# Why Bother Publishing eBooks through an Official Publisher?



## Curiouser (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm wondering what's in it for authors. We write a 100k novel. 

They offer to publish it for 50% royalties. In exchange, there's some professional editing, cover design, and maybe assigned an ISN. They offer to sell the finished work through their site (when it's doubtful people shop there) and many distributors (when we can publish there anyway). 

But I can edit my work, or hire an editor. And I can get a professional cover designed for $100, maybe $200. All the while, I remain in control. I don't have to make changes to the story. I don't have to accept a cover that doesn't portray my vision. I get to keep all the rights.

I guess I'm wondering why I'd bother signing with an eBook publisher at all. Is it being associated with an official publisher itself? The name?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Are you talking small press or large press?
I guess it depends on the author and how much work they want to put into their books.


----------



## LeonardDHilleyII (May 23, 2011)

I believe you've pretty much answered your own question.  Why pay someone else to do what you can do?  As for "Official Publisher" I'm not certain if you mean the Big 5, a literary agency that will post it on their site, or someone who sets up their own small site to sell eBooks.  Some larger publishers only pay 25% royalties to the author. This is why so many of us publish our own books via Amazon and other distributors.


----------



## Curiouser (Sep 11, 2014)

I mean more small press. If we're talking top five, I understand. But small presses? Mmmm... what for? Every big press starts as a small press, but there are some small presses out there that make me wonder about the professionalism of their operation.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

A traditional publishing contract that offered 50% royalties would be... very unusual.


----------



## bethrevis (Jul 30, 2014)

A small press, particularly one that relies mostly on ebook sales...I'm not sure if it's worth it. If they had AMAZING reach and marketing, yes, but otherwise, not really. 

A larger publisher that was doing print and ebooks--absolutely. Their distribution more than makes up for the loss of royalties (for me anyway--I know that's not true of all). It's like a BookBub ad--your book's on sale and making less money for you than normal, but it's reaching such a wider audience it doesn't matter, you more than make up for it.


----------



## Curiouser (Sep 11, 2014)

All right, some names. Riptide Publishing. Evernight Publishing. I'm not sure what you'd call these publishers...


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

If an e-book publisher doesn't pay an advance on royalties, there's little they can do for you that you can't do or hire out yourself.


----------



## HAGrant (Jul 17, 2011)

An author friend goes through a small press. She says if she self-published she would have to pay for editing, formatting, and covers herself and she doesn't want to do that. The small press covers everything. 

I think she could earn a lot more money on her own, plus change the prices around, run promotions, etc. Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

It comes down to what you're able (and willing) to do on your own. I publish my Luther Cross series through a small press. It was a contract that I could leave at any time if I wanted and they only get publication rights for one year, so I thought it would be a nice experiment. And while there's some things I wish I still had control over, there are other things that are nice not to have to worry about. Yes, I can pay for an editor and a cover designer, but it's nice not to have to worry about that. 

Whether you get someone else to publish your book or you do it yourself, you're still rolling the dice. There are those who make more self-publishing than they'd ever make with a traditional publisher, but there are also those who pour money into their books and never see a return on that investment. Every author needs to decide for themselves whether the risk vs. reward of either avenue is worth it.


----------



## Z. Rider (Aug 15, 2014)

LaraWhitmore said:


> All right, some names. Riptide Publishing. Evernight Publishing. I'm not sure what you'd call these publishers...


Riptide has a rabid fanbase and they market aggressively. If you were going to consider going hybrid to increase your reach, and you were writing the kinds of things Riptide publishes, I'd say they were worth sending some of your work to.

Evernight's nothing special.


----------



## Marilyn Peake (Aug 8, 2011)

It used to be worthwhile to be published by small press when eBooks weren't very popular and self-publishing had yet to gain respect. It used to be almost impossible to get reviews or enter book award contests for self-published books. I moved from self-publishing to small eBook press when eBooks were just starting to be accepted but self-publishing had yet to gain respect. Even then, the small press arranged to have our eBooks also published in paperback format through Lulu because eBooks were yet to be recognized as "real" books without a paperback copy. Suddenly, I started selling books, I was able to get book reviews from significantly more reviewers and, to my great surprise, libraries started purchasing my books. One library actually set up a display for my children's books.

Fast forward a number of years. After the Kindle came along, eBooks became wildly popular, and readers discovered so many wonderful self-published books that self-publishing became popular, it became much harder to sell my small press books because the prices were higher than most readers were interested in paying and I couldn't offer discounts and free copies as easily as I could with Amazon, so I got my rights back and self-published. I added paperbacks through CreateSpace for people who wanted them, but I now sell more eBooks than paperbacks.

Although some small presses may be able to offer services that sell books or just make life easier for an author, I think some authors still think that _any_ press carries more prestige than self-publishing, which really isn't true today. This past week, I realized how times have changed when I entered a free book contest and signed up for free advertising that was _only_ available for _self-published_ books. In the comments sections, a few small press authors expressed disappointment that they couldn't participate. That kind of blew my mind. How times have changed!


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

1. Advances from publishers are more than the vast majority of self publishers will ever make on a book.

2. Trade published books have a much further reach. How many self publishers have their books sitting in a B&M right now?

3. Working with an actual editor is an experience that will help most authors become better authors.

4. Despite the higher royalties for self published books, I'd wager that the vast majority of trade published authors make more than the vast majoring of self pubbed authors.

5. Some authors just want to write. They don't want to be an entire business. Trade publishers allow them to do this.


----------



## WPipp (Dec 9, 2014)

1. Advances from publishers are more than the vast majority of self publishers will ever make on a book.

True, but 99% of self published authors would not get a contract.

2. Trade published books have a much further reach. How many self publishers have their books sitting in a B&M right now?

True, but how important is that and is the future in publishing found in B&M?

3. Working with an actual editor is an experience that will help most authors become better authors.

It depend on the editor, writer, and publisher.

4. Despite the higher royalties for self published books, I'd wager that the vast majority of trade published authors make more than the vast majoring of self pubbed authors.

CJ Lyons, who does both, says she makes much more in self-publishes titles. 

5. Some authors just want to write. They don't want to be an entire business. Trade publishers allow them to do this.

True, but you still have to promote. Hugh Howey said he spent more time away from his writing when he signed a print-only contract with a major publisher.

I believe if you plan on being in the top 1% of writers(as far as earnings) then perhaps a traditional publisher is best.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

WPipp said:


> I believe if you plan on being in the top 1% of writers(as far as earnings) then perhaps a traditional publisher is best.


I think it's the opposite. You're only better off being self published if you're already in the top 1 percent of writers. It doesn't matter if you're the greatest writer in the world, you're unlikely to ever sell books by self publishing. Making a living at this is 99 percent luck. If you're currently a full time writer making a living self publishing, then there's no reason to go with a trade publisher. Good writers just starting out (or not making it at all) have a better chance of querying, getting an agent and then getting a trade deal than they do of making a living self publishing their book.


----------



## Marilyn Peake (Aug 8, 2011)

Briteka said:


> I think it's the opposite. You're only better off being self published if you're already in the top 1 percent of writers. It doesn't matter if you're the greatest writer in the world, you're unlikely to ever sell books by self publishing. Making a living at this is 99 percent luck. If you're currently a full time writer making a living self publishing, then there's no reason to go with a trade publisher. Good writers just starting out (or not making it at all) have a better chance of querying, getting an agent and then getting a trade deal than they do of making a living self publishing their book.


