# Is self-publishing inferior?



## AnastasiaA (Oct 3, 2017)

The only thing I have published so far is a no churn ice cream recipe book, and it took me four months from having the idea to having it up for sale on Amazon as an ebook, and then another two months before it was available as a paperback.

I chose to self-publish for three reasons:

1) I created all the recipes myself and did all the photography and writing, I had a very clear image of how I wanted it to look, and I wanted to maintain control over all of it.

2) I wanted it to be quick and simple, and to have something completed and up for sale without relying on anyone else.

3) I didn't want 90% of the profits taken off me, when I was the one who did the work.

The process was so simple and easy, I decided that I'd like to do the same when I complete my first novel. I'd consider approaching publishers afterwards, but I'd be quite keen to just get it out there as soon as possible.

As far as I was aware, there is no longer a stigma with self-publishing, but I doubted myself when I went to a writer's group a couple of weeks ago. It was my first time attending, and in general discussion with the group they mentioned a member who wasn't there, and made some comments about how he was only self-published, and that it didn't really count.

I don't actually know any other published writers besides these people, and one other person who has self-published one novel, so I'm not sure if this attitude is just them, or if it's really true. Is it cheating to self-publish?


----------



## Phil Istine (Oct 3, 2017)

Is it inferior?
Presumably you mean inferior to being published via agent and/or publisher.
Not necessarily.
An agent/publisher looks for whether it is likely to make a financial profit. There's work out there that makes a profit but is not well written.
There's other work that is well-written but is unprofitable, because it doesn't appeal to a mass audience.
There's also plenty of well-written work that is profitable.


----------



## JustRob (Oct 3, 2017)

Surely the two approaches are incompatible. Conventional publication tends to be a heavyweight package which includes such important matters as promotion and distribution. Self-publishing is a stripped down lightweight approach which minimises those additional aspects. Amazon distort the picture by attempting to create the impression that they _are_ the market, an impression that established published writers oppose for the alleged general good of the industry. That's my limited perception of things anyway. Personally I never buy anything from Amazon, nor would I want any of my work to be sold by them, but that's just me. The approach that you take is very much a personal choice. Certainly I agree that self-publishing can provide more personal control, which I myself insist on, but the means have not fully developed yet to my mind, so currently appear to be inferior. Just gives things time to evolve.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 3, 2017)

Self-publishing has a stigma attached to it because there is so much really bad work self-published. As you mentioned, it's very easy to do and is very cheap, so thousands of people dash off a story, or a collection, or a novel and throw it out there without putting in the time and effort needed to make it a polished work. Many people still believe -- with justification -- that following the traditional route to publication (agent, publisher, editor, etc.) ensures a better quality product.

Perceptions are slowly changing as more and more skilled, dedicated writers adopt self-publishing. More people are beginning to let the work stand on its own merits rather than blindly classifying it based on its method of publication. That doesn't mean there is any less garbage in the LuLu, CreatSpace, and Smashwords databases, it just means that more people are realizing that there is good stuff in there too.

Regarding your statement about marketing your book to publishers after you've self-published; your odds of success are very, very poor. Publishers rarely pick up previously self-published works. They have a hard enough time selling new books, they are reluctant to take on 'second-hand' work. It does happen from time to time -- 50 Shades of Grey is one example, the Wool trilogy is another -- but it is rare.

The next time your writing group starts bad-mouthing self publisher's ask them if they've ever heard of Charles Dickens, Marcel Proust, Carl Sandburg, or James Joyce. All of those and many others self published their work. In some cases it was after they achieved success via the traditional route, in others the work self-published was very early work, but the point is, these skilled writers didn't let existing paradigms stop them. Another similarity among them is that they all produced work fit for publication. Too many self-publishers these days do it because it is easy. No one is standing over their shoulder saying, "It's not good enough, yet. Keep working on it. Make it shine."


----------



## AnastasiaA (Oct 3, 2017)

Thanks everyone for your responses, this is all helpful stuff. I suppose that is the challenge to me in the fiction I'm writing, as that what I think is good enough may not really be. I am a way off having anything completed, so perhaps I need to keep an open mind regarding the route I'll end up taking.


----------



## JustRob (Oct 3, 2017)

You may find this item on David Procter interesting. 
I notice that his website has moved now and is at http://authordavidtprocterbooks.co.uk/


----------



## AnastasiaA (Oct 3, 2017)

That is interesting, thanks for posting. You know, that is something that I struggle with very much is selling. The creative part is wonderful, but once it's finished I'm ready to move onto what is next. I just don't do well with marketing, social media, approaching people to try and make sales or get exposure etc. That's quite an achievement that he's made 30,000 sales from pure hard work.


----------



## Ultraroel (Oct 3, 2017)

AnastasiaA said:


> That is interesting, thanks for posting. You know, that is something that I struggle with very much is selling. The creative part is wonderful, but once it's finished I'm ready to move onto what is next. I just don't do well with marketing, social media, approaching people to try and make sales or get exposure etc. That's quite an achievement that he's made 30,000 sales from pure hard work.



Then I'd say self-publishing is not for you. I also don't want to spend time and effort into this, so I crossed self-publishing out of the list of options. If you do not promote, sell etc it'll be hard for most books to make some money. Especially in the current world where anything is available.


