In times of global crises and geopolitical tensions, calls for boycotts against products from certain countries are on the rise. What was once primarily limited to technology companies, fashion chains, or food corporations has gone deeper since the sometimes questionable behavior of the new US administration and could now extend to the cultural sector – including books from the US. Therefore, I asked myself the following questions: Does such a boycott of US books by European readers really make sense? And who would actually be affected: the major publishers or the authors themselves?

At first glance, it seems as if the idea of ​​boycotting US books would send a strong political message. The US cultural industry plays a leading role as a dominant global player, and numerous major literary agencies and publishing houses are based in New York City. However, the book industry functions differently than other economic sectors. It has close ties to international markets, and its value chain is significantly more complex than that of a fast-food company, so a comparison is inappropriate. A boycott could therefore have unexpected consequences, the benefit of which is questionable.

A large portion of the well-known US publishers now belong to international corporations. A prime example of this is Penguin Random House, which is part of the German Bertelsmann Group. Anyone who believes that by refraining from buying books from this publisher they are making a statement against US products is actually harming the European publishing industry. The situation is similar at HarperCollins, which is part of News Corp, and Simon & Schuster, which has since been acquired by a US financial investor. These structures make it clear that defining a national demarcation of the book industry is not only difficult, it is almost impossible.

The situation regarding licensing rights further complicates the matter. Many US books are licensed and published in translation by European publishers. Therefore, a boycott of American books in Germany and other European countries could also affect smaller, independent European publishers that focus on translations for a niche audience. Furthermore, numerous European authors cooperate with US agencies to distribute their works internationally. A far-reaching boycott would seriously damage transatlantic relations without causing significant harm to large companies.

While large publishing houses have a broad economic base and can offset declines in sales, the situation is quite different for most authors. Bestselling authors like Stephen King, Colleen Hoover, or James Patterson would most likely barely notice a boycott. Their books sell millions of copies worldwide, and even if a market collapses, they still have many other sources of income. For mid-list authors or first-time authors, however, a decline in sales can be life-threatening.

Authors who participate in social or political discussions could be particularly unintentionally affected. For example, anyone who wants to read LGBTQIA+ literature or critical social analyzes from the USA would find it more difficult to gain access to these voices through a boycott. Ironically, therefore, it would be precisely the progressive and more diverse voices that would be affected, while the large publishing houses could continue to rely on their bestsellers, which generate high revenues.

An additional problem is that royalties for authors are low in the majority of cases. For many, the profit per book sold is only a few dollars, and any loss of sales has an immediate impact on their financial situation. A boycott could also lead publishers to take fewer risks and focus more on proven bestsellers rather than supporting new and exceptional voices. This could harm literary diversity in the long run.

There is a fundamental difference between boycotting a fast-food chain and boycotting the book market. While the former is primarily driven by financial interests, books are, first and foremost, a cultural asset. Books circulate ideas, foster intellectual interaction, and offer new perspectives. Especially in times of (geo)political tension, they are an important factor in further promoting dialogue and understanding between different cultures.

Those who want to be conscious about their consumption can specifically support smaller and independent publishers and/or self-publishers in Europe and the US. These publishers are often the ones who bring out new and critical voices and engage in literary experimentation. A blanket boycott of US literature therefore not only limits one’s own reading diversity, but could also contribute to the further commercialization of the book market, with only big bestsellers surviving.

Although a boycott of US books may seem tempting as a political statement, it would primarily affect those with the least influence: authors and smaller publishers. Major media corporations are already globally connected and could relatively easily offset losses from a European boycott.

Those who truly want to make a statement should instead consume more consciously:

• Support independent publishers that support diverse voices.
• Prefer self-publishing authors.
• Purchase works by marginalized authors more carefully than focusing exclusively on mainstream bestsellers.
• View the literary world as a cultural platform that promotes international exchange, not just as a simple economic sector.

A general boycott would therefore weaken rather than strengthen literary diversity. Books should not be viewed as collateral damage of (geo)political conflicts, but rather as what they are: windows into other worlds, bridges between cultures, and tools for understanding.

Please leave this field empty

Newsletter
abonnieren

This field is required.

Ich sende keinen Spam! Erfahre mehr in meiner Datenschutzerklärung.

Thank you 🙂