by James Scott Bell
@jamesscottbell

A couple of items from the trad side of the business.

Book Sales Down

From Publishers Weekly:

Unit sales of print books had a slow start in 2026, according to data from Circana BookScan. Total unit sales fell 3.1% compared to a year ago for the quarter ending March 28, 2026, dropping to 163.5 million copies sold.

The young adult category had the steepest percentage decline.

This last bit concerns me. Is it phones, tablets, TikTok, or whatever else that keep kids from novel-length fiction? Are parents buying fewere books to give to their kids?

Book Deals Hard to Come By (File this under “New, What Else is?”)

Getting a traditional publishing deal has always been a challenge. Is it harder now? A column in USA TODAY says:

About 81% of Americans feel that they have a book in them, according to an often cited survey reported in The New York Times (from the early 2000s). Many aspire to write and publish a book in their lifetime, but only a small fraction see their work formally acquired and announced each year. A little over 2,000 fiction writers announced deals in 2025 on Publishers Marketplace.

***

[W]hen people ask, “Can anyone get a book deal?” what they’re often asking is something else:

• Is this still possible for people who aren’t famous?
• Do I have to know somebody in the industry?
• And if I do everything “right,” will it still take years?

In short: Yes, no and maybe. A book deal is attainable – to some extent. It’s also not a finish line. 

***

The publishing industry is consolidating, which means fewer imprints (and fewer editors)…When editors are stretched thinner, the time it takes to nurture talent – especially debut authors – shrinks. The industry’s ability to take a slow bet on a writer, to develop them the way record labels develop musicians or sports teams develop rookies, becomes increasingly rare.

***

Even when the book is good, “we have less places to sell things than we have in the past,” Carly Watters, senior literary agent at PS Literary, told USA TODAY. “A lot of things are more predicated on the appetites of a smaller group of people … there might be separate imprints, but they all share an editorial board meeting.”

Quality aside, a novel also has to be “sellable” to stand out in those meetings. “In my experience, (books) that are easily pitchable, meaning we can sum up – hook, line, sinker – in one sentence, that’s something that I can get people’s attention with,” Watters added. There are gorgeous books that are hard to summarize, she said. The kind you want to hand someone and say, “Just read it, then call me.”

Those books can sell. But it’s harder.

The article’s author spoke with a literary agent Eric Smith:

Plenty of his clients come from cold querying (sending an email or form pitch) with no connections in the industry. But also, his inbox – when he’s open to submissions – can reach thousands in a few months. Smith estimated he received around 3,000 submissions over roughly 90 days and signed a handful last year.

That number can seem terrifying until you remember something important: Most of those submissions weren’t “bad writers.” They just weren’t the right fit. Or the timing was wrong. Or the market was saturated. Or an editor had just acquired something similar. Or an imprint closed. Or an editor got laid off. Or the editorial board said, “We already have a slot like this.”

You can do everything right and still lose to the invisible calendar of the industry.

Consolidation makes that sharper. Smith described it plainly: Agents can’t send five projects in a row to the same editor without burning that bridge.

So yes, it can be more challenging now; not because the “gatekeepers” hate writers, but because the gate is servicing fewer lanes.

Comments welcome.

(Kay DiBianca is currently on hiatus)

Over at Authors Guild:

“The model clauses below cover important aspects of AI uses of author’s works: specifically, prohibiting AI use of an author’s work without the author’s consent; licensing specific AI uses as subsidiary rights with fair compensation; protecting audiobook and translation rights from AI uses without the author’s approval; and governing the author’s permissible use of AI in submitted manuscripts as well as the publisher’s use of AI in connection with the work. Authors and agents may request that publishers use any of these clauses, and publishers are free to adopt them.”

Re: Authors:

“Author shall disclose to Publisher if any AI-generated text is included in the submitted manuscript, and may not include more than [a de minimis/5%] AI-generated text.”

Re: Publishes:

The Authors Guild is concerned about reports that some publishing professionals are uploading manuscripts and authors’ personal information into public, consumer-facing AI systems for uses such as generating summaries, assessments, and marketing copy without permission from the authors or adequate guardrails to ensure that the manuscripts are not used by AI companies for training.

Uploading or inputting a copyrighted work or an author’s personal information into public, consumer-facing AI systems without permission may constitute a violation of the author’s copyright or right of privacy, and it puts the author’s intellectual property and personal information at risk. Editors, agents, and others in the industry who have access to authors’ works should not upload their manuscript to or otherwise prompt consumer-facing chatbots with any author’s works without first getting the author’s written permission. Further, where consumer-facing chatbots are used in workflows, publishers and other industry professionals should ensure that they opt out of having the work used for training. All of the common chatbots provide this option. Publishers should also take care that any internal AI systems are sandboxed models with guardrails to prevent the manuscripts or author information from being used as inputs for training.

Publisher shall not upload the Work or any of Author’s personal information to consumer-facing AI systems for purposes such as generating summaries, assessments, or marketing copy without written permission from the author or as otherwise agreed to hereunder; and when such permission is granted, it shall ensure that the manuscript is not used by third-party AI companies for training, such as by opting out of allowing training in user settings.

And:

To prevent injecting any AI-generated text into an author’s work, publishers should not use AI to substantively edit manuscripts, with the exception of basic spelling and grammar- checking applications.

Publisher agrees and warrants that it will not use AI to substantially edit a manuscript (excepting the use of basic spelling and grammar-checking applications).