----------



## AnastasiaA (Oct 3, 2017)

Ultraroel said:


> Then I'd say self-publishing is not for you. I also don't want to spend time and effort into this, so I crossed self-publishing out of the list of options. If you do not promote, sell etc it'll be hard for most books to make some money. Especially in the current world where anything is available.



I suspect you may be right. The part of self-publishing I love is the control and how fast it can all be wrapped up, on sale, and I can move on and stop thinking about it.

Approaching agents/publishers does scare me, because of the big risk that no one will like it, and all the hard work was for nothing. I suppose in that case, though, self-publishing can be a good second choice.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 3, 2017)

AnastasiaA said:


> The only thing I have published so far is a no churn ice cream recipe book, and it took me four months from having the idea to having it up for sale on Amazon as an ebook, and then another two months before it was available as a paperback.
> 
> I chose to self-publish for three reasons:
> 
> ...


Yes.  Self-publishing is inferior.  It's inferior because there's a much wider range of work that's published from self-published authors. You have complete crap to super-awesome-fantastic sauce, and because there's no gatekeeper, the crap is literally a mountain high and the great work is hidden within.

This does not mean that the conventional path is better, it's just more often that not, good enough.  There's also going to be better editing, cover design and better market reach (potentially).

Self-publishing is a one man show vs team.  The team will win 9 times outta 10.


----------



## Non Serviam (Oct 3, 2017)

I've done both with the same work.  One of my first non-fiction books was self-published in 2008.  I sold a couple of thousand copies off my own bat and then, early in 2010, a small press publisher contacted me with an offer for the print rights, which I accepted.  It's now on its second printing with them.

I'm afraid that traditional publishers won't necessarily push your book very hard.  They have limited marketing budgets and those are usually earmarked for the established authors.  Occasionally a brand new author gets a big marketing push, but the odds are not in your favour.  Whether traditionally published or self-published, if you want to sell a lot of copies you almost always need to market it yourself.

My way was to join a particular internet subculture in 2004, establish a following who recognised my handle and thought I wasn't a complete idiot, and then link my book (in my signatures in various webforums, etc.)  I didn't literally go out and sell my book ---- I just networked about something I was interested in.


----------



## Bayview (Oct 5, 2017)

I think it's important to not treat all publishers as monolithic - it's not nearly as simple as self-publishing vs. working-with-a-publisher. And the factors that go into the decision will be very different depending on the author and on the individual book.

In terms of the first distinction - there are some truly terrible publishers out there. It would be vastly superior to self publish rather than to work with a vanity press or anyone else who's scamming the system. It would be better to self-publish than to work with a fly-by-night publisher that doesn't have the resources or experience to properly edit and market your book.

Depending on genre, there are some great small publishers out there who can edit well and find an audience for your book and it would likely be better to work with them than to self-publish, but you have to put some time into figuring out who they are. And there are the Big Five and the well-established independents who will pay a substantial advance and can really help your book take off, and it's almost always a good idea to work with them if you have the chance.

There are also different author characteristics and goals. If you're just starting out, self-publishing is a hard way to go because you don't have any way to know if your work is good enough to publish and you don't have connections, an established readership, etc. to help you establish yourself. A lot of the loudest self-publishing cheerleaders started out working with publishers, so for them, switching to self-publishing was a lot easier than for someone brand new to publishing. They also tend to be natural self-promoters, natural entrepreneurs, natural networkers. All important.

The individual book is a factor as well. A lot of hybrid authors are doing their self-publishing in the form of re-issuing books that have already been with publishers--the authors get their rights back and the editing is already done, so they just pay for a cover and they're ready to go. Some books fit a natural niche that the author is well-placed to market (like an inspirational speaker selling her inspirational book to her audiences). etc.

A novel by a first-time author? I'd recommend trying to get an agent, trying to get a Big Five deal, trying to get a deal with a reputable independent. If none of that works, I'd recommend looking for a reputable small publisher in the genre with a good record of sales. If that doesn't work? Maybe self-publish. Or maybe decide that the book isn't ready for publication yet and shelf it for a while. Hard to say.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 5, 2017)

JustRob said:


> Surely the two approaches are incompatible. Conventional publication tends to be a heavyweight package which includes such important matters as promotion and distribution. Self-publishing is a stripped down lightweight approach which minimises those additional aspects. Amazon distort the picture by attempting to create the impression that they _are_ the market, an impression that established published writers oppose for the alleged general good of the industry. That's my limited perception of things anyway. Personally I never buy anything from Amazon, nor would I want any of my work to be sold by them, but that's just me. The approach that you take is very much a personal choice. Certainly I agree that self-publishing can provide more personal control, which I myself insist on, but the means have not fully developed yet to my mind, so currently appear to be inferior. Just gives things time to evolve.



No - _50 Shades of Grey_ was self-published, was very successful, and was taken on by a major publisher - The rest, as you so rightly say, is history...


----------



## Wilk (Oct 5, 2017)

It is rather funny people "dish" self-publishing work. A number of the famous authors, both old & new alike, started off as self-published. In fact, I would not be surprised in the slightest if far more than acknowledged famous authors started off as self published even if under a different penname. It isn't brain-surgery to realize that publication through an agent can be a literal waste of time & money if you don't have a client base. 

