# Do you check the writer's status?



## Guest (Mar 28, 2012)

I've noticed a lot of conversations about indie authors, which is making me wonder about something. How many readers actually check? I mean, I download a book and I never look. Determining whether or not an author is indie or goes through a publisher seems a bit strange to me. I judge the book (and whether or not I want to buy it) on the cover, the blurb, and the free sample. Going through the effort of checking for a publisher and whether or not that publisher is legit or something the writer just made up to look better seems a bit odd to me.


----------



## D/W (Dec 29, 2010)

I never check the publisher before purchasing a book. Whether a book is indie or traditionally published isn't a factor for me. I can usually decide if I want to buy from the book cover, reviews, and description. If I'm on the fence, then I'll read the sample.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

LaurenLuce said:


> I've noticed a lot of conversations about indie authors, which is making me wonder about something. How many readers actually check? I mean, I download a book and I never look. Determining whether or not an author is indie or goes through a publisher seems a bit strange to me. I judge the book (and whether or not I want to buy it) on the cover, the blurb, and the free sample. Going through the effort of checking for a publisher and whether or not that publisher is legit or something the writer just made up to look better seems a bit odd to me.


I pay no attention until after I have decided to buy it. For me to buy it should have:

1. A great cover and intriguing title.

2. A very good blurb and description.

3. I'll skim a few customer reviews, though I usually ignore the 1 and 5 stars unless they pinpoint problems in a balanced way. Can't stand rants or "best book I ever read" junk.

4. Then I'll read a short sample and based on that (writing, voicing, typos, spelling) and the above criteria I'll either buy or take a pass. Also see if they have other titles.

5. By that point it really doesn't matter if it was from big Pub of a self pub. I'm buying or passing.

I no longer think that publishers are the only ones who can put out a good book. I could care less who the pub is.


----------



## PAWilson (Jan 9, 2012)

As much as the publishers would like to believe people buy based on it being a [insert traditional imprint here], I've never bought by publisher. I buy authors I like and new authors. My rule of thumb is to get the sample and decide that way.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

LaurenLuce said:


> Determining whether or not an author is indie or goes through a publisher seems a bit strange to me.


Hold up. I see this a lot - people seem to use the word "indie" to refer to self published authors and this is not entirely accurate. Self published authors may be indie but not all indie authors are self published. "Indie" denotes any book or author published independently from a major publisher (or an imprint of a major publisher), ie "the big six" - HarperCollins, Penguin, Random House, Macmillan, Hatchette, Simon & Schuster. There are plenty of books out there published with smaller companies - so they have gone through a publisher but because they are independent of the big six, they are indie.

So I'm going to assume you're talking about self published books here, despite the usage of the term indie. To answer your question, it's often (though not always) pretty obvious when a book is self published. For starters, many of them have no print version and when they do, many have an unusually high price for the paperback compared to the ebook which is typically below $4. That alone doesn't tell me it's self published but it does tip me off and then I look at the publisher field in the product details to see more - if there's no publisher listed or alternatively, the publisher is just listed as the author, it's self published. Sometimes it will also say "CreateSpace" or other popular self publishing tools.

Like I say, not all self published books have all or any of these features but when you do see them, they are a quick give-away and once you know what to look for, it's hard to actually ignore it from then on.

None of this means self published books are never any good - or that other indie or big-six books can't be bad. But in my experience (and we've had this discussion here many times before when I've said this), you're more likely to get a bad self published book than one with SOME kind of backing behind it, even a small press. And it's more likely to have been professionally edited if it's gone through a publisher too. To me, that makes perfect sense and it's why I tend not to read self published books unless it has a number of positive (genuine) reviews.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2012)

history_lover said:


> Hold up. I see this a lot - people seem to use the word "indie" to refer to self published authors and this is not entirely accurate. Self published authors may be indie but not all indie authors are self published. "Indie" denotes any book or author published independently from a major publisher (or an imprint of a major publisher), ie "the big six" - HarperCollins, Penguin, Random House, Macmillan, Hatchette, Simon & Schuster. There are plenty of books out there published with smaller companies - so they have gone through a publisher but because they are independent of the big six, they are indie.
> 
> So I'm going to assume you're talking about self published books here, despite the usage of the term indie. To answer your question, it's often (though not always) pretty obvious when a book is self published. For starters, many of them have no print version and when they do, many have an unusually high price for the paperback compared to the ebook which is typically below $4. That alone doesn't tell me it's self published but it does tip me off and then I look at the publisher field in the product details to see more - if there's no publisher listed or alternatively, the publisher is just listed as the author, it's self published. Sometimes it will also say "CreateSpace" or other popular self publishing tools.
> 
> ...


Good point


----------



## joshtremino (Jul 31, 2010)

I don't really care one way or the other.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

history_lover said:


> Hold up. I see this a lot - people seem to use the word "indie" to refer to self published authors and this is not entirely accurate. Self published authors may be indie but not all indie authors are self published. "Indie" denotes any book or author published independently from a major publisher (or an imprint of a major publisher), ie "the big six" - HarperCollins, Penguin, Random House, Macmillan, Hatchette, Simon & Schuster. There are plenty of books out there published with smaller companies - so they have gone through a publisher but because they are independent of the big six, they are indie.


I'm going to split this hair. I don't draw the line there. There are other publishers who are quite big but not part of the big six - Harcourt Brace, Baen, Nightshade, Dreamspinner, etc ... I do not count their authors as indies. I usually think in three categories: the big six, small press (which is everything from Harcourt to the mom and pop publishers) and then indies.

I will usually categorize an indie as anyone who self-publishes their books (or as least some of their books).

That said, it doesn't influence my decision whether or not to buy a book - I use the same criteria for any author I don't already know - but I do track it after the fact for informational purposes. For example, this year the breakdown in those three groups are 29% indie books, 41% small press and 29% big 6 ....


----------



## Susan Alison (Jul 1, 2011)

I've never looked at who the publisher was before buying a book. Long before self-published, indie, whatever, ebooks, or not, and whatever else it might be - who or what had produced it was a matter of sheer indifference to me.

Even all those books I threw against the wall after a few pages for rubbish editing, cliche overload, way too much irrelevant description, non-existent story-line, all those working-too-hard adverbs (she said judiciously) etc etc - long before self-published books could be bought so easily on Amazon - even those - I never checked to see what publisher had put them out there either.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I'm going to split this hair. I don't draw the line there. There are other publishers who are quite big but not part of the big six - Harcourt Brace, Baen, Nightshade, Dreamspinner, etc ... I do not count their authors as indies. I usually think in three categories: the big six, small press (which is everything from Harcourt to the mom and pop publishers) and then indies.
> 
> I will usually categorize an indie as anyone who self-publishes their books (or as least some of their books).
> 
> That said, it doesn't influence my decision whether or not to buy a book - I use the same criteria for any author I don't already know - but I do track it after the fact for informational purposes. For example, this year the breakdown in those three groups are 29% indie books, 41% small press and 29% big 6 ....


However you want to define what qualifies as an indie publisher, the point still stands that there are indie books which are not self published.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> I'm going to split this hair. I don't draw the line there. There are other publishers who are quite big but not part of the big six - Harcourt Brace, Baen, Nightshade, Dreamspinner, etc ... I do not count their authors as indies. I usually think in three categories: *the big six, small press* (which is everything from Harcourt to the mom and pop publishers) and then *indies*.
> 
> I will usually categorize an indie as anyone who self-publishes their books (or as least some of their books).


Agree with your breakdown and usually here in the US that would be standard.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I've almost always looked--from way back when I used to read a lot of romance. There were always romance publishers who were a little too edgy or a little too lose with plots (or so I felt--somehow I came to associate certain things with certain publishers.)  I generally avoided Zebra publishing back then as I didn't find enough mystery to the romance.    I generally prefer Baen to Tor and associate TOR with longer books (which are probably wonderful, but I tend not buy books over 450 pages.  Okay, I never buy them if I know ahead of time.)  I do like some Tor authors, but I notice.

So now with indie authors or small publishers, I still take note.  There are some small publishers whose books haven't reached up and grabbed me.  Smaller publishers tend to have one or two editors.  After trying 3 or 4 books from a small publisher, it can determine whether I'll buy another book from that imprint or how much I'll pay.

But y'all know me on this board.  I'm analytical about the weirdest things.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Susan Alison said:


> I've never looked at who the publisher was before buying a book. Long before self-published, indie, whatever, ebooks, or not, and whatever else it might be - who or what had produced it was a matter of sheer indifference to me.
> 
> Even all those books I threw against the wall after a few pages for rubbish editing, cliche overload, way too much irrelevant description, non-existent story-line, all those working-too-hard adverbs (she said judiciously) etc etc - long before self-published books could be bought so easily on Amazon - even those - I never checked to see what publisher had put them out there either.


heh. Back in the day, I only noticed those publishers I bought from regularly - like Tor Books, Orbit, Del Rey, Daw - but that's because they often had a little logo on their paperback covers










Now I do track it just because I'm a bit of a spreadsheet geek and I like tracking things. My book spreadsheet shows everything I've bought since Aug 08 so it's easy to just add the publisher ....


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

I could be wrong, but I suspect answers from KB are not representative of the general reading public. KB members are extremely avid readers (and/or writers) and as such may be more open to "indie" books. Just something to consider as you think over the responses here.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

history_lover said:


> However you want to define what qualifies as an indie publisher, the point still stands that there are indie books which are not self published.


You are certainly free to count small houses as indies - we all draw a line somewhere.

For me, I don't really look at the small publishers as different from mid-size houses so I count them all together. I really only count as Indie those books published by the author. There are authors who publish with small, mid or the large houses but publish their backlist or some other books themselves - in those cases, I count only the self-published or released books as indies.


----------



## Matthew Lee Adams (Feb 19, 2012)

Kristan Hoffman said:


> I could be wrong, but I suspect answers from KB are not representative of the general reading public. KB members are extremely avid readers (and/or writers) and as such may be more open to "indie" books. Just something to consider as you think over the responses here.


