally published books simply aren’t read, aren’t discussed, are remaindered and then promptly forgotten. The single best way to guarantee a book good sales is, sadly, to make it into a movie.

We hear about the huge deals that make some first time novelist instantly wealthy, but again, that’s a rarity. Anything you’ve heard about the travesty that is the royalty system in the recording industry today is just as true in the publishing industry. If you’re lucky enough to land a book deal, advances are generally quite low (and nowadays, often non-existent) for first time novelists. Most of those books don’t sell enough for the author to make any money past that initial advance. The author sees nothing for any books remaindered and sold on the bargain rack at the front of book stores. If the book fails to sell well, good luck getting another deal — and you’re likely going to have to pay back part that advance (ouch) if you got one.

Now, I don’t mean to be trashing “the way it is,” because I generally prefer to talk about “how it could be.” But I think it’s important to give people a gentle reminder that “traditional publishing” isn’t that great for most authors. It’s pretty terrible, actually, unless you manage to break through to the point of being famous. Now, it’s possible a traditional publisher can help make that happen, but there isn’t a magic pill for that — most authors, regardless of publisher, don’t sell well.

Now, getting back to the meat of the question — under our model, the artist gets at least 50 percent in royalties. This is far, far higher than any traditional publisher gives. Our average contribution is $5. We don’t give advances, but do have a low overhead. The potential for an author making a decent salary is there, even with sales significantly lower than one would need with a traditional publisher — as a rough estimate, you would only need one-fifth the sales to equal out due to the increase in royalties. A bona-fide best seller could easily make someone quite rich when they bring home over half the profit.

Have writers left because they were offered more traditional deals?
Not yet, though I have given the matter thought in case it ever comes up.
We would not stand in the way of an author making this sort of move, and our contracts don’t either. We don’t require any sort of compensation.
It’s also possible the “traditional” press may simply want to buy out our contract. Regardless of exactly how it went down, the key point is we wouldn’t stand in the way of an author who wanted to move on, period.

The same is true of any other type of secondary deal. For example, we don’t require any type of film rights. If an author of ours lands a movie deal, great! If they choose to pass along some of the riches, that would be great, since it would help us publish more books, but it’s not by any means a requirement.

All of that said, by the time one of our artists got to the point that their book was selling well enough for a traditional press to be interested, I’m not sure it would be in their best interest anymore. I’m of the opinion a best seller would make far more for the author our way.

How do you define success for Another Sky Press?
I already consider Another Sky Press to be successful. We could be more successful, sure, but it’s already proven to me that the model works, that people will contribute, that our books will be read. All of our books are profitable, some more than others. We still struggle with obscurity, but that’s true of most small presses and artists in general. It’s the biggest obstacle out there, really. I’d love to publish a “known” author at some point that’s willing to take a chance on doing a book “our way,” if only because that means more eyes would see our way. I think the model would be a huge success once you remove relative obscurity from the equation.

I also consider the model to be successful for another reason. Like any good meme, once an idea gets in your head it’s there to stay. The fringe becomes the mainstream, over time. Once an idea is let out into the mass consciousness, if it’s good enough it will survive, thrive, replicate, mutate. In the years since Another Sky Press started, we’ve seen a massive change in how people perceive what we do. Before the press existed, some people I’d talk to about it thought I was nuts putting a book online for free. Sacrilege! Insanity! Long discussions about the benefits — word of mouth promotion, for example, ensued.

Ideas are grand, but putting a theory into practice is what actually changes the world. Show that it can be done. That’s the hardest step. If others like the idea, new versions/evolutions will spring up. Somebody may even figure out a way to do it better. All of which is good.

So nowadays? People instantly get it — not just our free PDFs, but even our optional contribution system. Corporations have dabbled in it. Radiohead (Radiohead!) recently released an album of MP3s for “pay what you want.” This is beautiful, this is progress, this is the evolution of an idea. All of us, everyone doing anything in this vein, is pushing forward, making what was once theory into reality. We’re changing commerce for the better; pushing it towards something a bit more balanced, and considerably more idealistic. We’ve got a long way to go.

How do you define success for a book that you publish?
A book is successful the day we hold it in our hands. Our novels go through a relentless editing process — just ask any of our authors. We become more than just collaborators, we become friends. I’ve met so many fantastic people.