It must depend on individual circumstances. I know a number of authors who had top literary agents and landed publishing deals with big publishing houses. After not selling enough books to make the publishing houses happy, they were dropped by the publishing houses and eventually their agents. In some cases, they were able to get their rights returned to them and successfully sold books through self-publishing. In other cases, they couldn't get their rights returned to them and were no longer allowed to write within the universe of those books.


----------



## Curiouser (Sep 11, 2014)

This is all great stuff, but the conversation seems to have shifted from small press eBook publishers to traditional publishing giants. The two are WAY different, at least IMO. That's not to say trad publishing is for everyone, but I don't know, I might jump at the chance. Whereas, an online small press? No.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Hugh Howey's data show pretty clearly that indie authors earn more than tradpubbed authors. That supports what I hear from people who've done both. 

Let's face it, it's rare to make good money writing books no matter how you publish. 

I do think that publishers offer benefits. I'm not sure what small presses that do only ebooks offer, unless you aren't in a position or don't have a skill set to handle the business of self-publishing. There's a lot--covers, blurbs, editing, formatting, marketing plan. It's do-able, but it's a job. It's definitely nicer just to be able to write books! 

But, of course, even if you WANT one of those contracts with a small ebook publisher, there's the "gatekeeper" deal. I got rejection notices from two of those epub-only places right around the time I self-published my first three books. Thank goodness. Worked out much better to do it myself. 

(One of them kindly told me that they'd reconsider if I rewrote the book. I looked at their covers and blurbs--and this was a fairly well-known small press in romance--and thought, maaaannn, I can do so much better than that. And I did!)


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Personally, I wouldn't sign with an epublisher as I don't see what advantage they offer and from what I have seen, they rarely market books as aggressively or as effectively as the successful indies do.  That said, if you don't want to do the publishing stuff yourself, coordinating covers, editors, etc. then it may be an option. You will still need to be involved with marketing.

If you think you want to go that route, I would research these epublishers --look closely at the books on their list. How are their newer releases doing? How does that compare with Indie publishers in the genre? How are the older books doing? How does that compare with Indie publishers?


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

You know, I will say this to rebuke a few comments above: this business is NOT 99% luck.

That's why I could see value in a small press, so long as they know what they are doing, vs publishing yourself.

My books are extremely predictable. I know the kind of income I expect before I even publish. I earn 4 figures per day. I hit all star bonuses, and I can launch brand new pennames to success. Nothing I do is hard, but it is a skillset and toolset that will take a clever self pub author months or years to pick up. Once you have it, success is not luck. It is virtually guaranteed.

I'm not alone either. Many of the new hottest self pub authors you meet are simply pennames from people doing this for a few years and figuring out how to rock their new releases. Point me to almost any struggling author in pretty much any category and I'd put dollars to doughnuts that if I had their books, I could significantly out earn them with the exact same interior book content.

And compared to some small presses, I'm REALLY small time!

If a brand new author had me handle the publishing and marketing and covers and editing etc, even if I was paying them 50%, I have no doubt I could I out earn a book they self published by a significant margin. So, the benefit of using a small press depends on the author. If they are having a hard time gaining traction, that publisher might have skills to get their books SOLD. At the end of the day, do what's best for your catalog and your success. Making blanket statements that all small publishing houses are bad is silly. Look around at all the authors who are struggling to sell a few hundred copies of their novel. They would likely benefit from the mentorship, expertise, and success a good small press might offer.

Do your research though. No reason to let the blind lead the blind. If they can't show you high flying books they've published or make a compelling case as to why your book will earn more with their oversight, they aren't worth working with.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I do agree, bobfrost, that there's a business side (which includes how the book is presented) that one has to do as well. However, my first books did far better than anything I'd seen from that small press that turned me down. Or have seen since, for that matter. And I WAS a brand-new author--it wasn't a penname. I know quite a few authors like that, who did quite well with their first books. I agree, it's not all luck, but it's not un-learnable, either. And witness the fact that none of the many, many people who turned my first book down saw any potential in a book set in New Zealand, with a rugby-star hero. Uh--Duh, guys. I knew it was a great hook, and they didn't? That told me something right there. 

Really, DO look at the press's covers, blurbs, and book performance. If you think you can do better on the covers and blurbs, you've probably got a good shot. Depending on the small press, they may well not be doing anything more than uploading to the various sites for you. You can do what I did--just put the books on Amazon, into Select, until you learn the ropes. That has its own advantages as well, and it's quite easy to navigate. With KU, it's not a bad spot for a new author to start anyway.


----------



## Chrisbwritin (Jan 28, 2014)

I will say this. I think it would have taken me years to get the traction in my genre that my publisher (Entangled) was able to get me. They have several very strong, well-branded category romance lines of books that were in direct competition with Harlequin, and those brands sold books. Granted, some books did better than others, but there was a built in audience with the brand that I had never known with any other publisher prior (and I've had 7 publishers). Prior to Entangled, I had one minor "hit" with Samhain (which sold around 10k copies) under a different pen name. With Entangled, my first book sold in excess of 50k copies and my second 90k copies. I've had 10 or so releases with them and all with the exception of one have sold 20k+ copies. Prior to that, with my Christine Bell name, I'd never had a book top 1,500 lifetime sales. There is just no way I would've been able to do that on my own. It allowed me to quit my job and write full time, and I've never looked back. Which is why, while I do self-pub a lot, I still write for Entangled. I do agree, in most cases, signing with a small press can be a waste of time, but there are some small presses who really do have a distinct space in the market and they can help launch an author. Just my .02.


----------



## Tim_A (May 25, 2013)

With a publisher - even a small press publisher - I wouldn't be out of pocket. I might not make lots of money, but I wouldn't lose it either. Right now I'm bigtime out of pocket on my existing books, to the tune that I can't actually afford to get my WIP properly edited. That wouldn't happen with a publisher.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

Well there are two different things...which isn't immediately apparent form the title of this post.

If you are talking about "digital-only" publishers - I agree 100% - they are not doing anything that you can't do for yourself, and most don't have a strong enough brand to aid the sales efforts. (this seems to be what the OP was talking about as he mentioned 50% royalties.

If you are talking about "big-five" publisher, then it may or may not be a benefit. When I first signed with an imprint of Hachette Book Group, I thought I would lose around $200,000 - $250,000 but it turned out that I actually made more (as near as I can tell without an alternate reality machine). I'm in the process of signing another series with Random House. I'm doing so because they will be featuring me and releasing in hardcover. They offered an advance that I think respects me and my work and I'm expecting it to raise me to the next level. If I look at my "growth" (as seen by goodreads books shelved before and after my traditional publishing contract










It shows that I'm growing at a much faster pace. When self-published I would have about 400 books a month added to shelves. Last month I had more than 10,000.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Briteka said:


> I think it's the opposite. You're only better off being self published if you're already in the top 1 percent of writers. It doesn't matter if you're the greatest writer in the world, you're unlikely to ever sell books by self publishing. Making a living at this is 99 percent luck. If you're currently a full time writer making a living self publishing, then there's no reason to go with a trade publisher. Good writers just starting out (or not making it at all) have a better chance of querying, getting an agent and then getting a trade deal than they do of making a living self publishing their book.


I know one new author that turned down either a 6 or 7 figure trade deal. She self published and made what would have been her advance in the first month alone.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

All true Rosalind. 

As I said, success in this business can be learned. Some people hit it right out of the gate, and there's nothing wrong with the school of hard knocks .