I would definitely agree the KB boards don't represent the general reading public.

And yet I still believe that very few people - even among the general reading public - are even aware of who publishes a given book, whether it be an eBook or a physical copy.

As a few people noted - the main time anyone actually is aware (and even actively seeks out) books by a certain publisher (like Tor, Harlequin, Bantam, etc.) has been when that publisher defined its books into a brand.

But there aren't so many brands among publishing houses these days, although there never were a lot to begin with and those were almost always very genre-specific.

I think when an indie (self-published) author has been promoted actively and visibly as an indie, probably more readers are aware of the indie status (Amanda Hocking, or perhaps J.A. Konrath, for instance). But I feel like most people still find books the way they always have - word of mouth or reviews that make a reader aware of the existence of an author or book and cast a favorable impression, lists from Amazon or GoodReads or other sites that promote "similar lists" of books that a person might enjoy based on reading or buying preferences, and by browsing bestseller lists (several of which on Amazon have a mix of traditional and indie authors).

Obviously, any reader buying in a physical bookstore is going to see things weighted almost exclusively toward traditionally published works. But even then, few readers are going to even be aware what imprint published the book.

What it really comes down to is *branding*.

A very few publishers ever became brands (some of the ones I and others mentioned).

Otherwise, the main *brand* is an author's name or series name. People buy the latest Stephen King book. Few people even know he ever switched main publishers or which one he currently uses.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I read a lot and I am very aware of the publishers or lack thereof. Like history lover, self published  books are obvious for the either lack of paperback or high price and lack of used paperbacks. Not saying its good or bad, just stating a fact. 

I don't decide what I read by a sample. By the time I read the sample a book already has gone through my vetting process. That process includes checking reviews, checking publisher, checking on goodreads. Some of the self published stuff doesn't always show up there, or without a cover. Not sure why that is. But there I also find out if a book is a backlist release, as suppose to a pure first time self published novel. That helps me to decide when there is a history of prior publishing. 

I also actively avoid certain publishing houses, so I always look. For example I avoid everything coming out of a christian publishing house and their arms. One can't always tell by the description or reviews if it is a christian book, but as soon as I see the publisher, I know and I move on. 

I also actively seek out certain publishers for various reasons. Sometimes its a trust that I get what I want from there, or their books are lendable, others always price their ebooks below paperback even on new stuff, etc. 

I am a big browser and researcher though, so I don't know how typical that is. I do a lot of vetting with the books and so increase the probability of getting a good read. That includes being aware of the publisher. It has worked out great for me so far. 

I even follow the newsletters and twitter feeds of certain publishers and houses so I get informed about their new stuff.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Kristan is right. . .KB members are not a statistically valid sample of the reading public.  We're special. 

I have at least a half dozen friends who have kindles who are NOT KB members.  If I mention a book to them, they don't care who published it; they barely care who wrote it.  They just care if it's any good and how much it's going to cost 'em.


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Matthew Lee Adams said:


> I feel like most people still find books the way they always have - word of mouth or reviews that make a reader aware of the existence of an author or book and cast a favorable impression, lists from Amazon or GoodReads or other sites that promote "similar lists" of books that a person might enjoy based on reading or buying preferences, and by browsing bestseller lists (several of which on Amazon have a mix of traditional and indie authors).
> 
> Obviously, any reader buying in a physical bookstore is going to see things weighted almost exclusively toward traditionally published works. But even then, few readers are going to even be aware what imprint published the book.
> 
> ...


Yup yup, I agree with all that. And it's been corroborated by my experiences with other readers. For example, I'm a member of a book club, and all of us are young, professional women and avid readers in our 20s or so. But I'm the only one who really knows (or cares about) the publishing industry. And as Ann said...



Ann in Arlington said:


> If I mention a book to them, they don't care who published it; they barely care who wrote it. They just care if it's any good and how much it's going to cost 'em.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

I have never ever purchased a book based on whether it was published by so-and-so or not.  I read a ton of Stephen King.  However, I couldn't tell you who publishes him if you put a gun to my head.  

For me it's: genre, cover, blurb, and maybe price.  Those are the determining factors.  From there it's all about story.


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

history_lover said:


> Hold up. I see this a lot - people seem to use the word "indie" to refer to self published authors and this is not entirely accurate. Self published authors may be indie but not all indie authors are self published. "Indie" denotes any book or author published independently from a major publisher (or an imprint of a major publisher), ie "the big six" - HarperCollins, Penguin, Random House, Macmillan, Hatchette, Simon & Schuster. There are plenty of books out there published with smaller companies - so they have gone through a publisher but because they are independent of the big six, they are indie.
> 
> So I'm going to assume you're talking about self published books here, despite the usage of the term indie. To answer your question, it's often (though not always) pretty obvious when a book is self published. For starters, many of them have no print version and when they do, many have an unusually high price for the paperback compared to the ebook which is typically below $4. That alone doesn't tell me it's self published but it does tip me off and then I look at the publisher field in the product details to see more - if there's no publisher listed or alternatively, the publisher is just listed as the author, it's self published. Sometimes it will also say "CreateSpace" or other popular self publishing tools.
> 
> ...


Can you elaborate on what you consider a "genuine" review? Does it have to be the NYT, Kirkus, PW or are book review bloggers in there somewhere also?


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

As with Geoffrey, the only times I recall really noticing the publisher were back in the day when I bought lots of sci-fi and fantasy paperbacks, and I started to notice that a lot of my favorites came from a few publishers (or "impressions" of larger publishing houses). I recall browsing through bookstore shelves, and if I saw a book I wasn't sure about, seeing the Del Rey or Baen logo, for example, might be the final factor that would encourage me to buy it. (If Lester Del Rey published it, at the very least it was going to be well edited.  )

I find that I notice publishers less now when shopping via Amazon, but when it does appear to be self-published (for whatever reasons might alert me), I tend to give the reviews a closer look and then download a sample first no matter how tempting it looks.


----------



## JMiddleton (Mar 29, 2012)

I take little notice if any at all when purchasing books. I've read my fair share of flops published by the big guys. The blurb on the back is most important to me, and I check the reviews as well.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

When you look at surveys asking people what's important to them when choosing a book, you'll see items such as "author," "reviews," "friend's recommendation," etc., but they never seem to list "publisher." I don't know anyone who says, "Oh, I prefer Simon and Schuster over HarperCollins" or "I always look for the Penguin label."

There are people who'll buy a Ford but never a Chevy (and vice versa) and Mac over Windows PC (and vice versa) and Kindle over Nook (and vice versa), but I really don't know anyone who argues that one Big Six publisher is better than another.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Well for example the big 6 have lots of smaller imprints. So for certain genres, one might find a nice selection within one of those. 
Its not about who's better, but who has the products we love and trust. 

And at least for me, it is just one of many parts of my method to pick books. But yes, some of us readers to take note. How many? I have no clue. But I do it more now online shopping with ebooks, than I did in store with paperbacks.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Atunah said:


> I also actively avoid certain publishing houses, so I always look. For example I avoid everything coming out of a christian publishing house and their arms. One can't always tell by the description or reviews if it is a christian book, but as soon as I see the publisher, I know and I move on.
> 
> I also actively seek out certain publishers for various reasons. Sometimes its a trust that I get what I want from there, or their books are lendable, others always price their ebooks below paperback even on new stuff, etc.


There are some publishers that, as soon as I see their names, I just move along. I know that I'm going to dislike the book. Likewise, there are publishers who never disappoint me and I'll try new things from them because they have never disappointed me.


----------



## flipside (Dec 7, 2011)

I look at the details.

Some publishers deliver consistently (whether good or bad). Others are erratic.

It's metadata. (Not that all metadata is relevant, but sometimes it can be an indicator of quality, just as covers and description can be indicators.)


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Harriet Schultz said:


> Can you elaborate on what you consider a "genuine" review? Does it have to be the NYT, Kirkus, PW or are book review bloggers in there somewhere also?


By genuine, I mean not shills: reviews written by someone who is somehow associated with the author, publisher, or agent without disclosing their personal/professional relationship with the author or book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

On Amazon, this is a known problem. Of course, sometimes it's hard to tell whether a review is a shill or not. But there are clues - if the reviewer has not reviewed anything else but gives this obscure, unknown author/book a rave 5 star review, it's often a shill. Sometimes, a shill review will be very vague about what is so good about the book or it will read more like the promotional book blurb than a real review. I have even seen ones that used actual key words or phrases straight from the book's summary! Or when reviews constantly repeat the name of the book, or worse, put the book's title in caps.

I am not so snobby as to believe that only professional reviews are worthwhile - on the contrary, there is lots of bribery and quid pro quos going on with professional book reviews in newspapers and such. All I want is to hear what genuine readers think of the book. This why I also use Goodreads for reviews and ratings - there seems to be less shills over there.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

Pretty much everything I read has either been recommended by a trusted mate or given to me as a present. I sometimes browse Amazon, mostly for literary stuff, and in those cases I go by reviews, but I only read the three star. One star reviewers are usually haters and five star reviewers are gushers. 

Chris Ward


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Since most books I purchase these days result from posts here on KindleBoards (Book Bazaar, interesting and witty conversation, recommendations by fellow members, occasionally an interesting signature), I assume them to be indie authors unless I otherwise recognize the name of the author or the title.  So I don't need to check.

Betsy


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

I used to look at the publisher. But since anybody can - and frequently does - set themselves up as a "publisher" with an online presence, there is no way of knowing, or defining a "real" publisher anymore.

In the past week, I've come across at least 3 "publisher" websites, which are no more than a bloke who has self-pubbed his own book, seen how easy it is and thought he could get a slice of other peoples' royalties by offering to publish their books too.


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

history_lover said:


> By genuine, I mean not shills: reviews written by someone who is somehow associated with the author, publisher, or agent without disclosing their personal/professional relationship with the author or book.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
> 
> ...


Thanks for clarifying. I thought you might be lumping book review bloggers, who often post on Goodreads, among those who are less than "genuine."


