10
Loading video...
By Don Nori
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Publishing does not have a talent problem. It has a risk problem. There is no shortage of manuscripts, ambitious authors, or ideas worth exploring. What is increasingly scarce is the willingness to take a chance on something that has not already proven itself.
Too many publishing houses have become preoccupied with commercial predictability. They chase proven formulas, familiar genres, and last year’s bestseller with a slightly different cover.
In that climate, originality starts to look expensive, and unconventional perspectives become difficult to sell internally.
Read More on Leadership Insights
Authors who challenge established thinking are often dismissed as difficult to position before their ideas have been given a serious hearing.
The question isn’t just what makes a book sell. It is whether the industry still gives genuinely different ideas a fair chance before they ever reach the market, in the acquisition meeting, the title debate, and the cover review.
...
Too often, poor publishing decisions have little to do with a lack of talent. They come from people protecting their own instincts instead of remaining open to better ones.
An editor defends a title because it was their idea. A team rejects a cover direction because it feels unfamiliar. A marketing department repeats the same pitch, only louder, because volume is easier than reconsidering the strategy.
Watch what happens when someone proposes a creative direction that challenges category conventions. The instinct is often to retreat to the safer option, not necessarily because it has been evaluated more carefully, but because uncertainty makes people uncomfortable.
Sitting with the possibility that an unfamiliar idea might actually work requires patience and intellectual honesty.
Comps exist for a reason. Understanding what has worked in a category is part of responsible publishing. The problem begins when comparison becomes a substitute for judgment.
When a team cannot tolerate an unresolved creative question, even briefly, it stops exploring possibilities and starts reproducing familiar outcomes.
Certainty Without Curiosity
Almost every breakout book carries some element of creative risk. The cover that stops someone mid-scroll may have looked unconventional in the meeting.
The title that eventually builds a movement may have made somebody uncomfortable around the table. When teams retreat at the first sign of creative tension, they remove themselves from the possibility of producing something genuinely distinctive, paving the way for a catalog of safe, invisible books.
Certainty without curiosity makes the problem worse. Someone who has not studied the category data can still deliver a definitive ruling: “That title will not work.” No questions, no exploration, just a verdict.
Confidence has its place in publishing, but confidence without curiosity can become an obstacle to good editorial judgment.
The same applies to outdated assumptions. An editor carrying a 2015 understanding of what sells into a market now driven by phone-screen discovery, digital communities, and changing reader behavior is working with an incomplete picture.
The willingness to change an opinion when better information emerges is not a weakness. It is part of the craft.
Twenty years ago, a publisher could place a new book in more than a thousand stores within its first ninety days.
Barnes & Noble, Borders, Family Christian, and LifeWay, alongside mass merchants, offered a distribution infrastructure that gave new titles considerable physical visibility. That retail landscape no longer exists in the same form.
Greater Access, a Different Problem
The barriers to publishing have fallen dramatically. Almost anyone can produce a book, and self-publishing and hybrid publishing have become established routes to market.
In one independent-author survey conducted in December 2025 among 1,346 respondents, 77 percent identified as self-published, 17 percent as hybrid authors, and just 5 percent as fully traditionally published.
Yet greater access has created a different problem. Discoverability has become harder precisely because publishing has become easier.
Twenty years ago, Ingram’s new-release list might feature nearly 10,000 books in a single month. Today, comparable volumes of new titles can arrive daily through online platforms.
Producing a book and getting readers to notice it are now two very different challenges.
Artificial intelligence has accelerated that pressure. Agencies and editors are increasingly contending with AI-assisted submissions and an already crowded acquisition pipeline.
The traditional gatekeeper has not disappeared. Its role has shifted. Traditionally, printing capacity and retail shelf space once determined access.
Today, attention, trust, and verification now carry much of the weight.
Yet while access to publishing has expanded, many acquisition and packaging decisions continue to reward familiarity. The industry has lowered the barrier to producing a book without necessarily lowering the barrier to getting an unconventional idea taken seriously.
Gatekeeping has moved. Risk aversion has remained.
A Serious Evaluation
I run a Christian publishing house founded in 1983. We release approximately 100 titles a year and place books across trade, mass-market, digital, ministry, and international channels, with translation rights spanning more than 20 languages.
That reach creates opportunities for authors, but it does not guarantee a book’s placement or success.
In our business, stewardship matters more than speed. A publisher’s responsibility is not simply to move a manuscript forward. It is to identify the right message, find its appropriate audience, and give it the editorial, commercial, and distribution support it needs to succeed beyond launch.
That requires calculated risk. It is not gambling, and it is certainly not copying last year’s bestseller with a louder marketing campaign.
Anyone can publish a product. Building a publishing system around a book, encompassing editorial judgment, packaging, distribution, timing, and long-term follow-through, is an entirely different undertaking.
The authors who need a publishing partner most are often those carrying ideas that do not fit neatly into an existing category or comps chart.
Their work deserves a serious evaluation of the author’s platform, the strength of the central idea, the commercial model, and the fit with the publishing house.
An instinctive reaction that something is simply too different should never be the end of that conversation.
Originality should be treated as an asset to develop, not a liability to contain. The industry does not need reckless bets. It needs disciplined courage: the willingness to invest in work that challenges established thinking when the idea, the author, and the route to readers justify that investment.
The Value of Changing Course
Giving different ideas a genuine chance also requires a change in how publishing teams make decisions.
First, defend the book, not the ego. A title, cover, or creative direction is not anyone’s personal possession. Every decision should ultimately serve the reader, the person who sees a cover for one second on a screen and decides whether to stop or scroll.
Second, publishers must learn to hold nuance. Decisions rarely come down to something being brilliant or worthless. A strong concept may still need substantial editorial work.
An author may have the right message but the wrong packaging. Original ideas are rarely perfectly formed on their first attempt, and treating every imperfection as a reason for rejection leaves little room for development.
Third, opinions should come with reasons. Data, comparable titles, category conventions, and genuine reader insight should inform decisions. “I just do not like it” may be an honest reaction, but it is not a sufficient reason to shut down an idea.
Fourth, the industry needs to recognize the value of changing course. When an author lets go of a title after receiving better feedback, or a marketing team abandons an approach that is not working, that willingness to adapt should be recognized.
Publishing cultures tend to repeat what they reward. If intellectual flexibility is valued, it becomes part of how teams operate.
Finally, publishers must remember that readers follow people, not just products. Algorithms influence discovery and volume creates competition, but authentic connections between authors and audiences remain important.
Commercial Systems Reward Predictability
A publisher focused exclusively on replicating successful formulas risks overlooking voices that readers would willingly follow if given the opportunity and a clear path to discover them.
Has publishing become too afraid to take a chance on original ideas? Too often, the answer is yes.
Not because editors have lost their instincts or authors have run out of compelling things to say, but because commercial systems reward predictability, creative discomfort is treated as a problem, and an overwhelming volume of new material makes familiarity feel like the safer choice.
The answer is not a return to the old gatekeeping model. It is a publishing culture with the discipline to assess risk and the courage to give unconventional ideas a fair hearing.
Not every different idea deserves a publishing deal, but every worthwhile idea deserves more than an instinctive rejection.
Readers are not waiting for another version of a book they have already read. They are looking for something that challenges them or gives them language for an idea they have not encountered before.
If publishers continue to prioritize what is easiest to sell internally over what might genuinely resonate with readers, they risk becoming very good at producing books that nobody remembers.
Don Nori is CEO of Nori Media Group, a family-led publishing house that has been publishing for more than 40 years. All views are his own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines