As a consumer, I care about price, quality and convenience. But I'm agnostic as to how the editorial and advance are delivered.
It's not wholly unreasonable, for example, for some form of crowd funding model to turn up; you publish an outline to a site and folks bid on it.
Similarly, an editor matching service doesn't seem that far fetched.
Or to put it another way, we have perfectly serviceable replacement models for most of what a mass market publisher now does. That's not to say that publishers can't add value but, as with distribution and delivery, it's not too hard to foresee this turning into a niche product.
> you publish an outline to a site and folks bid on it
I'd be very skeptical about that...
> an editor matching service doesn't seem that far fetched
This seems a lot more reasonable. I agree with your overall point that publishers are unlikely to be the best way of doing things, and there's no need to preserve the status quo for its own sake. I'm just not sure Amazon is going about it the right way, and I think reducing the perceived value of books is a dangerous game. That all said, I don't want to be too down on Amazon. They've made reading more convenient for many through the Kindle and the Kindle Store, and that alone is worth a hell of a lot...
The gaming industry is in the middle of doing exactly this. What exactly are you skeptical about? Whether an attempt will be made, or whether an attempt will succeed?
> Whether an attempt will be made, or whether an attempt will succeed?
Neither. More about if it will compromise the artistry if plot is decided by a committee, which is effectively what will happen if the public gets to 'vote' for what they want to be made. Plot-by-comittee works for a lot of television and film so maybe it'll work for books too, but my gut reaction is that you'll get a much better product if the creator can act alone and not have to worry about getting defunded if they kill off a favourite character or some such thing...
None of these points are true in the gaming world so far. Projects are funded based on their ideas, but that does not necessarily entitle the public to a design by committee. Sure, people feel entitled to a voice, but ultimately it's the creators of the game that have the final say. I'm thinking major successes like Minecraft and Star Citizen. Minecraft was pretty much entirely driven by Notch, and Star Citizen is firmly in the hands of CIG.
Now, if they create something that people don't like, sure they will have a tough time getting funded again. But this is a point that is relevant to both the publisher and crowd sourcing model.