Right now, I’m working on a book with an expatriate Australian living in Tokyo. He’s wonderful. I’ve never met him, but we’ve spent… wow, at least a year at this point hammering his novel into shape. It’s a huge undertaking; he’s got this brilliant voice that only he could have, but it needs fine tuning, so that’s what we’re doing. The book itself is sort of… well, indescribable, really — noir-ish, subtly sci-fi, hard boiled, futuristic. Think Blade Runner with a touch of Sam Spade, a smattering of Orson Welles circa Touch of Evil, or better yet, The Third Man. And a shot of some good bourbon. Of course, that’s all just meaningless babble — the very kind of hype I try to avoid. But my hypocrisy doesn’t make the book any less good. It’s a pleasure to work on, and the author and I have become good friends, despite the fact we’ve never met.

So yes, a book is successful when it makes it into our hands. It’s complete. Now, of course, we also want our books to be widely read. That is important, and it’s also a struggle. Word of mouth is slow for books — one must discover a book, decide to acquire it, find time to read it, then have the desire and be the type of person to tell friends about it…and if the author’s lucky one of those people might take a chance and pick up a copy. Compare that to a two-minute tune on the radio, and you can quickly see the difference.

We’re working on it. I am a believer in critical mass; it’s my hope, eventually, that we have some bona-fide best sellers on our hands, and we achieved that through… well, sheer force of will, for lack of a better way to put it. We can’t invest millions into promotion — we need to excel, and trust people will, in time, notice.

It seems to me that you’re talking about a book published by Another Sky Press as an artifact of the collaboration between storyteller, the press, and the ideal. Do you see these books as more than a consumable form of entertainment?
I’ve mentioned before that I believe in putting theory into practice. In the same vein, I believe in should living by one’s ideals. Talk is cheap, walk the walk, and all that. Now, in addition to being the type of person that likes to work out idealistic economic models like Another Sky Press, I happen to be an author.

So, this sort of caused a recursive loop. In order for the press to become a reality, we’d need a book to kick it off, and if I wrote a book I’d need to publish it my way, or else all my ideals meant nothing. The idea for the press had been germinating in my head for years, and I refined it throughout the writing process of Click.

Now, it just so happens that I consider Click a perfect launch title for the press. It muddies the water of dream, reality, nightmare, hope… but in all it’s about intention, about manifestation, about doing your part to make the world what you want it to be. It’s empowering, in a roundabout, somewhat dark, schizophrenic sort of way. It’s probably not the easiest read, but I’m confident in it.

So, to answer your question, yes, I view Click as more than just a book, and to some degree, I view all of our books that way. They are crucial to the success of the press, and therefore, of the ideas behind the press. If we were publishing dreck that nobody cared about, the press might fail, through no fault of the core ideas behind it. And I don’t want that — I want the press to be a roaring success, because I want more people to experiment with their own ideas.

We’re at a crossroads, really. The barriers of entry are finally being crushed into rubble. I realize I probably sound a bit biased here, but the fact is, monolithic corporations have had a stranglehold on our culture for quite some time now. It’s only recently that we’ve finally been given the tools to break through. Almost anyone can start a website or a record label or a press without breaking the bank. Tapes and recordable CDs brought us independent labels and new genres that started a musical revolution, and thanks to advances in technology, it’s finally spreading to the publishing industry. You no longer need to have tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, to successfully publish a book.

Outside of media, to include blogs, software, film, music and so forth, where else do you see the micro-donation model working?
That’s a great question. Interestingly, my cousin and I seriously discussed opening up a coffee shop type joint and doing something along these lines. We never did, mostly because neither of us actually have any real interest in running a cafe day to day. And then, relatively recently, someone emailed me this link:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003558690_terrabite06e.html

So it looks like people are now trying “pay what you want” type systems in store front applications, though I don’t know with what success yet. I can’t wait to visit that place some day.

That said, there really isn’t that much difference between what they do and what we do — we both sell physical products at effectively sliding scale prices (the main distinction in my mind being physical versus digital).

They do have one huge advantage — environment. I read a paper once that claimed that if a tip jar had a pair of eyes on it (say, a happy face) that tips went up. I don’t know this to be true, but it certainly makes sense. So I think that being in a store, with employees right there, might actually increase contributions. That said, we’re quite impressed with the contribution rate/amount we get as is.

Now, to directly answer your question — I think the contribution system can work absolutely anywhere, long term, with some shifts in cultural beliefs. There was a time when many stores sold certain items, such as newspapers, on an “honor” system (put your coin in the can), and you still see that sort of thing on occasion. Times have changed, and we’ve become (or so we’re led to believe), as a culture, far more wary and distrustful of others. Greed and selfishness may be in fashion, but that doesn’t mean we can’t shift in the other direction. And it also doesn’t mean it’s true, in so much that the concept people are selfish is just that, a concept — we say it, but when it comes down to it, I still think most people are quite giving and generous.