All the advertising in the world, cover artwork to put Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel to shame, and a book summary written like an Oscar winning movie, after all, won't necessarily do you any good if readers are more interested in people they've read before - even those "poor" and "rubbish" self-published authors. 

It is like starting any sort of business. If you don't have a client base then it will take more work & money to build that client base. However, if you have a client base then you have someone who would spread knowledge of your "business" via word of mouth, etc.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 5, 2017)

AnastasiaA said:


> The only thing I have published so far is a no churn ice cream recipe book, and it took me four months from having the idea to having it up for sale on Amazon as an ebook, and then another two months before it was available as a paperback.
> 
> I chose to self-publish for three reasons:
> 
> ...



Context is everything.

In the scenario you have outlined, what is meant is, "He self published, so we only have his word for his writing ability." And, without reviews, sales figures, etc, they're right.

If that same person had published via a traditional publisher, then there'd be a few people who think he has some writing ability.

Now the few might still be wrong. There's stuff that gets published that I scratch my head about, so a traditional publisher is no guarantee. But I see the point being made. When self published there's only one opinion. 

No matter what publishing path is chosen, though, it's probably a good idea to see if advice resonates with you. Writing is very subjective, which is quite apparent with the discussions that take place here.


----------



## JustRob (Oct 5, 2017)

Personally the biggest stigma that I see in publishing is the label "New York Times Best Seller". I have read so many disappointing books with that on the cover. So much for quality standards in conventional publishing. It's an industry based on inertia and some good writers express the need for something genuinely better based on literary merit, which they claim the current system isn't. The fact that 50 Shades made it from self-publishing to conventional publishing illustrates that, I would say. Someone saw a profit to be had, so fed it into the big machinery, little more than that.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 5, 2017)

JustRob said:


> Personally the biggest stigma that I see in publishing is the label "New York Times Best Seller". I have read so many disappointing books with that on the cover. So much for quality standards in conventional publishing. It's an industry based on inertia and some good writers express the need for something genuinely better based on literary merit, which they claim the current system isn't. The fact that 50 Shades made it from self-publishing to conventional publishing illustrates that, I would say. Someone saw a profit to be had, so fed it into the big machinery, little more than that.



Amazon has its own best seller list. And I've seen blogs about how you can get on it simply by having a certain number of people all "buy" your book with a single hour. And free books count. I don't have any personal experience, so I'm not sure if it's true, but if it is, that practice cheapens the 'best seller' tag.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 5, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Amazon has its own best seller list. And I've seen blogs about how you can get on it simply by having a certain number of people all "buy" your book with a single hour. And free books count. I don't have any personal experience, so I'm not sure if it's true, but if it is, that practice cheapens the 'best seller' tag.


FYI, Amazon has kicked those flash rises to the top to the side.  The Amazon algorithm is not set to punish those books that don't have a consistent and sustained sale record.  So the faster they rise, they fall just as quickly.  It's now far better to stretch out the buys if you want to actually stick at the top of the charts.

Amazon does not want that stigma of people paying to be number 1.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 5, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Amazon has its own best seller list. And I've seen blogs about how you can get on it simply by having a certain number of people all "buy" your book with a single hour. And free books count. I don't have any personal experience, so I'm not sure if it's true, but if it is, that practice cheapens the 'best seller' tag.



Every book on Amazon -- print or for the Kindle -- shows its sales rank on the book's home page. It's a dynamic rating system, so an author could spike his/her rank by arranging a flurry of purchases within a short time, but the numbers will come back to reality quickly. Also, books offered for free via a Kindle promotion show their rank among other free books. The give-away books don't effect the rank of the book in the paid category.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 5, 2017)

The point is -- once a book has that (very temporary) #1 ranking, the author can advertise himself (or herself) as a best selling author.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Oct 5, 2017)

Is it inferior? In concept, no. In practice...

Here's the problem. Before you can be conventionally published you enter a game of musical chairs with one chair and over a thousand players, all vying for the same publishing slot. You're asking a publisher to invest thousands of dollars in bringing your story to market, so they choose only what they feel will get recommendations that will drive enough sales to earn back that money, and enough more to make the investment pay. So as you can imagine, they're not only choosy, they have the thing vetted by someone who knows both what sells and what readers respond to, before saying yes. Then, they have multiple, knowledgeable and experienced people edit, and work to make your book so entertaining that people who read only a few pages will _want_ to read it enough to buy it.

To self publish, you have to show up.

Look at how publishers/agents look at the writing that's submitted. They call fully 75% of it unreadable, because the writer is still using the writing skills we all learn in our school days—nonfiction. Of the remaining 25 they view all but three as amateur efforts (their term, not mine). And of those three, two are probably not right for that house. The remaining submission will be asked for a full manuscript submission. And one of ten of them may garner a contract.

To self publish you show up. And therein lies the problem. Your perfect jewel— that one in one hundred—will appear among the other ninety-nine on an Amazon web-page that no one will know about unless you send them there. It will have glowing five star reviews, written by friends and relatives, like the other self pubs. And line them, unless you truly are one in a million, it will sell less than a hundred copies.

So is self publishing inferior? No. Is most of what's self published inferior? Sure. Why? Because almost everything that is self published has been rejected by publishers, or would be.  And that probably includes mine.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 6, 2017)

Going off topic here...



Jay Greenstein said:


> It will have *glowing five star reviews, written by friends and relatives*, like the other self pubs. And line them, unless you truly are one in a million, it will sell less than a hundred copies.