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

That is an interesting question and an interesting point.  I like people to think of me as an indie writer/publisher, but I also rarely really check.  If a story looks and sounds interesting, I'll read it regardless of its pedigree.


----------



## SSantore (Jun 28, 2011)

All I care about is a well written story in a genre that I enjoy reading.  Publishers names or not mean nothing to me. Covers aren't that important, either.  I read the book blurb, scan several reviews, and look at the price.  I think it is insane for an e-book to be sold for the same price as a paperback book.  If I have to pay that much, I may as well purchase the paperback.  The Big Six usually price their e-books the same as their paper books.  

So many people diss 5-star reviews.  If they are specific about what they liked (Not just "best book ever" hype) then 5-star reviews can be helpful.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

SSantore said:


> So many people diss 5-star reviews. If they are specific about what they liked (Not just "best book ever" hype) then 5-star reviews can be helpful.


Agreed. A well written, well thought out review is exactly that no matter the stars. Sure the shills and the haters hang out at 5 & 1 stars respectively, but it's usually pretty easy to weed them out (see the above about being well thought out). I don't dismiss any review based on the stars, just the content.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

SSantore said:


> So many people diss 5-star reviews. If they are specific about what they liked (Not just "best book ever" hype) then 5-star reviews can be helpful.


Not sure if this is directed at my comment or not (I think I was the first to mention 5 star reviews) but I didn't say I dismiss all 5 star reviews - only ones that display other indications of being a shill, such as being the only review that person has given, being vague, repeating the book title too many times, etc.


----------



## SSantore (Jun 28, 2011)

> Not sure if this is directed at my comment or not (I think I was the first to mention 5 star reviews) but I didn't say I dismiss all 5 star reviews - only ones that display other indications of being a shill, such as being the only review that person has given, being vague, repeating the book title too many times, etc.


No, I wasn't directing it at your comment. Sorry to leave that impression. It's just that I've heard several reviewers and others give the impression that all 5-star reviews are bogus. Some of those insist that they only give 4-star reviews because the book has to be perfect to get a 5-star.

In my (not-so-humble) opinion, 5-stars mean "I really liked it" and I do give 5-star reviews when I like a book a lot.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

5 stars don't bother me. It's when a book is 1 day old and has 20 5 stars and you gotta ask how'd that happen. That generally only happens to people who have anticipated books and the readers have stayed up all night. Not many small-timers have that.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

SSantore said:


> No, I wasn't directing it at your comment. Sorry to leave that impression. It's just that I've heard several reviewers and others give the impression that all 5-star reviews are bogus. Some of those insist that they only give 4-star reviews because the book has to be perfect to get a 5-star.
> 
> In my (not-so-humble) opinion, 5-stars mean "I really liked it" and I do give 5-star reviews when I like a book a lot.


Yeah, I agree - I always think if 5 stars means "perfect" and nothing is ever perfect, there's no point in even having that 5 star "perfect" rating as an option to begin with.

I am reserved with 5 star ratings though, I tend to only give them to my "favorites". 4 stars means I really liked it but it's not quite a favorite.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Re: ratings (which is a little off topic ) I go by Amazon's stated values:

3* is "it was o.k." For me, not a bad read and I'd definitely consider something else by the author, depending on the subject matter. Most likely, I _will_ probably give the author a second chance; there are a number of authors I read where the first one was a 3*, but I tried 'em again and I liked the subsequent ones better.

4* is "I liked it." For me, a book that I definitely enjoyed and will likely seek out further titles by the author. I will happily recommend it if asked.

5* is "I loved it." For me, it pretty much has to really "wow" me. VERY FEW books I read are a full 5* in my mind; though there are many that are better than "only" 4*. After reading a 5* book, I'll actively search out everything else by the author and I'll likely recommend the book freely to reading friends. I will also probably pre-order upcoming releases, even if the price is a little higher than average. This assumes, of course, that the other books are still very high quality.  If the one book is 5* but the others are consistently no better than 3, well, the bloom will be off the rose and I'll stop obsessing. 

So, in the other direction,
2* is "I didn't like it." For me, it's a book I finished but really can't say I enjoyed. I'll probably not read anything else by the author; I'll certainly not seek it out. The only way I'd give the author a second chance is on personal recommendation of someone whose opinion I really respected. And probably only then if I've not really got anything else I want to read at the moment.

1* is "I hated it." For me, it's a book I couldn't even finish. I will actively avoid books by the author and, in discussion, will probably actually offer the opinion that I found it so unreadable that I couldn't finish it. Could be plot or characters or writing -- or it could be the editing/formatting/proofreading was lacking. I haven't started many books that I found to be 1*. . . .but there are a few.

All that said. . . .it still doesn't matter much to me who wrote it and who published it; I'm just looking for a good read.


----------



## CoffeeCat (Sep 13, 2010)

I don't pay attention to it. If the book looks interesting and has some good reviews, I'll download a sample and go from there.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> 5 stars don't bother me. It's when a book is 1 day old and has 20 5 stars and you gotta ask how'd that happen. That generally only happens to people who have anticipated books and the readers have stayed up all night. Not many small-timers have that.