I didn't use a publisher. I suffered my share of success and setback. It took me a few years to really go from "good" to "unbelieveable". Everyone approaches that learning curve differently. Some may lack the business side acumen to ever truly master it, and that is ok.

I think that's where small publishers have their niche.

But I won't fault anyone for going it alone. It is extremely liberating .

I just smile when I see the "this business is 99% luck" comments. If that is true, I'm the luckiest person on the planet.


----------



## bobfrost (Sep 29, 2013)

That is a beautiful chart Michael.


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

IMHO, it depends completely on the small epress and the genre you're writing.

Romance, as usual, is typically the best performer for e-publishers. And there are a handful of e-pubs that do really well in terms of sales, even for unknown authors with no existing fan base (one of the toughest challenges in self-publishing to overcome). The publishers that do well are those who have a "rabid fanbase" that follows the publisher itself, not necessarily individual authors.

For instance. I had zero platform, zero following, zero track record in M/M erotic romance. I published a M/M trilogy with Loose Id (a small e-publisher). I consistently sold very well in the first release month with each title, and got lovely fat checks, and each release lifted sales of the previous novels -- as it's supposed to. The first book in this trilogy came out in 2009, and I am still receiving an average of $100 a month in royalties from Loose Id.

Here's the big kicker in all this -- I have not done an ounce of promotion for these titles, not ever. No advertising or social media or email lists, nothing, ever since the beginning. I still make money. I have fantastic covers and great editing that I never had to pay for. If I did promo them, I'm sure I could probably sell more (I didn't when I started because I knew f***-all about selling books).

But the thing is, you REALLY have to do your homework with e-presses. I've heard that Ellora's Cave used to be great, but is not so much these days. Samhain and Liquid Silver stick in my mind as other e-publishers that have good results. And honestly, I haven't heard about non-romance e-publishers that perform well -- that's not to say they don't exist, only that I haven't heard of them.

So it's not always bad to go with an e-publisher, if you make sure they're reputable and sell well, and you're not into the business end of publishing so much. Find the right publisher and you can make decent money without a lot of effort, other than writing the book (which, of course, is the most important part  ).


----------



## Z. Rider (Aug 15, 2014)

S.W. Vaughn said:


> I've heard that Ellora's Cave used to be great, but is not so much these days.


There's an understatement.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Tim_A said:


> With a publisher - even a small press publisher - I wouldn't be out of pocket. I might not make lots of money, but I wouldn't lose it either. Right now I'm bigtime out of pocket on my existing books, to the tune that I can't actually afford to get my WIP properly edited. That wouldn't happen with a publisher.


Yep, there's that. I'd say it comes down to downside and upside. With a small press, you have less downside. You won't have the expense of doing everything yourself, with the chance that you won't earn it back even after several books. But you give up the potential upside. I'm sure I sold much more of my first book myself than any publisher would have sold, unless I'd gotten a Big 5 deal from somebody who was ecstatic about it--not very likely! It's free now, but still selling well in German and in audio, and overall, I've sold about 90,000 copies. (Sales and borrows; mostly sales.) I just don't think that would have been possible with, especially, a small press--particularly since it wasn't erotic romance or super-steamy romance, which is where, as Christine says, a lot of the better-performing small romance presses live.

But--to each their own. People have different goals, different skillsets, different talents. And as I said--even if I'd wanted to be published, nobody wanted me! Not like I had a choice. I think that's true for almost all of us. NOW they do. Sure. But they didn't back then!

(And now--to make it clear--I want them, too. As Michael says, there's plenty a good publisher can bring to the table, especially pushing your book in a way very few indies have the power to do.)


----------



## WPipp (Dec 9, 2014)

```
I think it's the opposite. You're only better off being self published if you're already in the top 1 percent of writers.
```
Well, there's a big difference being in the top 1% and planning on being in the top 1%. 


```
Making a living at this is 99 percent luck.
```
Winning the lottery is 99% luck. The other 1% is that you have to get up off your butt and buy a ticket.

As bobfrost said, it is a business and I'll add one with great margins, access to a huge audience, and low start up costs. If you even have a modicum of talent in telling a story and can writer quickly, your chances of making a living at it is very good.


----------



## Chrisbwritin (Jan 28, 2014)

bobfrost said:


> I just smile when I see the "this business is 99% luck" comments.


This. Very much this.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

Tim_A said:


> With a publisher - even a small press publisher - I wouldn't be out of pocket. I might not make lots of money, but I wouldn't lose it either. Right now I'm bigtime out of pocket on my existing books, to the tune that I can't actually afford to get my WIP properly edited. That wouldn't happen with a publisher.


Yes.
And that's exactly why I'm slowly coming around to the fact that my next few books will either go to small ebook presses and/or a category publisher who doesn't require an agent. (I've done the whole agent thing twice and have the scars to prove it. You don't have to hit me over the head with a mallet three times to teach me a hard lesson.)

You can crash and burn just as easily with a publisher, maybe even easier, but at least the upfront costs are theirs, not yours.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Sorry to be nitpickety and this isn't intended as a personal attack on the OP, but like Orwell, I believe words have power.  They often reveal our underlying assumptions. The fact that the OP used the word "official" when a publisher is merely a business competing with other businesses shows how the traditionals have succeeded in establishing a peculiar and undeserved legitimacy in the popular mind. 

This mindset works against independent authors, and needs to be done away with, one reader at a time if need be.


----------



## Sonya Bateman (Feb 3, 2013)

Z. Rider said:


> There's an understatement.


LOL. If I wasn't generally a polite person, I probably would've worded that a bit stronger.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Chrisbwritin said:


> This. Very much this.


Yep. That makes three of us.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

LaraWhitmore said:


> I'm wondering what's in it for authors. We write a 100k novel.
> 
> They offer to publish it for 50% royalties. In exchange, there's some professional editing, cover design, and maybe assigned an ISN. They offer to sell the finished work through their site (when it's doubtful people shop there) and many distributors (when we can publish there anyway).
> 
> ...


This subject has been beaten to death in the forums so many times, but here goes:
Most publishers do way way more than you listed. 
No, you cannot get your book into the same distribution level as a publisher can. Publishers have access to systems that indie authors don't have.
A good publisher is your partner in building a career, not just publishing a book. 
Hiring an editor who may or may not know what's currently selling in your genre, who has only a limited experience with your genre, or who simply has lousy taste and gives you bad genre advice is a pitfall that many indie authors fall into. With a publisher, you're getting an editor who wanted your book, believes in your book, understands the market for your book, and has a deeply vested interest in making sure your book does well. And she won't suck up to you to protect her job and tell you the book is great when it isn't. 
I could keep going, but really, there have been so many posts about this subject already.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

LaraWhitmore said:


> I mean more small press. If we're talking top five, I understand. But small presses? Mmmm... what for? Every big press starts as a small press, but there are some small presses out there that make me wonder about the professionalism of their operation.