I actually told no one I know (outside of my wife and one of my good friends) that I even published a book, simply because I didn't want false praise.  You can't know your book is even worth the time to read until someone you don't know, at all, reads it and actually takes the time to post a review saying they loved work.

Even the bad reviews I appreciate, especially when the reader is specific.  They're always food for thought.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Oct 6, 2017)

> I actually told no one I know (outside of my wife and one of my  good friends) that I even published a book, simply because I didn't want  false praise.


Same here. But have you _read_ the average self-pub page? I've done that at times, to see the state of the field. So I've looked at more than a hundred such pages, and lots of them have nothing but five star reviews from people who have not been moved to review any other book.


----------



## Smiler Entertainment (Oct 8, 2017)

I wouldn't say it's inferior. I'm more comfortable with self-publishing myself.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Andrew78 (Nov 1, 2017)

From where I come from, Italy, not only self publishing is considered inferiorior, but also diminishing for the young emerging writer, even though nowadays there is a tendency to consider self publishing better than paying a publisher, so the "Vanity press", which we have a lot in Italy. In Italy unless you publish with a real, serious and well established publishing house, you are totally ignored both from the press and the readers, expect locally, where a small newspaper might publish something about you.


----------



## C.Gholy (Nov 4, 2017)

I don't think the stigma for self-publishing is as bad as it used to be. Both seem challenging in their own right. Self-publishing gives you complete control over your work, but you pretty much have to do everything for yourself whilst traditional there's a rare chance of being accepted and most likely there will be a lot of changes done.


----------



## LeeC (Nov 4, 2017)

Another way to look at it is that traditional publishing is a business, where considerations are relative to a bottom line. Books are chosen based on what the publisher believes will sell best in the near future.

On the other hand, if a writer believes they have something meaningful and interesting to say, which is well written, and traditional publishing isn't interested, maybe in part because the author's name alone won't sell the book,  self publishing is a boon.

These aspects are overly simplistic though, as self publishing allows fast track and otherwise underdeveloped writers to flood the market, creating a quagmire. Traditional publishing doesn't necessarily improve the quality of books either, in catering to whatever the general public is receptive to in a time frame.

There are also books that conflict with these aspects. In my interests I'm thinking of books like "The Sixth Extinction, An Unnatural History" nonfiction by Elizabeth Kolbert, "Heart Of A Lion, A Lone Cat's Walk Across America" nonfiction by William Stolzenburg, "The Water Knife" fiction by Paolo Bacigaalupi, and even "Democracy In Chains, The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America" nonfiction by Nancy MacLean. All are traditionally published best sellers, even being highlighted by the NY Times, undoubtedly with backing, as I can't see where they've had much impact on other than the reasoned segment of the general public. 

So, what I'm getting at is that the distinction is subjective, dependent on such as ego or following a crowd of similar thinkers [hate that word as it's commonly taken to imply intelligence]. In the long run, I believe the serious writer will sleep better in honestly forming their own opinions, and leaving the sheep to follow their flock behavior ;-)


----------



## bothsamspub (Jul 23, 2018)

Self-publishing is not cheating. It means you werote a book, designed and produced it, and put it out on shelves in some format, absorbing all the costs and taking on whatever marketing and promotion activities you were able to do on your own. "Self-published", technically, means the title you own does not carry the imprint (ISBN) of a registered publisher. Amazon/Kindle assigns you an ASIN or EAS number for your e-book, for instance, but the copyright information for the book will say "independently published" after you've uploaded it to your shelf. Having a publisher behind you means you have an agreement whereby the publisher has taken on promotional activities to sell your book through its catalogue and distribution routes. An average writer does not carry a wholesaler's catalogue around in his wallet, obviously, so, self-publishing means, you are also doing leg work, walking your book to bookstores, booking signings and appearances and establishing your storefront somehow, where people can buy or read your book. Just uploading a title to Amazon will not result in selling your book. There is actually zero promotioin behind Amazon, and zero distribution. The site is there and it's easy to order or download. It's a bookSHELF, online, with some rather pricey promotional options. 
There are other, affordable means of publishing that grant you an imprint and provide protections and services, including promotion and sales. Administrative publishing is an agreement offered by traditional publishers (yes, when you find one), that gives 80-90% of your royalties to you, allows you to be included in a publisher's catalogue and promotions and advertising, and also gives you the all-important editorial review, with no costs, other than what you want to put into your cover design, etc. You can get your own ISBN (inexpensive) or let the admin do it and recoup. They can get ISBNs at discounts, so, either you burn the $125 or so, yourself, or let them spend the $85 and withhold it from sales until you clear. The thing is, you just have to get the manuscript to the publisher, in some form or fashion. Publishers aren't making it easy to do that, is the problem, so every author is self-producing and using Amazon e-book, but then lacks the promotional push or access to a catalogue or social media marketing to get attention to the book, and usually, they don't know how to get a bookstore to accept their titles, which generally requires return insurance, for instance. Many of these aspects of publishing are offered now as stand-alone services by reputable printing and distribution outfits, such as Friesen Press, and there are traditional publishers that are attached to these printing presses who can be contacted, as well. Always keep an eye out for open calls, and don't look at a website's rate sheets and tell yourself, "I can't afford this". Call the publisher, just send an email and make a general inquiry. Ask them about administrative publishing, or whether they know of a publisher who offers it and are they looking for works in your genre. If they solicit your manuscript for a review, there you are. It's at the first station along the route.


