# Self-Publishing



## authorkid94 (Aug 29, 2012)

What are some of the better self-publishing companies? I want to hear what you guys think. I've considered CreateSpace, Tafford, DogEar, and AuthorHouse. What are your opinions on these, and what are some you guys think are really good.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 29, 2012)

Google "Authorhouse scam". CreateSpace is widely used by self-publishers and I've seen very few negatives. The other two I've never heard of, but Google is your friend  

The main thing to be wary of are places which are more interested in taking your money than doing anything for it. There are a lot of "self-publishing services" out there, which, in reality, do nothing more than you can do for yourself and charge you an arm and a leg for it. Special treats - getting you to sign on the dotted line and then revealing how many of these "services" cost extra.


----------



## movieman (Aug 30, 2012)

Yeah, with Createspace you can upload your book for free and make it available on Amazon as a PoD paperback, or I think they charge $25 for wider distribution. The others I know little about.

As mentioned, there are lots of companies who'll charge hundreds or thousands of dollars to do things you can learn to do yourself for free in a few hours.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 30, 2012)

CreateSpace dropped the charge for wider distribution a few months ago.  I was very happy with my CreateSpace experience.


----------



## WriterJohnB (Aug 30, 2012)

I've used Createspace for several novels and am completely satisfied. However, it took me quite a while to figure out how to use their services because it's a Do It Yourself type of place. And I had to get a program to put my manuscripts into .PDF   The cover of "Going Native" that I use for an avatar was created with their cover program.


----------



## movieman (Aug 30, 2012)

Terry D said:


> CreateSpace dropped the charge for wider distribution a few months ago.



Strange. I'm sure it was still there when I uploaded a book a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## movieman (Aug 30, 2012)

WriterJohnB said:


> And I had to get a program to put my manuscripts into .PDF



One benefit of Open/Libre Office is that you can just export as PDF and upload straight away for free. The downside is that you have to upload as PDF as it doesn't seem to export .doc files in a format that Createspace can fully understand (e.g. headers appearing on the wrong pages or going missing).


----------



## authorkid94 (Aug 30, 2012)

Thank you guys for this. It's really helpful.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Sep 1, 2012)

There is also Lightning Source.


----------



## Tigerbunny (Sep 6, 2012)

I've heard good things about lightning source but don't you need to be a publisher to use them?  That's easy to do, but I still thought that was a requirement.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 6, 2012)

movieman said:


> Strange. I'm sure it was still there when I uploaded a book a couple of weeks ago.



You are right.  Thanks for catching that.  I was sure they had dropped the Expanded charge last spring.  To quote HAL from _2001 a Space Odyssey_; "My mind is going, Dave.  I feel it going..."


----------



## TWErvin2 (Sep 7, 2012)

Tigerbunny said:


> I've heard good things about lightning source but don't you need to be a publisher to use them?  That's easy to do, but I still thought that was a requirement.



Yes, but it is more of a paperwork issue for a self-publishing author to establish him/herself as a publisher. I have heard from authors that Lighting Source isn't as easy to work with as CreateSpace, if a problem with cover formatting comes up, for example.


----------



## movieman (Sep 8, 2012)

TWErvin2 said:


> I have heard from authors that Lighting Source isn't as easy to work with as CreateSpace, if a problem with cover formatting comes up, for example.



Don't they charge you for every modification you make? With Createspace, uploading a new interior or cover is free.

Not that you should be modifying the book once it's uploaded, but sometimes you have to.


----------



## AZzed (Sep 13, 2012)

I've used createspace and lulu in the past. As they're POD companies you have _no set-up fees_. In this day and age with Amazon kindle self-publishing there is no reason to pay a vanity house thousands of pounds/dollars to print 500 of your book for you.

Of course, try the traditional publishing houses first, but if you feel you've exhausted those then look at POD companies and Amazon.


----------



## brianhoneycutt (Sep 22, 2012)

I had a friend who used Infinity publishing. He seemed satisfied. I just bought a book published by Authorhouse! Was consdiering them, will have to look into the 'scam' thing though. Cool thread. 

Azzed, you mention try the traditional publishing houses first, but don't you typically need an agent for that? (Forgive me if I ought to go and read separate thread first


----------



## AZzed (Sep 22, 2012)

A lot of publishers only accept agented submissions, true, but some (even some of the big ones) do accept unsolicited for the slush pile. But my advice would be to try for an agent first, then try smaller publishers, indie publishers etc. and only then look at self-publishing. _Unless you are a marketing expert, in which case you may want to look at self-publishing anyway._


----------



## sunaynaprasad (Sep 22, 2012)

Lots of authors are turning to self-publishing. If you want to self-publish, go ahead. The benefits are that your book gets published faster, you have lots of control, and you don't have to worry about rejections. Yes, there are still a lot of poorly-written self-published books, but there are also lots of well-written self-published books that could have been traditionally published. That's why many bloggers, reviewers, and publicists are accept self-published authors.


----------



## AZzed (Sep 22, 2012)

Lots of authors do self-publish, but can you name any already established authors that are turning to self-publishing because they think it is the best idea? Have you noticed that when a self-published book is successful - it happens very rarely - the author then publishes it traditionally? If you look at the stats, most self-published authors earn around $600 a year. Without a doubt, traditional publishing is still the way to go, unless you are a marketing expert or have 100,000 followers on Twitter or something.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 22, 2012)

sunaynaprasad said:


> That's why many bloggers, reviewers, and publicists are accept self-published authors.



I don't know about bloggers (or what you feel is their role in publishing), but very few reviewers will take on self-published books. As to publicists - again, why would they be interested or important to self-publishers, unless they were hired by one (a very expensive proposition). Or do you mean trade publishers? In which case, you have to be _extremely _successful before a trade publisher would consider accepting an already self-published book, or an unpublished book based only on previous self-published results.


----------



## Bladerunner (Sep 23, 2012)

Wow, let's assume that my book is ready for publication, which it is not currently, how would I go about getting it published?  Do I just find the address of the publisher and send them a hard copy of my work and ask them to consider publication?  Or is there another protocol.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 23, 2012)

Bladerunner said:


> Wow, let's assume that my book is ready for publication, which it is not currently, how would I go about getting it published?  Do I just find the address of the publisher and send them a hard copy of my work and ask them to consider publication?  Or is there another protocol.



Publishers usually list their submission guidelines on their websites. Follow them. If it states they don't accept unsolicited ms, don't send them one. You need to find an agent for those (agents also have guidelines - follow them). If the publisher does accept ms directly, read their guidelines. Follow them.

Most agents/publishers do not want to see a full ms first. You'll need to sent a query letter - and those are almost as much work to produce as the ms. There are several sites around the net where you can learn how to write one. You send the query to an agent/publisher that matches your ms (genre, length, etc) and if they're interested, they'll contact you for more, sometimes a couple chapters, sometimes the full ms. 

But basically, find out what kind of books the agent/publisher is interested in and then follow whatever guidelines they have posted. If you have questions, they typically have a contact email you can use. Be polite and business-like in all correspondence.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

WriterJohnB said:


> The cover of "Going Native" that I use for an avatar was created with their cover program.



Really! I was playing around with it a while back and I couldn't figure out how to implement personalized images.
Your cover seems pretty good, though if I had to nitpick I'd say that it's clearly self-published due to the lack of publisher fine-print or logo. Which I guess is more of an observation than a nitpick. In fact, not really a nitpick at all.

I was looking at old Redwall books for something unrelated like 10 minutes ago and I was reminded of one of my favourite covers of all time.






You can see the little publisher stamp in the upper right corner.

Also, the font is awesome.


----------



## AZzed (Sep 23, 2012)

Bladerunner said:


> Wow, let's assume that my book is ready for publication, which it is not currently, how would I go about getting it published?  Do I just find the address of the publisher and send them a hard copy of my work and ask them to consider publication?  Or is there another protocol.



After you have finished your novel (and I mean _finished_, all edits done etc. so it's the best it can be) then you should have a look at either The Writer's & Artist's Yearbook (UK) or Writer's Market (US) and make a note of all the publishers/agents that handle your genre. I recommend trying agents first. After compiling your list visit the agent's website and study their submission guidelines. Usually (and this is the same with publishers too) they'll ask for a synopsis (_complete_ plot outline including ending) and the first 3 chapters/50 pages. Make sure you can find a real person to address your submission to, rather than just Dear Sir.

Write a killer query letter. This should compromise:

First Paragraph: Introduce your novel; TITLE (in CAPS), word count, genre and target audience (adult, YA etc.)
Second Paragraph: A brief summary or blurb giving the _premise_ of your novel. You need a killer premise. Nothing cliche.
Third Paragraph: A brief bio, stating publishing credits (if you have any - if not, write some short stories and get some!)

Usually agents/publishers want submissions by post. Do not email your submission unless specifically told to do so. Also, it's becoming acceptable to send simultaneous submissions (sending your sample submission to more than one publisher/agent at the same time) because it takes on average 2-3 months to get a reply, and editors are realists. If in the unlikely event they ask to see the full, then they'll probably ask to see it exclusively. If you're based in the UK, you can have any proposed contract/representation agreement looked over by The Society of Authors (it costs £60 to join). That's what I did - well worth the money.

Be prepared for rejection.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

AZzed said:


> Write a killer query letter. This should compromise:
> 
> First Paragraph: Introduce your novel; TITLE (in CAPS), word count, genre and target audience (adult, YA etc.)
> Second Paragraph: A brief summary or blurb giving the _premise_ of your novel. You need a killer premise. Nothing cliche.
> Third Paragraph: A brief bio, stating publishing credits (if you have any - if not, write some short stories and get some!)



Might I just humbly add, Query Shark is a good blog about query letters, and it's fun to read through if only for the sadistic glee of watching people getting torn down.



AZzed said:


> Be prepared for rejection.



_And how._


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 23, 2012)

re: simultaneous submissions - I've found very few places that specifically state they will not accept them. I'd have to think very hard and long about submitting to one that didn't. It's putting everything on ice until they decide to even respond, let alone accept it.


----------



## movieman (Sep 24, 2012)

AZzed said:


> Lots of authors do self-publish, but can you name any already established authors that are turning to self-publishing because they think it is the best idea?



There are plenty. Last I looked about half the self-published writers in Amazon's 'top 100' list were previously trade-published (and the skills learned from their trade publishing days are probably the reason why they're in the top 100). Terry Goodkind is an obvious example of a successful trade-published author who is now self-publishing as well.



> Have you noticed that when a self-published book is successful - it happens very rarely - the author then publishes it traditionally?



Right now, the only way to become the next King/Rowling/whoever wrote '50 Shades' is through trade publishing because they're the only ones with the marketing muscle to get your book splashed everywhere across the media. Very, very, very few books get that marketing behind them.

Few self-published authors are going to turn down a multi-million dollar advance for their book if it proves successful. But equally few are going to rush to sign up for a $5,000 advance with a punitive non-compete clause, which is supposedly typical for a new trade-published author these days.



> If you look at the stats, most self-published authors earn around $600 a year. Without a doubt, traditional publishing is still the way to go, unless you are a marketing expert or have 100,000 followers on Twitter or something.



And most authors who submit to trade publishers make nothing, because the vast majority of those books are never published. If you want to look at incomes for all self-published writers, you also need to look at incomes for all writers submitting to trade publishers, not the few whose books are accepted. Those who are accepted would already be in the top 10% if they self-published, and most probably in the top 1%.


----------



## sunaynaprasad (Sep 24, 2012)

Anyone heard of Amanda Hocking? She was one of the thirty best-selling self-published authors. Yes, thirty isn't a lot, but it's something. Some bloggers and publicists won't take self-published books, but I've see some that are geared more towards independent authors.


----------



## movieman (Sep 24, 2012)

sunaynaprasad said:


> Some bloggers and publicists won't take self-published books



I'll be interested to see how many of them turn down Goodkind's book because it's self-published.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 24, 2012)

movieman said:


> And most authors who submit to trade publishers make nothing, because the vast majority of those books are never published. If you want to look at incomes for all self-published writers, you also need to look at incomes for all writers submitting to trade publishers, not the few whose books are accepted. Those who are accepted would already be in the top 10% if they self-published, and most probably in the top 1%.



I don't think you can include those authors who never get out of the slush pile when comparing income. They aren't published, after all. It's kind of silly to include the income from something that's never been for sale. Might just as well include the non-existent income from would-be self-publishers who never upload their books anywhere.


----------



## movieman (Sep 24, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I don't think you can include those authors who never get out of the slush pile when comparing income. They aren't published, after all. It's kind of silly to include the income from something that's never been for sale. Might just as well include the non-existent income from would-be self-publishers who never upload their books anywhere.



But those people would never have submitted to a trade publisher either. Comparing average income for trade-published writers to self-published writers is like comparing average income for best-selling writers like Stephen King and Rowling to writers who just sold their first trade-published novel; they're in totally different categories, so comparing them makes no sense.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 24, 2012)

movieman said:


> But those people would never have submitted to a trade publisher either. Comparing average income for trade-published writers to self-published writers is like comparing average income for best-selling writers like Stephen King and Rowling to writers who just sold their first trade-published novel; they're in totally different categories, so comparing them makes no sense.



But they're still published. They have something out there with which to make an income, no matter how small. To include non-published authors in the equation is - well, I mean, talk about making no sense. That's like comparing students' GPA from college A to students' GPA from college B - but including those who have only _applied _to college B and thus have no college GPA.