Your mileage may vary. So? Just as it's imperative to do your homework when picking an editor, cover artist or publicist, you do your homework when choosing a publisher. My small press has been very successful and we publish in most of the top fiction genres. We have authors who do not want to self-publish AT ALL. We publish backlist for Anne Stuart, one of the top romance authors. We publish popular author D.B. Reynold's Vampires in America series. We're doing great with the novels of Sue Kearney and Diana Pharoah Francis. We just returned from the Epic ebook awards in Texas with another handful of Wins for our books and cover art. You guys talk about small presses without knowing much about them. And for the record, a recent survey confirmed that most authors are much happier with a publisher than going it alone. Whatever floats your book, go for it. Self-pubbing is great! But ignorantly bashing publishers just sounds like sour grapes.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Deborahsmith author said:


> Your mileage may vary. So? Just as it's imperative to do your homework when picking an editor, cover artist or publicist, you do your homework when choosing a publisher. My small press has been very successful and we publish in most of the top fiction genres. We have authors who do not want to self-publish AT ALL. We publish backlist for Anne Stuart, one of the top romance authors. We publish popular author D.B. Reynold's Vampires in America series. We're doing great with the novels of Sue Kearney and Diana Pharoah Francis. We just returned from the Epic ebook awards in Texas with another handful of Wins for our books and cover art. You guys talk about small presses without knowing much about them. And for the record, a recent survey confirmed that most authors are much happier with a publisher than going it alone. Whatever floats your book, go for it. Self-pubbing is great! But ignorantly bashing publishers just sounds like sour grapes.


Which guys? I took a quick look back through this thread, and almost every post has been very evenhanded, pointing out the benefits and drawbacks of going with a publisher vs. self-publishing. To quote myself, and, indirectly, Michael Sullivan, "As Michael says, there's plenty a good publisher can bring to the table, especially pushing your book in a way very few indies have the power to do."


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2015)

Deborahsmith author said:


> But ignorantly bashing publishers just sounds like sour grapes.


I've been reading this thread with interest and only saw well balanced discussion until the above comment. I'm a newbie on the K-Boards but they few posts I have seen from you have stuck in my mind as the overall tone seems to be highly critical of people who chose to self publish. I'm a little confused as to why you come here just to criticise the path other people chose to take. You run a press, I get that, but the attitude I've seen in your posts might actually deter someone from subbing. Just throwing that out as food for thought.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Which guys? I took a quick look back through this thread, and almost every post has been very evenhanded, pointing out the benefits and drawbacks of going with a publisher vs. self-publishing. To quote myself, and, indirectly, Michael Sullivan, "As Michael says, there's plenty a good publisher can bring to the table, especially pushing your book in a way very few indies have the power to do."


I concur. As a non-indie, and someone with zero interest in going indie, this is actually the most well balanced discussion on the topic I believe I've seen on these boards.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

There are advantages and disadvantages to both routes, and, as with everything else, individual results will varying.

I predict that publishing as we once knew it will die. Once those that refuse to embrace the new direction of sharing the written word diminish in numbers, so will the companies that feed them. (And by "companies", I mean publishing companies in the traditional sense.)

There biggest barrier remaining is the distribution problem. Someday, that too will be solved and the floodgates will be open.

Me thinks the revolution in publishing has only heard the first shot. What will be left after the dust settles are companies that provide needed services for authors, either for a fee or for a percentage of sales. There will always be writers who just want to write, and there is nothing wrong with that. I like to drive my car, but I don't like to fix it. I pay a mechanic for that.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Rykymus said:


> There are advantages and disadvantages to both routes, and, as with everything else, individual results will varying.
> 
> I predict that publishing as we once knew it will die. Once those that refuse to embrace the new direction of sharing the written word diminish in numbers, so will the companies that feed them. (And by "companies", I mean publishing companies in the traditional sense.)
> 
> ...


There's a large segment of the population that wants the "gatekeepers" to do the work for them so that they can filter out the "self published" crap. I don't foresee this ever changing unless we get a better review system. The one we have now is not at all reliable.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Briteka said:


> Good writers just starting out (or not making it at all) have a better chance of querying, getting an agent and then getting a trade deal than they do of making a living self publishing their book.


This right here is the crux of the matter. And I think it is a point of incommensurability. This view and its opposite cannot be proven with the data we have available, so they are both matters of faith. Pretty much everyone either believes this or its opposite, and neither the twain shall meet.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Cherise Kelley said:


> This right here is the crux of the matter. And I think it is a point of incommensurability. This view and its opposite cannot be proven with the data we have available, so they are both matters of faith. Pretty much everyone either believes this or its opposite, and neither the twain shall meet.


That's probably true. I know that Briteka's contention was certainly not true for me, and the same can be said for many indies. But..what do the objective data say, overall? I don't know. I know that my path worked well, and it seems to me that it's easier and much faster to break out in self-publishing than in trad publishing--and then to go the tradpubbed route when they are coming to you instead of the other way around. But...who knows, as I said, what you'd find overall if you had the tools to measure it. You can't do a controlled study, so nobody's really able to say for sure, are they?

All I know is, for me? When I needed an agent because I had something for that agent to do, it was a matter of sending an email. I had a response in 15 minutes. At night. And this was one of the many, many people who'd rejected me two years earlier. There's absolutely nothing like success to make you smell sweeter.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

It's hard to find an objective view on the data because there are so many variables that go into it. Of the self-publishers who aren't making a living, how many of them actually want to make a living? How many are just doing it as a hobby? How many are being held back because of covers or editing or marketing?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> It's hard to find an objective view on the data because there are so many variables that go into it. Of the self-publishers who aren't making a living, how many of them actually want to make a living? How many are just doing it as a hobby? How many are being held back because of covers or editing or marketing?


You'd also have to have somebody objective (hah) to identify a group of new authors who had written books that were of a standard that would be acceptable to most agents and editors--in other words, books whose refusal would be based on taste or perceived market preferences. Then you'd have to randomly divide them into two groups, one of which would go the agent rounds, and the other of which would self-publish. Then you could compare earnings over one year, two years, five years.

Wouldn't that be fascinating? I think so, anyway.

In actuality, people probably self-select for the path that will suit them better. I'm guessing that authors who go the trad route perhaps write in genres that are less favorable to indies (literary fiction, thrillers to some extent, children's books, some kinds of nonfiction), and authors who go the indie route may write in genres that are very indie-friendly (particularly romance and erotica; also sci-fi/fantasy). And then you have people who don't want, for whatever reason, to learn the ins and outs of self-publishing vs. those of a more entrepreneurial bent, or who perhaps have some marketing background. Fast writers vs. slow writers. Etc., etc., etc.

I still think it'd be an interesting study.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Rykymus said:


> I predict that publishing as we once knew it will die.


Publishing as I once knew it is already dead.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Oh yeah, I think it'd be a real interesting read. I hope someone does do some kind of comprehensive study along those lines in the future.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Briteka said:


> There's a large segment of the population that wants the "gatekeepers" to do the work for them so that they can filter out the "self published" crap. I don't foresee this ever changing unless we get a better review system. The one we have now is not at all reliable.


Who filters out the traditionally published crap? Because I've seen some garbage published by traditional publishers.

So it cuts both ways.

With indies, the problem is nobody is filtering the garbage, but at least there's no stamp of legitimacy and the price (and level of risk) is generally low.

With tradpubs, when garbage gets through, it gets sold to people as gold, usually for a pretty penny.

The cure for both is the same - caveat emptor. Or we need reliable and unbiased curators rather than the current abusable review system. Publishers aren't any more of an answer to the problem of reviews than anything else. Some publishers seem to be far better at the sock puppet game than indies are.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

Some small presses do extremely well with loyal followings. My cousin sells bucketloads with Siren Menage/Bookstrand, and I think most of her sales are directly through their site.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> I've heard that Ellora's Cave used to be great, but is not so much these days.
> 
> 
> > There's an understatement.


