[rkangel]

> This started in traditional publishing in the 1990s

I really don't think this started in the 1990s. The tension between commercial needs and artistic purity has existed for as long as there has been art[citation needed].

Some more modern art forms like TV and Film are very expensive and so particularly sensitive to commercial interests but it has always been true - artists have to eat just like everyone else.

[Retric]

Computers changed how quickly companies could collect and analyze data. The quarterly results is one artifact if this as currently companies could be publishing this data monthly or even weekly, but historically that simply wasn’t feasible.

That really did change a great many decision making processes not just in publishing but almost everywhere else.

[Evenjos]

Exactly. What happened in the 1990s was a major consolidation of all retailers, including bookstores.

This created limited shelf space, which, in turn, put pressure on publishers to consolidate their authors into a few mega best-sellers, whom they then were completely reliant on. One Stephen King or James Patterson was enough to pay for 9 underperforming titles.

Major publishers also consolidated, from many into the so-called Big Six, which then became the Big Five. Five major publishers own the whole industry. Most publishers you've heard of are an imprint of one of those, or else it's a small press with very limited distribution.

All that consolidation has an effect. It narrows the gates, and gives rise to an industry that grows reliant on gatekeepers.

Why did the great consolidations happen? Why is everything trending towards a multi-national mega-conglomerate? I think I know, but that's a story for another day.

[xaedes]

But I dont think the commercialisation of art these days isn't driven by the hunger for food of the artists. Other forces try to extract as much value from it as they can. Not nice.