----------



## MikeCobley (Jul 23, 2018)

To the OP - is it inferior? As all agents didn't want to take me on, i didn't have a choice but to self publish 

Rgds


----------



## LARivers (Sep 2, 2018)

The stigma is so much old news. Most people don’t care, industry people care. What makes anything inferior is the quality. So, if it is poorly edited (and lord only knows that’s true enough regardless of publishing method), if the book cover isn’t well designed (covers sell the book), then you’re looking at inferiority. As an avid reader I can say firmly that much of what gets published by publishing houses isn’t necessarily better, someone decided it could sell. Commercial success doesn’t equate great content.  So, self publish and cover your bases, get a good editor (worth their weight in gold imho) and make sure you market your work.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 2, 2018)

Some self-pub books are inferior, some are quite good.
It depends what you put into it.
[h=2]Jacqueline Druga started out as an Indie, then she made top sales on Amazon and got picked up by Permuted Platinum.[/h]

Here is the modern heirarchy:

Indie publishing
Self-publishing
Vanity press


Anyone serious about the craft avoids the S-term because it is pejorative.  But to be an Indie means you are pathologically committed to the process.
There's more to being an Indie than just calling yourself an Indie.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 2, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Here is the modern heirarchy:
> 
> Indie publishing
> Self-publishing
> ...



Can you clarify this? Your list makes it seem as if "Indie publishing" and "self-publishing" are two different things, but then your line at the bottom suggests that "the S-term" (do you mean self-publishing?) is just a pejorative way to describe "Indie publishing"?

I don't use the term Indie Publishing to refer to self-publishing because there's already an established usage for the term Independent Publisher - it refers to publishing companies that are reputable and commercially viable but _independent_ from the Big Five structures. Coffee House Press, Grey Wolf Press, Tin House, etc. These publishing houses have been classified as Independent Publishers for decades.

Self-publishers using the term Indie Publishing to avoid the stigma of poorly self-published books, are, in my opinion, obscuring the meaning of a useful term and, more significantly, playing a semantic game that's just slapping a little spackle on top of a wall with serious structural issues. Changing the _terminology_ of self-publishing isn't going to do anything to address the larger issues with the self-publishing field, and the authors who are currently giving self-publishing a bad name are just going to start calling themselves indie publishers and then give _that_ term a bad name. Which is too bad, because it's currently a useful term to describe a viable group of companies.

Anyway - I'm not an Indie Publisher. I self-publish my books sometimes, though.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 3, 2018)

I thought places like Coffee House were called Small press publishers.
Also, independent press is different than Indie publishing.  
The group I just joined is called Indies United, and they are much different than what you refer to as Independent Publishers.

Your definition may be out of date.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 3, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I thought places like Coffee House were called Small press publishers.
> Also, independent press is different than Indie publishing.



See, for example, Publishers' Weekly, Bookmarket, The Guardian, or The Atlantic.



> The group I just joined is called Indies United, and they are much different than what you refer to as Independent Publishers.
> 
> Your definition may be out of date.




Oh, yeah, I'n not denying the effort that's being made to co-opt the term. But if you google "Independent Publishers", I'd say about three-quarters of the results on the first two pages refer to publishing houses, not self-publishers. So the term is currently stuck in a sort of morass, where no one can really be sure _what's_ meant when it's used. I'm not going to contribute to the problem. When responsible self-publishers realize the yahoos have followed them to the term Indie Publishing and rebrand themselves as Citizen Artists or whatever, I don't think I'll bother following the crowd to _t__hat _term, either.

There's nothing wrong with self-publishing, and I have no shame in saying that I sometime self-publish.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 4, 2018)

I've found myself confused by this same topic a lot over the past year.

Whenever I heard "Independent", I always thought of smaller publishing houses, independent from the Big Five (remember when it was the Big Six?).

Now it seems that a lot of self-published authors prefer to be called Indie Authors. Some even describe self-publishing as Indie Publishing, which, as Bayview pointed out, tends to muddy the waters when Independent Publishers already exist (in form of small presses).

I think "Indie Author" sounds a lot catchier than "Self-Published Author", so I can certainly see the appeal. And, from what I understand, those who identify themselves as Indie use the label to distinguish themselves from those who publish through the help of vanity presses.

Mostly, the confusion (at least on my end) comes from the fact that the term "Independent" was already an established term in the publishing world. Now, it seems to be taking on a second meaning.


----------



## Pete_C (Sep 4, 2018)

Isn't the whole 'indie publishing' thing a bit like 'craft beer'? I remember when Brew Dog wanted to create a ruling on what 'craft beer' meant because they didn't want the establishment claiming to be anti-establishment. In turn, they wanted to become the establishment of the anti-establishment.

As soon as self-published authors claim to be indie authors because the term self-published is pejorative, are they not looking down on what they really are: self published authors? Is it an 'I'm more self published than you' kind of thing? I'm more properly self-published than all the rest!

When that happens the whole bandwagon starts to look a bit tatty.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2018)

Bayview said:


> But if you google "Independent Publishers", I'd say about three-quarters of the results on the first two pages refer to publishing houses, not self-publishers.