And there you have the other issue. Some of these presses have very little institutional existence beyond their founder's personal efforts and they are one financial setback, emotional meltdown, or car accident away from ceasing to exist and bankruptcies can result in authors losing the rights to their books or having contracts completely altered.

I've looked seriously and I've yet to see an e-press that has overall better sales than indies in my genre. Yes, most of them have someone who's blowing out the charts, but most of them also have books with 100k+ sales ranks, which I think most any indie with a decent cover and blurb can attract.

Comparisons are hard though. Maybe someone can write a good book, but has no judgement on covers or they can't write a blurb. Maybe a publisher would be able do a better job. But would they do a better enough job to be worth giving up half your royalties? Then you have people who are never going to sell a book. A publisher is going to turn them down and their indie books aren't going to move.


----------



## Z. Rider (Aug 15, 2014)

Sarah Aubrey said:


> or they can't write a blurb. Maybe a publisher would be able do a better job.


If you can find a small press publisher that writes (or even edits) your blurb. I find it strange that many small presses (at least the ones I and some of the writers I hang out with have worked with) don't care to be more hands-on with one of the most important passive sales tools. Even when the blurb from the author is _terrible_ (and I've seen some pretty terrible ones recently from small presses), they run with it.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

You can hire help to write professional blurbs, just like you can hire help for anything else.

My blurbs will be written by my editor, I don't even dare to try.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2015)

David VanDyke said:


> Who filters out the traditionally published crap? Because I've seen some garbage published by traditional publishers.


This is a silly argument and always has been. There is a world of difference between a book you felt was just bad and a badly _produced_ book. Yes, large publishers produce a lot of junk I have no interest in (it still pains me that _Twilight_ exists), but at least there is a bare minimum production level involved. I can read _Twilight_ and despite thinking the plot is absurd and trite still recognize that it had a baseline editing completed and that the author could construct complete sentences. The very worst trade published books are still miles ahead of the worse self published books. I realize it is a Cardinal Sin to suggest it. But there is no comparison between the worst trade published book and the worst self-published book. And there are far MORE horrid self-published books that trade books simply because the cost of entry to self-publish is nothing. Trade publishers, at least, have overhead and bills that have to be paid and therefore make a concerted effort to at a minimum produce something sellable.



> With indies, the problem is nobody is filtering the garbage, but at least there's no stamp of legitimacy and the price (and level of risk) is generally low.


I hate to be the bearing of bad news, but consumers WANT a "stamp of legitimacy." Most consumers don't want to have to cull the garbage. They want someone to do that for them. That is why places like Bookbub are so popular. They provide a stamp of legitimacy. The average consumer is highly risk averse. That is why people tend to revolve around certain brands even when the store brand is half the price (and newsflash, often the store brand and the brand name are made by the same manufacturer and just put in different packaging!).

To the question of the thread:

Self-Publishing is ultimately a business. Do you want to run a business? Do you want to be involved in the day-to-day operations of that business? There is a lot more to it that just writing the book. There is editing and proofreading and formatting and cover design and distribution and marketing and tax considerations and legal issues and a host of day-to-day logistics. Much of it can be learned. Much of it can be contracted out. But you still need to manage it all. If you are the type of person with the will and work ethic and the temperament to do it, then do it. If, on the other hand, all of this stuff does not excite you, don't do it. There is more to consider that "royalty percentage."

Yeah. Amazon pays 70% "royalty." But it isn't a true royalty, because you are on the hook for 100% of the expenses. A publisher may only pay 40%, but they are eating all of the financial risk. Some people don't want to be bothered with the business of publishing. They aren't lazy or stupid. They just have taken an honest stock of their interests and don't want to do it. To some people, it is worth it to make less per sale and know that someone else is handling everything. Heck, one of my authors DID have his own imprint for a while and closed it. His words to me, "I don't know how you do it." Because he just couldn't wrap his head around the actual management of the business.

I'm a project junkie. I LOVE the entire process. I get a thrill taking a project from idea and seeing it through to publication and beyond. But not everyone does. So whether or not you should pursue a trade deal or self-publish honestly has NOTHING to do with publishers per se and everything to do with the individual. As an individual, you have to be honest with yourself. What is your true skill base? What are you really, _honestly_, prepared to invest in both money and time? What are you willing to give up? What do you personally value?


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This is a silly argument and always has been. There is a world of difference between a book you felt was just bad and a badly _produced_ book. Yes, large publishers produce a lot of junk I have no interest in (it still pains me that _Twilight_ exists), but at least there is a bare minimum production level involved. I can read _Twilight_ and despite thinking the plot is absurd and trite still recognize that it had a baseline editing completed and that the author could construct complete sentences. The very worst trade published books are still miles ahead of the worse self published books. I realize it is a Cardinal Sin to suggest it. But there is no comparison between the worst trade published book and the worst self-published book. And there are far MORE horrid self-published books that trade books simply because the cost of entry to self-publish is nothing. Trade publishers, at least, have overhead and bills that have to be paid and therefore make a concerted effort to at a minimum produce something sellable.


Truest words spoken in this thread.


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

TOS.


----------



## NathanMeunier (Aug 10, 2013)

To be honest, I can't see any real reason to go with any sort of third-party publisher for ebooks. I'd focus instead on building your audience and the connection you have with readers (your site, social media, and mailing list, etc), then going with KDP or other large ebook options and sell direct to them. Anywhere you can cut out the middlemen -- unless they have something of true value to offer in exchange for the sacrifice in royalties -- is a good thing.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This is a silly argument and always has been. There is a world of difference between a book you felt was just bad and a badly _produced_ book.


You're making the huge and incorrect assumption that I am referring to the underlying content and story. I'm not (or not only, though a decent editor should make sure to catch plot errors and so on). I'm also referring to the production values of some tradpubbed books I've bought over the years - most thankfully used - that were badly edited, badly formatted, even badly printed. This is especially true of tradpubbed books converted into ebooks that are rife with spelling and use errors because they didn't bother to check the scanned and converted copy. Some of them were scanned as pictures, so the "ebook" was a series of graphics of old scanned paged. These were by major publishers.

Also, I once returned a hardback that had 57 pages missing. That error must have impacted thousands of people.

[Sorry I'm not savvy enough to get this embedded into post quotes]

"I hate to be the bearing of bad news,"

-condescension doesn't help-

"but consumers WANT a "stamp of legitimacy." Most consumers don't want to have to cull the garbage. They want someone to do that for them. That is why places like Bookbub are so popular. They provide a stamp of legitimacy. The average consumer is highly risk averse. That is why people tend to revolve around certain brands even when the store brand is half the price (and newsflash, often the store brand and the brand name are made by the same manufacturer and just put in different packaging!)."

- You're preaching to the choir but apparently don't realize it. My point was that when readers buy a book from a new indie, they generally know they are taking a risk and won't pay much. This makes it doubly worse when that stamp of legitimacy is abused to sell junk for high prices. If they want to charge higher prices and retain the assumption of quality before the fact, publishers must be held to a higher standard. Unfortunately, they often seem to be given a pass.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> - You're preaching to the choir but apparently don't realize it. My point was that when readers buy a book from a new indie, they generally know they are taking a risk and won't pay much. This makes it doubly worse when that stamp of legitimacy is abused to sell junk for high prices. If they want to charge higher prices and retain the assumption of quality before the fact, publishers must be held to a higher standard. Unfortunately, they often seem to be given a pass.


