This article bothers me. It's not an editor's job to find and promote quality -- not remotely. As the editor quoted alludes to, it is his job to find something that will sell. So don't fault any editor who passed on the Galbraith novel -- it didn't sell (until extraordinary circumstances) and thus they made the right decision. Further, don't fault anyone who passed on Harry Potter all those years ago. Frankly, the first novel isn't terribly well-written, and while the universe it is set in has clear potential, in the mid '90s children's literature of a similar format was basically dead (we've forgotten this in the overwhelming landslide of fantasy YA books -- but we need to remember why those books are being written at all). I don't blame any of the publishers who passed on Harry Potter, and they aren't idiots -- the idiotic move would have been passing on Twilight when it came around.

Also, that the basis of their experiment is music, where taste rules even more than it does in literature, in my opinion renders it irrelevant to the Rowling discussion.

Incidentally, I haven't read either of Rowling's non-Harry Potter novels (although I probably will someday) but I do sometimes read Harry Potter fanfiction when I have a spare day, and that's because I don't care about Rowling being the writer -- I care about Harry Potter being the character.