Lots of small timers (small pubs and indies) get some reviews by sending out ARCs early. When I was a reviewer, the small publishers were more aggressive than the large ones in hitting us up for reviews for stuff coming out. I also send out ARCS for all my books ahead of time to several reviewers in the hopes the reviews will go up that first week.

Some books that I LOVE by fairly successful authors get reviews FAST and FURIOUS (20 might be pushing it. Unless you're J.D. Robb. ) but of course that's not really suspect as well all know that some books are devoured the second they arrive in the mail/kindle!


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

Publisher doesn't matter to me anymore since Kindle and shopping on Amazon.
When I haunted physical book stores, the publisher logo on the spine of a paperback on the shelf was the easiest way to quickly pick books that I might be interested in reading, but it was just a timesaver thing for me since I could easily spend all afternoon in a book store. I really don't care who published a book as long as it's a good read.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

I buy if I like the blurb or sample, but I do check the publisher - habit and interest, I guess.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

sherylb said:


> Publisher doesn't matter to me anymore since Kindle and shopping on Amazon.
> When I haunted physical book stores, the publisher logo on the spine of a paperback on the shelf was the easiest way to quickly pick books that I might be interested in reading, but it was just a timesaver thing for me since I could easily spend all afternoon in a book store. I really don't care who published a book as long as it's a good read.


I echo this in many ways.


----------



## Richard Parks (Feb 29, 2012)

I make a decision to try a new writer based on a lot of factors--friends' recommendations, Goodreads, review sites, blog mentions... Regardless, by the time I've decided, who the publisher is or the writer's relative standing just doesn't matter.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 7, 2010)

I'm along the lines of *sherylb* above. In a bookstore, the logos, like Baen's tells me what to expect--usually military SF, for example.

Online I still check out the publisher. Although not as strong, just like if I read a book by a certain author and enjoyed it, I'm more likely to try another one by that author, if I enjoyed a book by a certain small press publisher, it'd be a factor in trying or not trying a book published by them.

Book reviews (some blogs I follow) and word of mouth from friends have the greatest influence--much greater impact on decision making than publisher or self-published. All the other factors such as cover and title catching my attention, description and reading a few pages play into my decision to read a book or pass it up for another.


----------



## Anjasa (Feb 4, 2012)

DreamWeaver said:


> I never check the publisher before purchasing a book. Whether a book is indie or traditionally published isn't a factor for me. I can usually decide if I want to buy from the book cover, reviews, and description. If I'm on the fence, then I'll read the sample.


This.

I've never known who has published my books, ever. I tell if it'll be for me by the description / back cover and the sample. I'll check for reviews as well.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> Lots of small timers (small pubs and indies) get some reviews by sending out ARCs early. When I was a reviewer, the small publishers were more aggressive than the large ones in hitting us up for reviews for stuff coming out. I also send out ARCS for all my books ahead of time to several reviewers in the hopes the reviews will go up that first week.
> 
> Some books that I LOVE by fairly successful authors get reviews FAST and FURIOUS (20 might be pushing it. Unless you're J.D. Robb. ) but of course that's not really suspect as well all know that some books are devoured the second they arrive in the mail/kindle!


But book bloggers nearly always identify themselves in the reviews, often by their user name. One of my stories got about 11 reviews the same week the book went up. Debora Geary's book went up and she had 8 reviews the next morning. In both cases, these were not new accounts, these were fans and reviewers, and it was obvious.

And then there are people who have 20 reviews pop within 24 hours, all with accounts with 0-2 reviews only, no verified purchases, a very low ranking, and everyone saying the same thing. It's suspicious.


----------



## manhattanminx (Mar 10, 2012)

I suspect that most readers could give a hoot about a writer's status. 

I prefer to read a book that's had outside editing because a second pair of eyes always improves the product, but I'll take a chance on a self-pubbed book if the sample contains quality writing. Good writers write with a confidence that shows in their prose. If I sense that confidence, that authority that suggests this is a writer who has perfected the craft, I'll buy the book. If not, I'll pass.

Great question.


----------



## OdiOsO (Nov 12, 2010)

Pretty dumb arguments, to start with...

An author is an author, no matter how much people try to label them. Who appointed certain people to judge on this?

I've been roaming the indie writer's threads for some time, being one myself, and I take most of my reads from there nowadays.
I find them imaginative, experimental, irreverent... _different_. Trad Pub is and will always be a _business_ first and nothing else.
They don't want to risk or try something new. They want _predictable_ results, as in how many X million copies this book will now sell.
So to answer the OP... YES, I now check the writer's status first.... if it's an indie/selfpub writer, he has nothing to lose and I may end up with an _interesting_ book in my hands-


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> But book bloggers nearly always identify themselves in the reviews, often by their user name. One of my stories got about 11 reviews the same week the book went up. Debora Geary's book went up and she had 8 reviews the next morning. In both cases, these were not new accounts, these were fans and reviewers, and it was obvious.
> 
> And then there are people who have 20 reviews pop within 24 hours, all with accounts with 0-2 reviews only, no verified purchases, a very low ranking, and everyone saying the same thing. It's suspicious.