Maybe I've just been lucky? I'm 30 years old now. I've been reading heavy since I was in grade school. I've ONLY read trade pubbed books. I have always vetted my books based off of things like bestsellers list and reviews from outlets like NYT, Kirkus, USA Today, etc. I've never, and I mean this literally, NEVER had a bad experience with a book in terms of its formatting or errors. And yes, despite the appearance of my rushed forum posts, I can spot spelling and punctuation errors quite easily (I am a licensed English teacher). So, I don't know, the stamps of legitimacy have always worked in my favor. Perhaps we read different books.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Every time I see some author griping about poorly edited traditional books, it is usually the complaining author that doesn't understand regional differences.  Just because you write only Article Subject Verb, with no variation does not mean that is the only proper way.  

Now here is the thing on that one.  Let's say that  you say 50 shades is unedited and full of errors and is crap.  I read this.  Hypothetically, let's say the reader liked 50 shades.  You said said the reader likes crap.  That could be insulting to a reader.  The reader might think what a pompous arrogant jerk.  I won't bother with his books because he probably thinks his books are made of gold when they are really  aren't.

Disclaimer: I am not liking 50 shades but not for editing issues.  I am having a problem with the presentation of the content.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

My wife devours mysteries and has for years. She loads her iPad with freebies promoted by Bookbub. She says that most such books are so ridden with typos, she gets sidetracked wanting to correct them and can't fully enjoy the book. She says it's not just every now and then; it's consistent and pervasive. Her stack of musty old trad-published mass paperbacks, however, do not evince such levels of poor production.

This is typical of self-pubbed works, and virtually everyone here agrees. But it seems to also be typical of works promoted by Bookbub at least in Judy's experience.

Why use an "official" publisher? An author who can't edit and can't afford an editor should give it serious consideration. If they can get published, that is.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Al Stevens said:


> My wife devours mysteries and has for years. She loads her iPad with freebies promoted by Bookbub. She says that most such books are so ridden with typos, she gets sidetracked wanting to correct them and can't fully enjoy the book. She says it's not just every now and then; it's consistent and pervasive. Her stack of musty old trad-published mass paperbacks, however, do not evince such levels of poor production.
> 
> This is typical of self-pubbed works, and virtually everyone here agrees. But it seems to also be typical of works promoted by Bookbub at least in Judy's experience.
> 
> Why use an "official" publisher? An author who can't edit and can't afford an editor should give it serious consideration. If they can get published, that is.


*Oh, come on now, brother! Preach it! I feel a fire movin' in this place!*

*Can I get an amen?*

_Amen!_

This man speaks the truth.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

HAGrant said:


> An author friend goes through a small press. She says if she self-published she would have to pay for editing, formatting, and covers herself and she doesn't want to do that. The small press covers everything.
> 
> I think she could earn a lot more money on her own, plus change the prices around, run promotions, etc. Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes.


I agree. And your friend IS paying for editing, formatting, and covers herself... FOREVER with the other half of HER money she is giving away to the publisher.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Hey, if I think your book will sell, then I'll be happy to e-publish it for you and provide editing, formatting, and cover art. My estate keeps 3/4 of whatever comes in for your life plus 70 years. If that sounds good to you, then let's talk!

Oh, but you do all the promoting. Not everyone is up-front about that, but it's pretty standard until you start bringing in $50,000 a year. Then I'll promote for you.

If I think your book will sell well, then I'll give you a $5,000 advance. But let's face it, I expect you to spend that advance promoting your book for me us.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Annnnnd now the thread has devolved into baseless generalizations about trade pubs, yay! It only took 3 pages to get there. Good job!


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

JV said:


> Annnnnd now the thread has devolved into baseless generalizations about trade pubs, yay! It only took 3 pages to get there. Good job!


True, but it's hardly fair to condemn what you already enthusiastically encouraged from the other side - baseless generalizations about indies.

***



Al Stevens said:


> This is typical of self-pubbed works, and virtually everyone here agrees. But it seems to also be typical of works promoted by Bookbub at least in Judy's experience.
> 
> Why use an "official" publisher? An author who can't edit and can't afford an editor should give it serious consideration. If they can get published, that is.


Again, there's no such thing as an _official_ publisher, unless we're talking about a government printing office of some sort. It's Orwellian to insist there is.

It adds nothing to the discussion to say in essence "the typical self-pubbed work sucks" because there is no typical. What is "typical"? Is that the mean, mode or median among many? Are we talking about books published recently? Books published by established indies or merely anyone who has slapped something up on Amazon? Depending on the definition we use, I might agree wholeheartedly or I might disagree vehemently. So I can't accept that "virtually everyone here agrees" unless these underlying assumptions are addressed.

By the same token, I do believe you _can_ say the "typical" tradpubbed book meets basic standards - but not always. Is that basic standard worth paying (usually) a 100% premium for the reader? Is it worth giving up a large royalty percentage for the author? Not for me, in either case.

As for BookBub, they said in their recent thread that they get some 1000 submissions a day. Obviously they can only curate at a basic level - does the cover, blurb and first chapter look decent? Will it appeal to their readers? They have no way of knowing if the rest of the book turns into a train wreck of formatting and editing later. But, it's a start.

I for one would love to see some independent vetting or review body to evaluate indies, someone to weed out the high proportion that are dilettantes, those that folk here often complain about, the ones that make everyone look bad and become the stereotype.

But the key would be independence.


----------



## Lara Reznik23 (Feb 6, 2015)

This is a very interesting dialog that I felt compelled to jump on in. I have numerous clients and author friends who have gone with small publishers and the bottom line for *every single one of them* is the publishers have done pretty much ZERO marketing for them other than set up some book signings which resulted in a minuscule amount of revenue. A couple landed local radio interviews which were fun and prestigious but also had very low ROI. I have one client who formerly published with St. Martin's Press and basically had the same experience. Almost all formerly published with small publishers gave up the rights to their book(s), even characters in some cases of series, control of cover design, final editing, etc. etc. Bottom line, they ended up marketing their own books, (and had to be granted permission to do so), for 15% of revenue vs. the 70% one can get on Amazon if you self-publish. So, if you decide to go with one of them, make sure you do your homework to get testimonials from real clients to see what they did to market their books.

As you know, the second option is to indie publish. However, I totally understand that a number of you reading this post just don't have the $$$ to shell out on professional editing, interior formatting, cover design, social media optimization, and a customized marketing campaign. These are all services that my company, Enchanted Indie Press, offers for a price. My suggestion is for you to try and get as much done on your own by trading with other authors in the same boat. I get all my developmental and structural editing done by my critique group. If you have four or five competent friends or relatives read a draft for punctuation, grammar, and spelling, you can save a lot more $$$ on copyediting. I would be careful who you get to format the manuscript to an e-book. You can try using Scrivener (my favorite writing tool and it only costs $45,) but I won't lie, it's very time consuming. And it's really essential that the resulting MOBI file looks professional or you are toast. Cover design is most critical, so I would save my pennies to pay a professional for that. Last, but not least, is marketing. Every day, I spend a few hours studying the latest, greatest trends in indie book marketing. You, too, can spend time on the internet and basically do the same thing.

By now, you're thinking, but I just want to write and what you're asking me to do is time consuming. That is true, but let's be real, you have two choices, pay for the services, or spend the time learning to do them yourself.