----------



## AZzed (Sep 25, 2012)

movieman said:


> There are plenty. Last I looked about half the self-published writers in Amazon's 'top 100' list were previously trade-published (and the skills learned from their trade publishing days are probably the reason why they're in the top 100). Terry Goodkind is an obvious example of a successful trade-published author who is now self-publishing as well.



Could you please list, say, 3 books on the Amazon's top 100 list that are self-published titles? Because I believe every book there has been published by a traditional publisher. I don't believe you can count 50 Shades of Grey, because it is now published by Arrow (I believe), which is the only reason it's been able to sell as many copies as it has.

Terry Goodkind makes me laugh. Ironically, his novels do read like an average self-published fantasy cliche, and the only reason they are successful is because Tor put a lot into them. I'm not sure of the exact reason why he chose to self-publish his latest book, though he has said it wasn't for the money. And it wasn't to get more sales (Tor would have got him more of both). It's probably because he was fed up of Tor's deadlines and input.

If you want to self-publish, fine, go ahead and good luck. But stats say you will not make more money or sell more books than a traditionally published novel. As has been said, the main advantage of self-publishing is there's no quality control - no rejection. And the vast majority of self-published writers _only self-publish because they can't find a traditional publisher_. There was an article in the Mail on Sunday the other week about an author who'd traditionally published in the past, but was now self-publishing his next novel. Turns out he wasn't doing it because he thought it the best idea, but because his agent hadn't been able to find a traditional publisher. And that's the point.

The traditional route is still the best.


----------



## Sam (Sep 25, 2012)

AZzed said:


> The traditional route is still the best.



Have you been traditionally published? Because I have, and I can tell you right now there's a whole load of bureaucracy involved that would send your head spinning. First, your novel is screened by the publishing house's slush readers. If they think it has potential, it's forwarded to middle management, who spend anywhere from one to three months scrutinising every inch of it before pitching it to the bigwigs. These guys will give it another stern looking-over before sending it to a line editor. The line editor will do his/her magic and then send the novel back to you with comments for approval or otherwise. Once that's done, the chief editor will scrutinise the line editor's work and send his/her edited version back to you with comments for approval/disapproval. Once that's done, it'll be sent to the art department (or outsourced, if the house doesn't have one) to start work on the cover and jacket, both of which will, you guessed it, require your approval. Then it's sent to the marketing department, who will start negotiating deals with the prominent book-stores in your country, while also working up press releases for the novel. 

After all of that is done, the book finally hits the shelves, at least 16 months to 2 1/2 years after you sent your query letter to the publishing house. The traditional route may still be the best in terms of what they can do with your novel, but it requires thick-wit to keep sending query letters when you've been rejected (and you _will _be rejected) 76 times already, and the patience of Job to keep going once it _has _been accepted. 

Self-publishing is a lot less stressful, and with the proper marketing acumen, you can make a decent return on it.


----------



## AZzed (Sep 25, 2012)

^^ Yes. And I believe lead time is usually a year and a half.


----------



## Loulou (Sep 25, 2012)

I agree that publishing via the traditional route is hard - very, very hard.  Beyond hard.  A way filled with much rejection, that needs thick skin and perseverance and endless rewrites and a belief that it will happen so you keep going.  I'm only like a quarter way there (got an agent who's doing it all on my behalf) but I wouldn't have done it any other way.

A thing worth having is worth waiting for.  Working for.  And what joy to succeed after a long, hard, tiring journey.  Who wants easy success?  Not me.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 25, 2012)

I think, personally, the timeframe concerns are the biggest downfall for self-publishers. Too many are impatient. They want their book out there NOW - even if it's not ready. They've written it, they've edited it, they've revised it - but no one else (or no one with any real expertise) has seen it. And I've also seen authors get their books out there in the self-publishing world and _then _start thinking about marketing and promotion.

I'm not saying trade publishing is the best route for all authors. But self-publishing before you or your book are ready for it will lead to disaster.


----------



## words (Sep 25, 2012)

There are horses and courses for different Genres.

Take a look at "Smashwords" that has had a number of authors on the NYT best seller lists even, and a lot of books published, although a few of them I would not be caught dead reading. You will see what I mean when you look at one or two of their success stories!

Good sound advice there too & lots of useful free info. The system publishes in all formats to all media.


----------



## J Anfinson (Oct 23, 2012)

^^^ Smashwords really is a great place, but I've found that it can be hard to get noticed for all the erotica, which I think turns people away from shopping directly from the site.  But there are a lot of success stories, and a lot of what people make comes from the other venues, since smashwords distributes to apple, barnes and noble, and such.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Oct 23, 2012)

Loulou said:


> A thing worth having is worth waiting for.  Working for.  And what joy to succeed after a long, hard, tiring journey.  Who wants easy success?  Not me.