Agreed, it can be suspicious. But, for the record, I don't just use book bloggers for ARCS. I have several fans who ask for Advance copies. I have no problem handing out a few (these are people I don't know other than via emails). These people do review other books on Amazon or GR or wherever on a regular basis. I sort of try to take the BAEN route with fans and early copies. BAEN...just knows how to keep fans happy. They're always trying something new too. And I always note when I buy a book with their imprint. They are one of those publishers I notice.

That is not to say that there isn't a rampant problem because there obviously is abuse of the system.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

OdiOsO said:


> Pretty dumb arguments, to start with...
> 
> An author is an author, no matter how much people try to label them. Who appointed certain people to judge on this?
> 
> ...


Sigh, this again. Yes I read traditional published stuff. Yes I find plenty of interesting. No I don't want predictable. It insults me as a reader and it insults the authors when these comments against traditional publishing are made. There is crap with self publishers and crap with traditional. But experience as a voracious reader has show me that at least for now, the chances of getting crap when getting a SP is higher than a trad.

But this constant sneering at trad publishers and their authors really turns me off of self published stuff. It really does. There is plenty of fantastic, fresh, "interesting", imaginative new stuff to read that is published in the traditional way. I am sure there is the same to be found in self publishing, its just much much harder to find.

Please give the reader more credit. Nothing wrong with buying trad and nothing wrong with buying SP.

And as to labels? Everything has labels. That is how we find what we need and want. My wallet gets to judge. I am appointed as a reader that wants to read what she wants to read. 

So yes, I check the publishers. I have my reasons which I stated earlier in the thread. I like to make an informed decision when I spend my money. As simple as that.

Oh, and everything is a business. If self publishers didn't want to make any money, they would all give their books away for free all the time. Its a business on a smaller scale, but the goal is still the same. Sell. And the goal for the reader is still the same, buy and read.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Atunah said:


> There is crap with self publishers and crap with traditional.


Quite true. Neither side has a lock on crap. 

If anything, SP is the bigger mindfield right now if only because there's so many people getting into it right now. I've seen a few books on Amazon that were little more than copy and paste jobs from Wikipedia. However, my hope is that this is just a symptom of this being so new. Hopefully things will eventually balance themselves out.

That being said, I repeat what I said earlier, I could care less about published or not. When I shop for a book, I'm looking for story above all else.


----------



## Baron of Cleveland (Apr 3, 2012)

I do look for indie authors, hoping to find stuff that's out of the ordinary. But the more I look the more I see the word "indie" is just a euphemism for "self-published". No longer does the word indicate a type of story, like it did when it was applied to film or music. Most "indie" stories are exactly the same kind of stuff NYC publishes now and I'm pretty depressed about that.


----------



## mattposner (Oct 28, 2010)

I read primarily self-published authors. This is because, being one myself, I meet many and become interested in the books for ad hominem reasons. On the business end, there are some inequities to the traditional publishing model with which I am quite happy not to have to deal. This being the case, I almost don't want to read trad-pub books any longer, and I rarely shop for them anymore, except for art books, which cannot reasonably be done for Kindle.

A word on the quality of self-published books:   there are ways to tell whether a self-published book is good or not. The sample will tell you; sometimes the blurb or the author's website will. We self-published authors do have to struggle with the fact that there is no design and merchandising team supporting us, as trad pub authors have. But it should be understood that there are self-published authors who are every bit as good as trad pub authors, or better. Trad pub has mistreated talent for years. People have left that model to make more money. People have given up on it who were not properly recognized. Sure, there is junk out there. I saw some today while exploring here on K-boards. I have received books for review from other indies and felt I could not give them good reviews. But for all that that is true, overall, when you get past the slickness of the trad pub model, writers are writers and you will find good ones in the self-published ranks as readily as you will anywhere else.

Some self-published authors who have all five-star reviews deserve them. I have done review trading, as many indies have, but the reviews I have from strangers are comparable in all respects to the reviews from people I know. I advise readers:  take samples to your kindle to see if you like something. Additionally, authors' websites will often have samples; many of us have facebook pages you can look at; and you can get samples via Twitter by checking the two hashtags #SampleSunday and #kindletweet.


----------



## DH_Sayer (Dec 20, 2011)

I like a couple of the big 4 (5? 6?) publishing houses, most notably Little, Brown because a lot of my favorite authors are there and they seem to have a great staff. I guess an author's publishing house will matter less and less as time goes on...or maybe not. Maybe the quality of the one-man operations will dip to such a level that we'll be begging for a big house with a lot of resources to vet all the stuff out there and deliver to us the good stuff. But probably not. (How's that for ambivalence?)

DHS


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, 

a reminder that this being the Book Corner, discussion of one's own books, aka self-promotion   is not allowed.  Posts and responnses which quote those posts that break this rule have been and will be removed.  Thanks.  You need to have your "reader hat" on here and leave your "writer's hat" in the Book Bazaar and Writers' Café.