However, there's a third option. And this one is only good if you have a really powerful novel and you fall into one of the more popular genres such as mystery thriller, romance, or historical fiction. Check out Amazon's new "Kindle Scout" program. https://kindlescout.amazon.com/about It's definitely a viable third alternative. You will be published under an Amazon imprint and they will market the heck out of your book for 50% of the revenues. A win-win if you get selected. And of course, that's a big "if." Good luck.

Best, Lara
CEO - Enchanted Indie Press www.enchantedindiepress.com
Author - _The Girl From Long Guyland / The M&M Boys_ www.larareznik.com

P.S. If you decide to use any of Enchanted Indie Press services, we will provide you with our publishers imprint and a free ISBN.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> True, but it's hardly fair to condemn what you already enthusiastically encouraged from the other side - baseless generalizations about indies.


Wrong.

I did NOT encourage baseless anything about indies. In fact, what I agreed with is essentially something you admitted to earlier, when you're buying an indie you're taking a risk.

Did I say ALL indies? No. Did I encourage a post that said all indies? No.

It doesn't take too many IQ points to realize that being indie allows people to cut certain corners, like editing. It also goes without saying that there are a LOT more indies out there then there are trade simply because it's pretty wide open. Want to publish a book? Just upload it. It's the wild west in that regard. It also isn't hard to imagine that a majority of people, coming out with their first book as an indie, might not be able to afford a professional editor. This, of course, leads to a large pool of poorly edited indie books.

Trade pubs, even small presses, always use editors. I've never come across a situation where they don't.

That's all Al was saying. That's what I was agreeing with.

So yeah, it is what it is.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

JV said:


> Did I say ALL indies? No. Did I encourage a post that said all indies? No.


Nor did I say all indies. Putting words in my mouth to create straw man arguments isn't helpful to a reasoned discussion. Nor is cheerleading, piling on, sarcasm, or condescension.

"It doesn't take too many IQ points..."

Ditto.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> Nor did I say all indies. Putting words in my mouth to create straw man arguments isn't helpful to a reasoned discussion. Nor is cheerleading, piling on, sarcasm, or condescension.
> 
> "It doesn't take too many IQ points..."
> 
> Ditto.


No, David, it's not cheerleading, it's called agreement. If you don't agree..well...too bad...feel free to disagree.

Moving on, you see, you're now adding context. You are assuming that the "IQ points" statement was directed towards you. You may want to follow your own advice and stop trying to give my statements personal meaning, don't try to be a martyr. It was simply a statement. It was not sarcasm nor was its purpose to be condescending.

Also, stop with the debate club highlights, pleeeease. You kept accusing everyone of "ad hominem" attacking you in another thread and now you're accusing me of creating "straw men". I too was in debate club in college and I am very aware of the various argumentative fallacies, however, that's not what occurred here. You did indeed say indies have an inherent risk factor. If you'd like to backtrack on that now to suit your point, by all means, but don't try it by accusing me of argumentative fallacies, doesn't work on me.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

JV said:


> *Oh, come on now, brother! Preach it! I feel a fire movin' in this place!*
> 
> *Can I get an amen?*
> 
> _Amen!_


This is cheerleading. This is stoking emotional fires rather than engaging in reasoned discussion.

No, I'm not assuming the IQ point comment was aimed at me personally - but it was aimed at someone or someones, apparently those who disagree with you, and it's condescending.

Yes, I do call out those who go _ad hominem._ I do my best to attack the argument, not the man or woman, because I think attacking others, whether directly or indirectly with loaded words such as "pleeeease" is unhelpful. But calling attention to bad behavior isn't an attack _per se._


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

David VanDyke said:


> Again, there's no such thing as an _official_ publisher


Agreed. Thus the quotation marks to quote the thread title.


David VanDyke said:


> It adds nothing to the discussion to say in essence "the typical self-pubbed work sucks" because there is no typical. What is "typical"?


A majority of books can be said to be typical with respect to certain characteristics that they share. The typical book has a cover. The typical car has a steering wheel. The typical self-pubbed book has typos. That's what _typical_ means.

Not to suggest I've read all the self-pubbed books out there. But I've read a lot of samples. And the typical jumps out after a few pages.


David VanDyke said:


> By the same token, I do believe you _can_ say the "typical" tradpubbed book meets basic standards - but not always. Is that basic standard worth paying (usually) a 100% premium for the reader? Is it worth giving up a large royalty percentage for the author? Not for me, in either case.


To each his own. Perhaps you are like many of us who can perform for yourself or farm out such services.


David VanDyke said:


> As for BookBub, they said in their recent thread that they get some 1000 submissions a day. Obviously they can only curate at a basic level - does the cover, blurb and first chapter look decent? Will it appeal to their readers? They have no way of knowing if the rest of the book turns into a train wreck of formatting and editing later. But, it's a start.


No one expects them to read 1,000 books/day cover-to-cover. But given that they reject the majority, recommend what's left--a small number--and put their stamp on the recommendations, one might expect them to at least read beyond the first chapter of what they've chosen.


David VanDyke said:


> I for one would love to see some independent vetting or review body to evaluate indies, someone to weed out the high proportion that are dilettantes, those that folk here often complain about, the ones that make everyone look bad and become the stereotype.
> 
> But the key would be independence.


That's how Bookbub represents itself without much success, although I think they could become that. I'd like to see it too, but what we wish for turns out to be more gatekeepers. Indie authors' forums would then be filled with plaintive pleas about how to get books approved by this new entity.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

David VanDyke said:


> This is cheerleading. This is stoking emotional fires rather than engaging in reasoned discussion.


Come on, David, I don't get that many amens. Don't take one a way from me.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> This is cheerleading. This is stoking emotional fires rather than engaging in reasoned discussion.
> 
> No, I'm not assuming the IQ point comment was aimed at me personally - but it was aimed at someone or someones, apparently those who disagree with you, and it's condescending.


No, that was called humorous commentary. If it stoked your emotional fire, that's not on me. Perhaps, stop being so serious? Al was saying nothing that should have been causing you emotional grief. He was simply relaying an observation based off of his wife's personal experience, one that makes a lot of sense when one considers the indie publishing landscape. So, rather than simply typing a boring, "I agree" or "This" I decided to switch it up, I make no apologies for that.

It was not aimed at someone. Nor was it aimed at someone's someone. This has been an even handed conversation (or it was till we got two of the typical indie bashing trade pub comments). I've basically been right along with everyone else in this thread, compiling the pluses and minuses. There was no debate going on. It was a simply play on words, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Al Stevens said:


> I'd like to see it too, but what we wish for turns out to be more gatekeepers. Indie authors' forums would then be filled with plaintive pleas about how to get books approved by this new entity.


...and we would hope that the way to get approved would be to write a good book, though there will always be debate about what that means. Unfortunately, I agree that what would happen, in part, is that some would be trying to game the system or break the code. In the best of all worlds, there would be no code to break.

However, I do know that the danger in such a body is that it would tend to become an echo chamber of experts not reflective of what the mass of readers want. Witness what routinely happens with the Academy Awards. They bless movies critics love, and often have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the same for popular blockbusters, because the tastes of critics are usually different from the common man.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> I do my best to attack the argument, not the man or woman, because I think attacking others, whether directly or indirectly with loaded words such as "pleeeease" is unhelpful. But calling attention to bad behavior isn't an attack _per se._


Ah, but you weren't attacking the argument, you were trying to back track on a statement by stretching my words and trying to accuse me of an argumentative fallacy...like in the other thread with the dozen or so accusations of "ad hominem" (I was simply an observer for that one).