Who wants to eat a meal you didn't fight for? Who wants to make money from luck alone?

...

......awww well isn't that a bummer to think about, isn't it.


----------



## KarlR (Oct 23, 2012)

Loulou said:


> A thing worth having is worth waiting for.  Working for.  And what joy to succeed after a long, hard, tiring journey.  Who wants easy success?  Not me.


I would take an easy success.  But it would have to be a really, really BIG success!  :joyous:


----------



## KarlR (Oct 23, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> But self-publishing before you or your book are ready for it will lead to disaster.


'Will' is unnecessarily strong.  Disaster is like success:  Hard to come by.  More like 'Will lead to continued obscurity and anonymity.'


----------



## Terry D (Oct 23, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> Who wants to make money from luck alone?



Everyone who has ever bought a lottery ticket.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 23, 2012)

KarlR said:


> More like 'Will lead to continued obscurity and anonymity.'



I would consider that disaster. Unless, of course, I'd just tossed the story together to begin with, but then it would deserve obscurity.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Oct 23, 2012)

Terry D said:


> Everyone who has ever bought a lottery ticket.



You got it. That is the point I am trying to make.

The idea was that it would speak for itself, that human beings do actually want something for nothing and that as a society we are absolutely willing to give things to people who haven't earned it because they so demand. Which explains the appeal of self-publishing and contradicts Loulou's assertions.

But all of that was supposed to be implied and now you made me explain it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2012)

> If you want to self-publish, fine, go ahead and good luck. But stats say you will not make more money or sell more books than a traditionally published novel. As has been said, the main advantage of self-publishing is there's no quality control - no rejection. And the vast majority of self-published writers _only self-publish because they can't find a traditional publisher_. There was an article in the Mail on Sunday the other week about an author who'd traditionally published in the past, but was now self-publishing his next novel. Turns out he wasn't doing it because he thought it the best idea, but because his agent hadn't been able to find a traditional publisher. And that's the point.
> 
> The traditional route is still the best.



I'm not sure that this thinking is correct.

If you're talking about best sellers, sure.  If a publisher is willing to a) front you a big advance, b) market the heck out of your book, and c) put copies of it in all the stores, it's hard to beat traditional publishing.  It seems, however, that that kind of deal is well nigh impossible to get.  If you're publishing your first book, you're going to get a) $5000 (if that), b) almost no marketing support, and c) very few copies printed.  That advance is nice, but you pay for it in that, if your book does hit it big, the publisher makes the big bucks.

Neither self or traditional contains any degree of certainty that you're going to sell much at all.  Either way, you've got to put the legwork into marketing yourself.

I decided that I'm going to self publish my debut novel and spelled out my reasoning here.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 5, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> If you're talking about best sellers, sure.  If a publisher is willing to a) front you a big advance, b) market the heck out of your book, and c) put copies of it in all the stores, it's hard to beat traditional publishing.  It seems, however, that that kind of deal is well nigh impossible to get.  If you're publishing your first book, you're going to get a) $5000 (if that), b) almost no marketing support, and c) very few copies printed.  That advance is nice, but you pay for it in that, if your book does hit it big, the publisher makes the big bucks.
> 
> Neither self or traditional contains any degree of certainty that you're going to sell much at all.  Either way, you've got to put the legwork into marketing yourself.
> 
> Brian



A couple of points:

a) $5000 is still $5000 more than you'll get upfront by self-publishing.

b) Not sure why this myth still keeps going, but why on earth would a publisher put time and money into editing, formatting, cover design, etc and then put little or no marketing into it? How do people think those books get into stores? Marketing. How do people think those books get reviewed? Marketing. It makes absolutely no business sense to spend money on any product and then let it sit, merely hoping someone might buy it. If publishers want to recoup their costs, they have to market.

c) Publishers will print as many books as necessary. What, you think they'll only print out a couple hundred and then tell booksellers, "Sorry, we're all out."?

Yes, the advance _is _nice. And yes, if the book does well, the publishers will make money. So will the author. And all the author had to do was write the thing, and perhaps do some promotion (not the same as marketing) which the publisher pays for. No money out of pocket there.

No, there are no guarantees any book will sell a lot, no matter which route one takes. But at least with trade publishing, you've got the advance and the publisher taking all the risk.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 5, 2012)

Good points. I don't know what it is that makes people think publishers somehow set out to defy the basic marketing principles that apply to every other product on the planet.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 6, 2012)

> a) $5000 is still $5000 more than you'll get upfront by self-publishing.