Like I said, *Independent *Publishers and *Indie *Publishers are not the same thing.
It's not co-opting the name, it is a new title altogether.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> As soon as self-published authors claim to be indie authors because the term self-published is pejorative, are they not looking down on what they really are: self published authors? Is it an 'I'm more self published than you' kind of thing? I'm more properly self-published than all the rest!
> 
> When that happens the whole bandwagon starts to look a bit tatty.




Indeed, but we can only shape the world within our sphere of influence.
I cannot control millions of Self-pubs who may try to market themselves as Indies.
I can only ensure that my Indie published books are the best that they can be.
There are thousands and thousands of writers just like me; multi-published authors who take the craft seriously.
We spend our days differentiating ourselves from the chaff.

Indie writers are a thing now.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 4, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Like I said, *Independent *Publishers and *Indie *Publishers are not the same thing.
> It's not co-opting the name, it is a new title altogether.



You said independent _press _was different, not Independent _publishers_.

And I'm not really sure we can count on people to not translate "indie" into "independent". As I said, if you google "independent publishers" about 3/4 of the results refer to publishing houses... that means the other 1/4 refers to self-publishers. And if you google "indie publishers" I think you'll find a similar mix of publishers and self-published, in roughly the same proportions.

So... no, I don't think other people are making the distinction you're making.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2018)

Bayview said:


> You said independent _press _was different, not Independent _publishers_.




_Ooooh you're good. _ You love to split hairs, and turn the conversation into those tight turning battles where we each dissect each other's responses down to the nth degree.  The style is familiar. [will PM a question  ]



*Meanwhile back at the original topic...*

I should better state what I am saying, because I'm becoming confused.
I am saying that being an Indie writer or publisher is different from Independent publishing/ers.
An Independent press has a staff, an Indie has a staff of 1.
I do not see a lotta difference between an Indie writer and an Indie publisher. I guess a writer has 1 book, and a publisher has 2+...? dunno.
It's all still in flux.
Indie publishing will be what we make of it, because it is not yet set in stone. The whole publishing industry is in flux.  
Amazon really changed everything.




Okay, it's 5 oclock somewhere.


----------



## Pete_C (Sep 4, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I cannot control millions of Self-pubs who may try to market themselves as Indies.



So please, in detail and without reference to emotional ‘I bleed for my art’ bullshit, define the difference between a self published author and an indie author.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2018)

One makes money at their craft.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 4, 2018)

I found this FAQ page that might clear things up (or it might just add to the confusion, depending on your POV):

What Is An Independent "Indie" Author? — The Alliance of Independent Authors

:encouragement:


----------



## Pete_C (Sep 5, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> One makes money at their craft.



So you are claiming that every Indie Author makes money and every self-published author does not? I can’t see that.

If that is the only definition, then something doesn’t smell right and it looks more like snobbery than an actual thing.

To be fair, I don’t give a shit what labels people give themselves. However, whenever a disruptive movement splits and turns on itself, it’s never a good sign. It usually indicates that the disruption they wanted to create has evaded them!


----------



## PiP (Sep 5, 2018)

Thanks, Kyle.



> *Self-publishing author:* any author who has published a book at personal expense. Self-publishers range the full gamut, from those publishing a one-off book for family and friends to the most entrepreneurial and productive author-publisher.
> *Indie Authors:* Self-publishing writers who publish to sell books and reach as many readers as possible. “Indie” is primarily an attitude. Indie authors see themselves as the creative directors of their own work, embracing creative freedom and control, and accepting responsibility for their own publishing choices. An indie author will choose the publishing services — paid or trade – most appropriate to each book project.



I can't see any tangible difference between Indie and self-published, other than 'Indie' _suggests _a more professional attitude. Surely, self-publishing authors are also "[FONT=&Verdana]creative directors of their own work, embracing creative freedom and control, and accepting responsibility for their own publishing choices. An indie author will choose the publishing services — paid or trade – most appropriate to each book project."

[/FONT]Or am I missing something?

For me, 'Indie' sounds like a group of authors who are rebranding by trying to move away from the *perceived* stigma of 'self-published'. 

I'm curious, is there any difference in quality control because I've bought some really crap self-pub books over the years?


----------



## Bayview (Sep 5, 2018)

PiP said:


> I'm curious, is there any difference in quality control because I've bought some really crap self-pub books over the years?



No, there's still no quality control. There's no substantive difference between self-publishing and being an independent author.

I do a shitty job of promoting my self-published works. That isn't going to change if I start calling myself an indie author.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 5, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> _Ooooh you're good. _ You love to split hairs, and turn the conversation into those tight turning battles where we each dissect each other's responses down to the nth degree.



In a discussion of which terms are accurate, you think it's "splitting hairs" to consistently use the same term?

Allow me to clarify:

Independent Publisher, Independent Publishing, Indie Publisher, Indie Publishing, Independent Press, Indie Press: terms that are already in use in the industry. Terms that have a valuable meaning. Terms that shouldn't be coopted into something else.

Independent Author, Indie Author, Freedom Author, Authorial Publishing System, etc.: terms that aren't already in use in the industry. Terms that are open for use. Terms that will likely soon hold the same stigma as Self-Published Author, but... at least using them isn't hurting anybody.