Thanks,

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Sigh, this again. Yes I read traditional published stuff. Yes I find plenty of interesting. No I don't want predictable. It insults me as a reader and it insults the authors when these comments against traditional publishing are made. There is crap with self publishers and crap with traditional. But experience as a voracious reader has show me that at least for now, the chances of getting crap when getting a SP is higher than a trad.
> 
> But this constant sneering at trad publishers and their authors really turns me off of self published stuff. It really does. There is plenty of fantastic, fresh, "interesting", imaginative new stuff to read that is published in the traditional way. I am sure there is the same to be found in self publishing, its just much much harder to find.
> 
> ...


What she said. Every word of it.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> What she said. Every word of it.


+1


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> What she said. Every word of it.


+1


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

Pretty much the same +1 again. Would only add that a lot of midlist authors are putting their own backlist out without publishers these days, and even originals, which muddies the waters even more. Both good and bad reviews can be biased. So I sample everything first and tend to go by the recommendations of people I've learned to trust.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I vet books, not the author or the publisher.  Truthfully, I had no idea who published the books I read before KindleBoards, and hardly know now (of the trad published books).  

I vet the book based on recommendations, cover, blurb and sometimes I sample.  Once I've read the book, that kind of vets the author as someone whose books I'd like to read again or not.

Betsy


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Harry Shannon said:


> Pretty much the same +1 again. Would only add that a lot of midlist authors are putting their own backlist out without publishers these days, and even originals, which muddies the waters even more. Both good and bad reviews can be biased. So I sample everything first and tend to go by the recommendations of people I've learned to trust.


To me, backlists that had once been trad published, I still consider trad published with the advantage of most of the money going straight to the author now. I love all the backlist stuff coming out. For me its an advantage that it had been through the process of publishing before. 
I also always run every book through goodreads and if it has been published before, its usually there with the former publisher and a lot of times with the former cover, which can be amusing at times . But then I love covers, from classy to cheesy, I like them all.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

Honestly I hardly ever noticed who published a book. The few that I did I only really ever noticed because they had a distinctive cover across many of their series of books. I mean you used to be able to spot a Penguin paperback across a room. The same in the old days with Gollanze Sci Fi, and Double Day. These days even those rules don't seem to apply on the e-book scene. Its not always easy to tell if a book is self pubbed or trad pubbed. But I don't really care either.

Being shallow I hunt through a genre first, find a flashy cover that draws the eye, then read the blurb. If all goes well I'll potentially buy it at that point, or if I'm still not sure, read the sample. The question of who put it out there doesn't cross my mind.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I realized I had a bit of a prejudice against self-pubbed books, even though I am a self-pubber. How did I come to this startling conclusion?

One night a few months ago I downloaded a few dozen samples (25-ish) to my Kindle, of YA Paranormal books. Half were priced .99 to 2.99 (indicating they're probably self-pubbed) and half were in the $9.99 range.

I started reading the openings, and honestly, I could NOT tell the difference between the self-pubbed and the trad-pubbed. Before conducting this experiment, I would have sworn up and down I would have been able to tell.

While the "low end" of self-pubbed may run a little lower in the copyediting department (sometimes!), much of the attractive-looking self-pubbed works on offer hold their own against the trad-pubbed.

I heartily recommend this experiment for others!


----------



## Shelley Altamont (Apr 3, 2012)

As regards the word "indie," I feel compelled to point out that there is another group of writers who call themselves "indie," not to indicate self-publication, but to indicate "nontraditional" or "experimental" or "young and hip."

These writers, in fact, were my introduction to the term "indie," and I was confused when I started investigating ebooks and POD and kept coming across the word, "indie," being used to describe _self-publishers_ (which used to be called "vanity publishing").

For examples of the "other" indie, take a look at htmlgiant, the flagship website for these kind of writers. These people are publishing with small presses and "micro" presses, not usually self-publishing, and their work is arty, innovative, protean, and often just perplexing.

As regards the question of quality, it's certainly true that traditional publishers are fully capable of releasing poorly edited crap, but self-publishers are far more likely to release poorly edited crap. I'm sure there are gems among the rough, just as there are gems among the rough in traditional publishing, but mostly it's rough (just as the "Big 6" are mostly rough). Indie "rough" however can be unutterably atrocious, whereas Big 6 "rough" is usually just laughable.

But I'd love for someone to point out some Murakamis and DeLillos and Roths and Pynchons among the "indie" crowd. I'd really _really_ love that!


----------



## HeidiHall (Sep 5, 2010)

Before publishing, the only time I really noticed a publisher was after the fact... when I lined the books on my shelves and a particular author's book spine imprint would suddenly be different. With my OCD, it drove me nuts. Now, all the covers on my fire are face forward - nothing to differentiate publisher, so I really don't care. (Although, it does bother me when the dimensions are different - geez, you people will drive me to drink by not being "standard" ). But, like others have said - I'm looking for a good story. I may miss a few if the covers don't grab me, but in the end there are a lot of great books to be read and I want to read as many as possibe for a good price. I think, for me, the deciding factor is I read too much to spend $10 a day or more for a book (when I'm on a reading bender, I devour them daily). If I was going to invest that much money into a habit, I'd... well, I'll leave that part up to your imaginations .


----------