I do not disagree at all. It is definitely a plus for the traditional route.



> b) Not sure why this myth still keeps going, but why on earth would a publisher put time and money into editing, formatting, cover design, etc and then put little or no marketing into it? How do people think those books get into stores? Marketing. How do people think those books get reviewed? Marketing. It makes absolutely no business sense to spend money on any product and then let it sit, merely hoping someone might buy it. If publishers want to recoup their costs, they have to market.



I'm not sure why you call this a "myth."

Michael Sullivan, a fairly successful fantasy author, frequents another forum that I read. He's published using both methods and says that the author is, for the most part, responsible for their own marketing.

That is not to say that the publisher does nothing for you. They send out a bunch of review copies and put your book in publications that the book stores use to choose what to order. Both these things are huge pluses for you.

However, that is not to say that, as a traditionally published author, you don't have to do the exact things that a self published author needs to do in terms of marketing in order to be successful. Whether you choose traditional or self, you must market your book. A publisher paying $5000 for a book simply isn't going to put huge bucks into promoting it.



> c) Publishers will print as many books as necessary. What, you think they'll only print out a couple hundred and then tell booksellers, "Sorry, we're all out."?



Did not meant to imply otherwise. However, the thinking of a lot of people, I think, is the following: I just signed a contract. Now I'll be able to go into any bookstore in the country and find a copy of my book. Sweet.

It is my understanding that this is simply not the case for the first time author getting a $5000 advance.



> No, there are no guarantees any book will sell a lot, no matter which route one takes. But at least with trade publishing, you've got the advance and the publisher taking all the risk.



It comes down to how risk averse you are. I have no problem sinking a grand into a book to see what happens. 1) because $1000 isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things and 2) I think I'm producing a quality product that's worth the risk.

Overall, the decision I'm making is a personal one. I'm not saying that everyone should make that choice but that both choices are worth considering. I'm considering a couple of new projects after I finish my current novel. My inclination is to at least take a stab at the traditional route with both of those.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 6, 2012)

Just a note - I would not necessarily accept Michael Sullivan as an objective source of information. You might want to check out Ridan Publishing and that whole fiasco, as well as his actual publishing history.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 7, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Just a note - I would not necessarily accept Michael Sullivan as an objective source of information. You might want to check out Ridan Publishing and that whole fiasco, as well as his actual publishing history.



He's definitely the most vocal, but I'm positive I've read experiences of other traditionally published authors that are saying the same thing: publishers aren't willing to put a lot of money into new authors right now. They'll give you a (relatively) small advance, send out review copies, and make your book available for ordering. That's about it.

EDIT: This approach makes sense to me from a business standpoint. You have to sink a lot of money to promote a book. Each copy you print is a risk, and most books don't do all that well since there are so many on the market. The publisher gives you a chance. If they see signs of life, they'll put more backing into it. Otherwise, they cut their losses.

My understanding is that the publisher's efforts are not enough to propel your book onto best sellers lists. If you want that level of success, you have to be willing to put in a lot of marketing effort on your own, the same as with self publishing.

Is your understanding of what happens when a first time author with no buzz signing with a traditional publisher different? Truly, this is the first time I've heard anyone put across a point of view, if that is what you're saying, that a publisher is going to do more than the minimum under these circumstances. If this is the case, I'd like to know more about it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 7, 2012)

Why would they put minimal effort into marketing something they have put much more effort into building? Why would they decide that a book they felt was worth acquiring and publishing in the first place was not worth marketing to give it the very best chance of being a good seller, and possibly a best-seller? _That's_ what doesn't make any sense. Not to mention that it's the big names they have that help subsidize the investment in new authors - again, any one of whom may be the next big name. But if you listen to people who have either no experience with trade publishing or have gotten their knickers in a twist because they didn't get every little thing they wanted, you're going to assume that trade publishers are stupid and out to screw the very people that make them their money. Considering how long these publishers have been in business, and the number of changes in publishing they have survived, I don't think they are either stupid or out to screw authors.


----------



## empresstheresa (Nov 8, 2012)

movieman wrote:



> Yeah, with Createspace you can upload your book for free and make it available on Amazon as a PoD paperback,



What's a PoD paperback?  Is it printed on real paper so the reader can put it on the shelf etc?

If they could generate printed books I would gladly market them myself on Amazon.


----------



## movieman (Nov 8, 2012)

empresstheresa said:


> What's a PoD paperback?  Is it printed on real paper so the reader can put it on the shelf etc?