Also for the record:

I think the big distinction between a self-published author and an independent publisher has nothing to do with the number of books or staff - it comes down to editorial oversight. If a publisher prints anything anyone will pay for, they're not an independent publisher, they're a vanity press. The value of independent publishers is that they function as gatekeepers, and as much as writers resent that role, as a reader? I like it very much. I'm pleased to have someone sorting the worst of the chaff out from the wheat before I come along. It's the most serious problem facing self-publishing, and I don't see a solution to that problem on the horizon.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 5, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I found this FAQ page that might clear things up (or it might just add to the confusion, depending on your POV):
> 
> What Is An Independent "Indie" Author? — The Alliance of Independent Authors
> 
> :encouragement:





I think Kyle posted the best answer yet in this thread.
And yes, a large degree of the difference between a self-pub and an Indie is attitude.
I know a lotta indies on Twitter, and they are all very serious at their craft, and publish multiple books under their own banner.
I also know a number of self-pubs, and they operate much differently than the self-declared Indies.

And in answer to Pete C's question:
Self pubs make money on accident.
Indies make money on purpose. They have worked the system enough to know how to do it.


Pip wrote:
"For me, 'Indie' sounds like a group of authors who are rebranding by trying to move away from the *perceived stigma of 'self-published'. 
*Yes, she is absolutely correct.  The term Indie writer is a way to differentiate ourselves.




Bayview wrote:
"No, there's still no quality control. There's no substantive difference between self-publishing and being an independent author."
Not true.  Editing and final draft are very much different between self-pubs and Indies.  Indies use beta readers, and have the experience to properly tune a book.

And on the topic of editing; I have seen a major slip in professional editing in many venues (including fiction novels). 
I find errors daily in news sources. 
I find errors in books published by the big 5 publishing houses.
I am also astonished at the content often chosen for publication.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 5, 2018)

"I think the big distinction between a self-published author and an independent publisher has nothing to do with the number of books or staff - it comes down to editorial oversight."
Again, *Independent Publishers are not the same as an Indie writer.* You are comparing apples & tangerines with that analogy.



Here are some examples of Indie writers:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077VVQVL4

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FNYJ22K/?tag=writingforu06-20

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07CN9NRJM/?tag=writingforu06-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GVPYLT6/?tag=writingforu06-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071WFBBG4/?tag=writingforu06-20


The difference between them and self-pubs is the quality of their work & marketing efforts. These are writers who are very serious about making it as writers.
They are not casual writers.


----------



## Pete_C (Sep 5, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> The difference between them and self-pubs is the quality of their work & marketing efforts. These are writers who are very serious about making it as writers.
> They are not casual writers.



That's a huge assumption and one you can't validate. There are plenty of self-published authors who produce high quality and market very well. It is not in your power to determine what label they put on themselves. There are also many indie authors who churn out crap and market badly.

There are a handful of people who believe that by tagging themselves as 'indie authors' it gives them some credibility. The two terms are interchangeable and anyone who believes differently is playing with semantics. Call yourself whatever you like, but don't pretend there is a real and valid distinction between the two.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 5, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> That's a huge assumption and one you can't validate. There are plenty of self-published authors who produce high quality and market very well. It is not in your power to determine what label they put on themselves. There are also many indie authors who churn out crap and market badly.
> 
> There are a handful of people who believe that by tagging themselves as 'indie authors' it gives them some credibility. The two terms are interchangeable and anyone who believes differently is playing with semantics. Call yourself whatever you like, but don't pretend there is a real and valid distinction between the two.





Pete: With that attitude I cannot help but ask: _What are you even doing in this forum?_



You keep pointing out that there are a lotta crap books published by both self-pubs as well as Indies. I do agree.
As I mentioned previously: We can only change the world within our sphere of influence.

"There are a handful of people who believe that by tagging themselves as 'indie authors' it gives them some credibility."
The movement exists regardless of whether or not Pete C believes in it.  Indies are a real thing.


----------



## Pete_C (Sep 5, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Pete: With that attitude I cannot help but ask: _What are you even doing in this forum?_



You’re going to have to explain the reason behind that question. What’s the reasoning to it. I shouldn’t be here because I don’t think it valid to assume that an self-proclaimed indie author is superior to a self-published author? I shouldn’t be here because I don’t flock to the latest ‘label’? I shouldn’t be here because I don’t buy into a marketing scheme?

Please explain, because I don’t understand.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 5, 2018)

Never said you SHOULDN't be here.
I just don't understand WHY you would be here.
Based on this and other posts, you seem to be bereft of joy in the process.
You don't seem like you enjoy writing.


----------



## Pete_C (Sep 6, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Never said you SHOULDN't be here.
> I just don't understand WHY you would be here.
> Based on this and other posts, you seem to be bereft of joy in the process.
> You don't seem like you enjoy writing.



Again, an assumption. However, to stay on track, here's a bit of info.

I've spent the last 40 years working in publishing and writing, as a full-time job. I spend a lot of my non-working hours writing my non-work stuff. When I put together my novel I saw two options. The first was to use my friends and colleagues to land a publishing deal. Yes, it is the way things work when you know the right people. The second was to submit to a relevant small press (my genre is very specialised and most presses that would consider my work don't require agents, so that was a step I didn't have to consider).