If I had said "please" instead of "pleaaaaase" would it have changed the meaning behind my words? As the speaker of said words, I can confidently say that no...no it wouldn't have.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> However, I do know that the danger in such a body is that it would tend to become an echo chamber of experts not reflective of what the mass of readers want. Witness what routinely happens with the Academy Awards. They bless movies critics love, and often have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the same for popular blockbusters, because the tastes of critics are usually different from the common man.


I don't know that I agree. Readers tend to have good tastes when it comes to books, I find. If a book is poorly constructed it's going to get torn apart on Amazon. If the plot doesn't add up, if it's rife with errors, if the sentence structure and formatting aren't up to par, you'll hear about it. Not so much with movies. The plot, cinematography and action choreography can be awful (Transformers) the acting can be terrible (Act of Valor) the bad guys and side characters can be cartoons (American Sniper) and the movie going public will eat it up and not say a critical word about it.

The Academy Awards, in my opinion, separate the well crafted films from the garbage heap.

Is the average reader more critical than the average movie goer? Are they more selective? Better taste (subjective, I know)?

The Academy Awards, for me, let me know which films are worth my time...which films are well made. Granted, as a film fanatic, I tend to be way ahead of them. Having something like that for books, something that let's me know which books are well plotted, absent of errors, etc...that's something that sounds useful. Something I believe would be constructive in the indie world.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

JV said:


> I don't know that I agree. Readers tend to have good tastes when it comes to books, I find. If a book is poorly constructed it's going to get torn apart on Amazon. If the plot doesn't add up, if it's rife with errors, if the sentence structure and formatting aren't up to par, you'll hear about it. Not so much with movies. The plot, cinematography and action choreography can be awful (Transformers) the acting can be terrible (Act of Valor) the bad guys and side characters can be cartoons (American Sniper) and the movie going public will eat it up and not say a critical word about it.
> 
> The Academy Awards, in my opinion, separate the well crafted films from the garbage heap.
> 
> ...


I think they were caricatures which is slighly worse than a cartoon. I wish Hollywood would quit stereotyping certain areas.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> I think they were caricatures which is slighly worse than a cartoon. I wish Hollywood would quit stereotyping certain areas.


You're probably right. I was just thinking of the guy in all black with the turban free running across the rooftops of Iraq with his sniper while grimacing...you could almost see the "I hate America" thought bubbles above his head.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

JV said:


> You're probably right. I was just thinking of the guy in all black with the turban free running across the rooftops of Iraq with his sniper while grimacing...you could almost see the "I hate America" thought bubbles above his head.


I was thinking the girlfriend.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> I was thinking the girlfriend.


Yeah...she was pretty two dimensional...really, everyone was.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

Part of the problem with this argument seems to me that there are publishers and publishers.

Are there small press books riddled with errors and bad editing? Absolutely.

Are there established press books with the same? Well, you get the occasional error. But a book that is clearly badly edited stands out there because it is the exception rather than the rule.

I make the same allowances for small e-first press books that I do for self published books. I'm a lot harsher with books from New York publishers, because I reasonably expect better.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

There's nothing wrong with people going trad pub, self pub, or hybrid. It's just a business model. Some people are not cut out to be entrepreneurs. They need to go traditional. Other people don't want to work for the man--these are the indies. And then you have the people who trad pub and moonlight on the side (the hybrids).


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Anne Victory said:


> There's nothing wrong with people going trad pub, self pub, or hybrid. It's just a business model. Some people are not cut out to be entrepreneurs. They need to go traditional. Other people don't want to work for the man--these are the indies. And then you have the people who trad pub and moonlight on the side (the hybrids).


:::thumbs up for truth:::


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2015)

David VanDyke said:


> - You're preaching to the choir but apparently don't realize it. My point was that when readers buy a book from a new indie, they generally know they are taking a risk and won't pay much. This makes it doubly worse when that stamp of legitimacy is abused to sell junk for high prices. If they want to charge higher prices and retain the assumption of quality before the fact, publishers must be held to a higher standard. Unfortunately, they often seem to be given a pass.


I think I need to clarify my underlying thoughts. I do NOT differentiate between indie and trade published books. I don't care how a book is produced. I expect it to meet a baseline minimum. And outside our little KB Bubble, most consumers don't even know "indie" is a thing. They see a book on Amazon and don't really differentiate between "indie" and "trade" unless they are really plugged into the industry. I do not accept excuses out of indies. I don't want to hear that an indie couldn't afford an editor or that since an indie book is only 99 cents I should give it a pass on proofreading. I am a consumer. And when I buy a product, I expect it to meet certain bare minimum requirements. I don't take risks just because a book is cheap because a cheap book takes as long to read as a more expensive book. I have a very limited amount of free time for recreational reading. So I'm not going to waste ten hours of my life just because an indie book is cheap. I still expect it to meet certain baseline standards regardless of who published it.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I think I need to clarify my underlying thoughts. I do NOT differentiate between indie and trade published books. I don't care how a book is produced. I expect it to meet a baseline minimum. And outside our little KB Bubble, most consumers don't even know "indie" is a thing. They see a book on Amazon and don't really differentiate between "indie" and "trade" unless they are really plugged into the industry. I do not accept excuses out of indies. I don't want to hear that an indie couldn't afford an editor or that since an indie book is only 99 cents I should give it a pass on proofreading. I am a consumer. And when I buy a product, I expect it to meet certain bare minimum requirements. I don't take risks just because a book is cheap because a cheap book takes as long to read as a more expensive book. I have a very limited amount of free time for recreational reading. So I'm not going to waste ten hours of my life just because an indie book is cheap. I still expect it to meet certain baseline standards regardless of who published it.


This is all very true. Especially the part about readers not differentiating between indie and trade. When I tell people I'm a published author, I almost never get asked if I'm self-published or traditionally published.

Personally, if I find a few errors here or there--regardless of how the book was published--I don't really care (unless I'm having a bad day, then I might get prickly about it). As long as I'm enjoying the story and the errors aren't egregious and plentiful, I'll keep reading. But that's just me and I'm not representative of any reader other than myself. No author should expect a reader to go easy on them because of how they published.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2015)

Enchantedindiepress said:


> This is a very interesting dialog that I felt compelled to jump on in. I have numerous clients and author friends who have gone with small publishers and the bottom line for *every single one of them* is the publishers have done pretty much ZERO marketing for them


This is a common myth circulated by indies, but it is factually inaccurate. The reason this myth gets repeated is that most authors don't understand the audience of a publisher.

Before I get too far, I am talking about legitimate publishers. Not just a person with a Wordpress website who claims to be a publisher.

Publishers don't generally market direct to public. They market to bookstores and institutions. They aren't placing ads on KBoards as their primary marketing plan. They are placing ads in Publisher's Weekly or Book Pages or other institutional periodicals to get the book in front of bookstore managers and librarians. They aren't giving away 1000 copies of a book on Librarything hoping for Amazon reviews. They are mailing physical copies of books to media outlets to get reviews. They are spending money on media kits that get sent to procurement specialists. They work directly with retailers to customize book lists to specific store demographics. Publishers spend enormous amounts of money marketing. They just use different tools than self-publishers and a lot of what they do is invisible because it is all behind-the-scenes.

Even small companies like mine don't market in the same way as most indies do. Most of my marketing money goes into book fairs and conventions. So I really wish we could bury this falsehood as it doesn't serve the conversation and is more self-serving for people who sell services to authors.


----------