Print-On-Demand. You upload a .pdf file of the book interior and another .pdf file of the book cover, and when someone orders a copy they print it and ship it. The quality isn't as good as a 'real' paperback, but they're not bad. The most obvious giveaway is probably the interior layout if it was created in a word processor rather than dedicated layout software which can handle things like font kerning in a more optimal manner.

There are a number of other PoD services, but most self-publishers I know use Createspace because they don't charge a setup fee and don't charge if you need to make changes to the book later (new cover or whatever). So you can just upload a book and make it available on Amazon at no direct cost to you if you've already paid for the cover and do the formatting yourself. If you start selling a lot of PoD books then comparing them to the other services would be a good idea; for example, I believe many will make the books available to book stores, etc, whereas Createspace charge extra fees for that.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 8, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Why would they put minimal effort into marketing something they have put much more effort into building? Why would they decide that a book they felt was worth acquiring and publishing in the first place was not worth marketing to give it the very best chance of being a good seller, and possibly a best-seller? _That's_ what doesn't make any sense. Not to mention that it's the big names they have that help subsidize the investment in new authors - again, any one of whom may be the next big name. But if you listen to people who have either no experience with trade publishing or have gotten their knickers in a twist because they didn't get every little thing they wanted, you're going to assume that trade publishers are stupid and out to screw the very people that make them their money. Considering how long these publishers have been in business, and the number of changes in publishing they have survived, I don't think they are either stupid or out to screw authors.




Again I ask:

Have you heard or experienced first time authors getting a ton of marketing support from publishers?

That is just not what I've heard. If you have contrary stories, please let me know.

I am not an expert on the publishing industry, but the stories I'm hearing sound logical to me. The publisher is not out to screw anyone; they're out to maximize their profit. Doing so entails them spending their marketing dollars on the books that have the best chance of making them money. It is my understanding that a first book by an author has little chance of making much of a profit. Therefore, the publishers don't put a lot of effort/money into marketing it.

Again, if you've heard something different, I'd love to hear about it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 8, 2012)

If you want me to list Author A, B, or C, then no, I can't do that. Why? Because I'm not privy to the behind-the-scenes marketing done for every book published. But note: this is behind the scenes. Do they have huge ads in the NYT? Probably not. Why? It's not cost effective. Do they have huge book tours for authors? No. Why? Because it's not cost effective. Do they have these books in their catalogs, which is where booksellers look to purchase? Yes. Do they have these books on their lists when salespeople call on said booksellers? Yes. Do they send out ARCs to reviewers? Yes. Why? Because these are the things that will sell the books. 

If you choose not to accept common business practice - marketing those products which you've already spent money on developing - and instead prefer to believe people with a chip on their shoulder (perhaps because it justifies your own decisions), then there's nothing I can say to change your mind. Of course, who you should be talking to, reading, and listening to, are the people who actually work in publishing, who will describe (sometimes in great detail) how trade publishing really works. It would most likely be an eye-opener for you.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 8, 2012)

> If you want me to list Author A, B, or C, then no, I can't do that.



You seemed pretty adament about your viewpoint. I thought maybe you had some information that I didn't.



> Do they have these books in their catalogs, which is where booksellers look to purchase? Yes. Do they have these books on their lists when salespeople call on said booksellers? Yes. Do they send out ARCs to reviewers? Yes.



I do not disagree about these things at all.

However, I do not think, by any stretch of the imagination, that these things will lead your book to success. There are simply too many books receiving the same treatment.



> Of course, who you should be talking to, reading, and listening to, are the people who actually work in publishing, who will describe (sometimes in great detail) how trade publishing really works. It would most likely be an eye-opener for you.



I've read a lot of this type of material. Again, I just doubt the effectiveness of a traditional publisher's efforts for a first time author.

My main point is: 

If you're putting a book out there and you want it to succeed, you better take responsibility for its success. You have to market and promote it at every opportunity. Landing a traditional publishing deal isn't going to do squat if you don't take a lot of initiative.

I hear this from authors all the time. It's not exactly a revolutionary concept.



> perhaps because it justifies your own decisions



I feel I've been pretty open minded about the whole thing. I'm searching for facts and continually re-examining my choices and options. 

No offense, but that's not the vibe I'm getting from you. Your posts (until the last one) seem to consist solely of: traditional publishing is the only way to go. That's it. I'm not seeing any reasoning behind it; just the statement.

Self publishing has disadvantages. Instead of getting money up front, you have to dig into your pocket. You are solely responsible for all aspects of your book and have no team to lean on for support and expertise. The upside is that, if you do succeed, you're going to get a much higher share of any money produced by the book.