As the work progressed and turned from a novella (the preferred format in my genre) to a 100K word novel, I had some thinking to do. Based upon a lot of research, consideration of the required skills and an honest appraisal of my own abilities, I decided to self publish. This wasn't done because I couldn't find a publisher. Despite my experience and network in the publishing sector, I didn't try. I opted to self publish because it made sense.


I retained full editorial control over the content of the novel; something very important to me as it is offensive in parts and doubtless would require some degree of censorship were a third party involved.
I retained control over the presentation and artwork.
Marketing could be implemented in a way that appealed specifically to my target audience.
The ability to repackage and redeliver the content in different ways remained open to me.
The freedom to work with others with regard to promotions remained in my control.
Future initiatives based upon the novel remained in my control.
I could make investments where I felt they were needed, and reap the rewards of those decisions.

What a publisher - mainstream or small press - could or would offer me didn't match up to the freedom of self publishing. If I wrote SciFi or Fantasy or Romance or Mysteries, would I have made the same decision? No. As I write neo-absurdist black comedy, it made so much sense that it was an obvious choice.

I have put more man-hours into the novel than most people do. It has undergone over 30 specifically created editorial stages to ensure the content is where I want it to be. It has several more still to go.

I scoured every resource looking for an artist whose style matched the mood of the book, and when I found the right person I paid what I need to pay to get the right cover image. I spent days selecting a font that expressed the feel I wanted. I researched the cover with potential readers to assess their gut reaction for what the book would read like. I even carried out a colour analysis to see how people reacted to the cover in full size and as a thumbnail with different backgrounds.

I've built a marketing plan that has longevity and will run for around 12 months in its initial format, before changing to a secondary format when follow-up work has been done. I have created a five year business plan based upon the novel and planned works that will follow it. I've crunched more numbers than I care to think about to assess the price point, based not on what I can earn but on what the market would expect to receive for a given cost.

I have created a launch strategy that involves on-line and real world activity to target and deliver the message to the right readers.

That's what I have done as a self published author. There are many 'indie authors' who don't do all of that. There are some small presses that don't, along with some mainstream publishers. I can state that with confidence as I work in the industry!

I then read, from you, that my self published work - along with the efforts of many other self published authors - is inferior and lacking quality, and will only make money by accident. The reason for this assumption is that I don't label myself an 'indie author'. Maybe that's why I sound a little joyless. 

I wish everyone at Indie United all the best, and while I currently see it as lacking in its delivery and providing little more than ISBNs in exchange for it's authors promoting it, I hope it works. Have I ruled it out? No, but I doubt it'll work for me for the same reason many other options won't. My genre would be lost in any organisation which is not genre-specific.

However, when I look at what's on offer, it doesn't make me believe that those tagging themselves as 'indie authors' are any better or any worse than self published authors.

I think it's a shame, a real fucking crying shame, that authors who operate outside of the publishing business have started to apply tags to themselves and then belittle others who don't wear the same badge. Yes, there are some awful self published authors, and there are also some really good ones. Equally, there are some awful indie authors, and there are some really good ones.

That's because they are pretty much the same people. Because I don't want to appropriate a tag doesn't mean I am bereft of joy in the process of creating and distributing literature. It means I don't see any gain in jumping on a bandwagon, especially not one that builds itself by belittling others based upon how they describe themselves.

Interestingly, nearly every explanation you've put forward of Indie Authors is based on the negative aspects of some self published authors. 

Ironically, Indies United is for self published authors, because that's what its members all do. IU itself only sells ISBNs, points you towards a few member vendors and encourages mutual social media activity.

Some self published authors skimp on the process (and the writing) and some do not. Some put in the hours and some. Many will outperform those who have rallied behind the indie author banner. 

That's my opinion. In truth, the very idea of differentiating between people based on whether they refer to themselves as self published or indie is nonsense, because they're the same thing.

I hope that explains why I disagree with your assumptions.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 6, 2018)

Dood: Based on what you just posted; *you are an Indie*. You have been extremely meticulous in creating your work, editing, and even a marketing plan. You put in the hours and the effort to differentiate yourself from the rest of the pack.

Look, I didn't invent the differentiation between self-pubs & Indies; I'm just riding the wave to see where it goes.
But the reality is that the market is changing, and there are some new divisions forming between the casual writers and those who are serious about their craft.
If you wanna market yourself as a self-pub, then so be it.  But I can tell you that the average reader/editor/agent considers a self-pub no different from a vanity press writer.
And yes, there are a lotta hacks calling themselves Indies these days, but I have no control over that. I can only publish the best books I possibly can.


So like I said, *YOU* are clearly an *Indie*.
But based on her posts, Bayview is a self-pub.***
Not because her writing is bad (I've read it, reviewed it, loved it), but because she does not take the extra steps.
She does not build an eBook, just uploads a docx file (which means the book doesn't even have a working directory)
She admits that she does not even market her books.
That's self-pub, right there.




***Only in her self published books. For those that do not know, BV has been classically published many times, and even has an agent.  
She actually has more experience in the publishing world than anyone else in the forum.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 6, 2018)

Here is something else prove the validity of the Indie title: Checkout this site for the Tucson Book Fair:
http://tucsonfestivalofbooks.org/
You will notice that there are no tents or showplaces for self-pubs.
But there are 4 tents for Indie authors.

Being an Indie is a real thing.


----------