Here we get into the issue of human nature. To be blunt, I don’t think there is such a thing, and if there is, it doesn’t matter since sentience trumps it. If civilization is anything, it’s us intentionally overriding our instinctual behavior (some quick examples are table manners and sexual restraint).

I think too many people use human nature as an excuse; that is, they behave in a certain way and then guiltily defend their behavior – “that’s just they way I am,” or, the grander “it’s human nature to be selfish.” Change! Personality is not made out of concrete, it’s malleable. We can become who we want to be, both individually and as a society.

So, yes, I can see contribution systems working anywhere, though it may require some paradigm shifting to get there. I mean, at the current point we’ve totally lost touch with pricing. It wasn’t so long ago that people bartered, or could talk a store owner down in price… nowadays, the barcode gets rung up at a register, and the price is the price is the price. This is the corporate influence, and I prefer the people influence. I want us to get back to basics, using technology to enhance our transactions, not control them.

This is very different from print-on-demand self-publishing models, right? Care to make some distinctions?
Well, print-on-demand is a printing paradigm, and Another Sky Press effectively represents an economic paradigm — that is, it’s ‘how you get the books printed’ versus ‘how you sell the books’. Apples and oranges.

Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, print on demand is essentially a printing method in which very small runs are economically feasible. The machines can basically be given a file and do a single book, or a hundred books. This is quite different from traditional presses where you needed a quantity in the thousands to before the per-book cost becomes economically feasible (though by that point, the project costs a small fortune). So while traditional publishing is cheaper per book in huge quantities, it’s not effective at low ones.

Print on Demand (POD) is unfortunately often confused (or at least, used to be) with vanity publishing, which is what happens when a so-called publisher publishes anything and everything sent its way, for a fee. The publisher doesn’t make its money from book sales, but rather signup fees. This is rightfully looked down upon. But it’s a publishing paradigm, and not the same thing as POD.

We use Print on Demand for many of our releases, as do most of the small publishers we are in contact with. It makes a huge amount of sense — printing a book via traditional presses requires tens of thousands of dollars and is a huge risk. There is a reason all those remainders are at the front of every bookstore — overstock. Overprinting. Waste. With print on demand, we can buy batches in the hundreds rather than the thousands. When quantity dips, buy more. If demand increases so dramatically that it makes sense to do a huge print run, you can do this as well.

The quality of POD is top-notch nowadays — it’s actually getting to the point where I prefer it. There are subtle clues one can look for to see how a book was printed, but nothing someone not educated in those clues would ever notice — and it’s nothing to do with quality.

Now, the beauty of POD is the lower cost of entry. Less barriers to entry gives power to the people — anyone can publish a book, not just huge companies with tons of cash. This is a good thing. Think cassette tape versus vinyl. I credit Print on Demand with changing the face of publishing — we’re entering into the “punk rock” era, where small publishers can pop up and publish niche titles. The biggest difference being that instead of being able to sell home-made cassette tapes at your show, a talented small press can put out high quality (in both appearance and content) books that rival any mainstream publisher.

Now, the old guard loves to complain about the flood of new content creators, because of course some bad comes with the good. They conveniently forget that mainstream publishers publish their own share of crap, but more importantly, they overvalue the role of the publisher as “filter.” We don’t need companies filtering our books for us. Technology has reached the point where we can do that far better ourselves. Great work will be talked about and shared, and lesser material forgotten.

Now, Another Sky Press, on the other hand, is an economic paradigm. We sell our books the way we do regardless of how they are printed. We do use Print on Demand, and, if you can’t tell, we recommend it. I think it’s the most important thing to happen to publishing since the printing press. I think it’s the future, and that more and more “traditional” publishers will wise up to it. In fact, most already have, especially for their back catalog. I also think it will cause an evolution in literature, because the lower cost of entry means quality work can be published that might otherwise have been ignored. Our voices can be heard.

What are the short-term goals of the press? Are they being met?
Release books! We’ve got our hands full right now; several novels, several art books, an anthology, and several children’s books. Short answer, right? But that’s pretty much it. I suppose we need to redesign the website as well — that was a project near completion that accidentally got a bit sidelined. But all in all we’re pretty on track short term.