Traditional publishing also has advantages and disadvantages. $5000 is better than nothing, and bookstores are much more likely to carry your book and host signings. These are great things. You don't put up a thing upfront. Again, good. On the downside, you're going to wait a long time, if ever, to see your book in print, and your share of the eventual profits are comparitively low.

Anyone who is in position to make this decision should examine both skeptically and make the personal decision that is best for them. If you choose to traditionally publish, that's great if it's best for you. But I hate the attitude that self publishing should not even be considered.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 8, 2012)

I've never said trade publishing was the only way, and I never will say that. I've responded to the misconceptions in your posts. Whether or not you believe in the efficacy of the marketing trade publishers do is up to you. Marketing your own trade published book is wasted effort - you, as an individual author, will not be able to do anything your publishers are not already doing - ie, getting it into bookstores and getting reputable reviewers to consider it. If you want to do promotional work, such as the newspaper ads and book tours, well, it's your money. But those ads and tours don't really sell that many books. When was the last time you bought a book from an unknown author because of an ad or from seeing them sitting in a bookstore?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 9, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I've never said trade publishing was the only way, and I never will say that. I've responded to the misconceptions in your posts. Whether or not you believe in the efficacy of the marketing trade publishers do is up to you. Marketing your own trade published book is wasted effort - you, as an individual author, will not be able to do anything your publishers are not already doing - ie, getting it into bookstores and getting reputable reviewers to consider it. If you want to do promotional work, such as the newspaper ads and book tours, well, it's your money. But those ads and tours don't really sell that many books. When was the last time you bought a book from an unknown author because of an ad or from seeing them sitting in a bookstore?



The way I'm reading this is: As a first time author, there's really nothing you can do to make your book a success. Find a publisher, put it out there, and hope for the best.

I think that's a horrible attitude.

A couple of links on the subject:

From Forbes.com (article here):



> The publisher reaction was to cut staff and costs. Marketing support to lesser authors was one of the first victims. As a result, most new authors who make it through the arduous process of finding both an agent and a publisher are surprised to learn that it is the author who is responsible for marketing and promoting his or her own work.


The author of that piece links to a guy's personal story about that very thing here.

If I'm going to be successful as an author, it's up to me to make it happen. I have to learn how to write good books. I have to learn how to write books that will find a market. I have to learn how to reach that market. I have to write the book. I have to reach the market.

Regardless of whether I go traditional of indie, it's up to me to make it happen. 

On the flip side, if it doesn't happen, that's on me too.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 9, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> From Forbes.com (article here):



I'd feel more confidence in this article if the guy had some actual connection to trade publishing, and had enough knowledge to use the proper terms (trade rather than traditional, for example). And yeah, he noted the terminology thing with "indie", which again only proves he isn't _that _familiar with publishing. But he also spoke in generalities - "publishers cut back" - so which ones? The indie publishers or the Big 6? Or maybe imprints?

But like I said before - I'm not against self-publishing, I don't think trade or indie publishers are the only route to go, but if you really want to learn about publishing alternatives, look at the people _in publishing_. Or you can keep looking at the peripheral people and follow their misunderstandings, misconceptions, and misleading information. If you decide to self-publish, it should be from real knowledge. 

But obviously you've got this picture of publishing in your head and that's that, so best wishes.


----------



## patskywriter (Nov 9, 2012)

I almost wish that I could self-publish my work-in-progress. Of course, nothing's stopping me, but it so happens that I'm writing a book for caregivers of Alzheimer's patients. I don't care if I get famous or become a best-selling author, but I really want to get my books into the hands of people who need it. I honestly don't know if a self-publisher has ever been successful getting his or her books into public libraries across the USA and into major bookstores. … So, it seems that I'll have to go the trade-book route, which is a tough one indeed. I'd actually rather self-publish because I'm a hustler at heart.


----------



## movieman (Nov 9, 2012)

patskywriter said:


> I honestly don't know if a self-publisher has ever been successful getting his or her books into public libraries across the USA and into major bookstores.



Self-publishing has been common in non-fiction for years; I suspect some of my more obscure military history books are self-published, and some of the local history books that sell well in tourist stores but have little market outside that region. If you have a good way of informing the relevant people that your book is available (e.g. getting reviews in specialist magazines/web sites) it might well work.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 9, 2012)

movieman said:


> Self-publishing has been common in non-fiction for years



Definitely. Start building relationships with people in the field, letting them know not only about your book, but if they have any input that might be useful. Those are the people that will recommend your book and get it noticed by your audience.


----------



## joshhuntnm (Nov 10, 2012)

Create space has the big advantage of its connection to Amazon


----------

