Question on tagging terminology

BruceJ · Apr 17, 2009

Hope this is the proper place for this thread. Although general in nature, it deals with publishers and how they're described, rated, and viewed within the writing community.

I've seen a variety of tags in the industry regarding types of publishers: traditional, royalty, vanity, subsidy, POD, etc.; however, there seems to be some crossfeed in definitions. As the industry evolves with economic, social and technological trends, it seems these types of definitions would/should evolve, too. And, as some of the terms carry negative connotations, it seems fair for an even hand to be used when dealing them out.

My particular interest is with the term "POD"--although pertinent more generic discussions are certainly welcomed.

In my novice mind, POD seems most directly to refer to the technological approach a publisher takes toward producing hardcopy. Advantages, of course, lie in risk and overhead cost. But I see the assertion, "They're POD." (usually in a negative sense) as though the term covers the company's entire approach to the industry. Am I misinterpreting the connotation, or is this a legacy discernment arising from early less-than-honorable firms who adopted the technique? I know early POD products were clearly inferior to offset printing, but technology has advanced to the point that digital POD can produce some pretty good stuff.

If you have a company that, in all other ways seems "traditional" (i.e., no author fee, royalty-paying, etc.), but uses the POD approach for making the product available, how would they be tagged? Should they be tagged? Do we need any kind of re-looking at our tagging approach, or am I just showing my ignorance--which is entirely possible, even probable--at what these tags actual commuicate? Maybe a glossary of terms as a sticky to this forum might help (unless a current glossary is buried in one of the existing stickies and I haven't spotted it).

Please don't interpret any of this as being a challenge, or carrying a specific agenda. I really don't mean it that way. I'm just interested because there's a lot of discussion about who should use what kind of publisher (sometimes, it seems, with a one-size-fits-all perspective), and how early mistakes in engaging a publisher, or certain type of publisher, can stymie later efforts to get published via other channels. Therefore, how a firm gets tagged seems to be pretty important in the interest of fairness to both the writer and the publisher.

Thanks in advance and I welcome all constructive comments to educate me.

JulieB · Apr 17, 2009

There's the How Real Publishing Works sticky topic, but I agree that an easy-to-find list of terms would be a good thing. I was working up something similar for my web site not long ago and realized that confusion runs deep.

There is a difference between POD the technology and POD the business model*, and there is, as you've pointed out, overlap.

"Commercial" seems to be a better term than "traditional," which was coined by a vanity press.

But yes, I like the idea of a list.

*I'm waiting for POD the movie, POD the video game and Pod the lunch box, myself. ;-)

James D. Macdonald · Apr 17, 2009

I've seen a variety of tags in the industry regarding types of publishers: traditional, royalty, vanity, subsidy, POD, etc.; however, there seems to be some crossfeed in definitions. As the industry evolves with economic, social and technological trends, it seems these types of definitions would/should evolve, too.

"Traditional." No such thing. A term invented by PublishAmerica.
"Royalty." No such thing. I don't know who calls themselves a "royalty publisher."
"Vanity." A subsidy publisher. The publisher makes their money selling the author's books back to the author.
"Subsidy." A vanity publisher. The publisher makes their money selling the author's books back to the author.
"POD." A business model. The publisher only prints a copy after it's ordered.

victoriastrauss · Apr 17, 2009

Bruce, I think you've raised a legitimate concern. In my opinion, the problem arises partly from the fact that people are sloppy with terminology, but also from the fact that all of this technological stuff, and the changes it has wrought, are too new to have settled into accepted definitions.

When people say "traditional publisher," they are generally thinking of what you've described--a no-fee, royalty-paying publisher. But even vanity publishers and self-publishing services these days pay royalties (making the term "royalty publisher" meaningless), and some of the more notorious author mills charge no fees. Ditto for the many amateur publishing endeavors that can waste authors' time and effort as thoroughly as the worst vanity publisher. As the various markets and technologies shake out in the years to come, "traditional publisher" may come to have an accepted meaning, so that everyone who uses the term will mean the same thing by it--but at present, it is used so variously, and often so inaccurately, that it really is not useful.

It's the same for "POD." Strictly speaking, print on demand is just a technology. But--partly because of the POD-based self-publishing services and the POD-based author mills like PublishAmerica--it has come to be strongly enough associated with a particular complex of business practices that the term "POD publisher" has taken on (pejorative) meaning, just as "traditional publisher" has taken on (positive) meaning (these two terms, by the way, have developed concurrently over the past decade or so, largely in opposition to one another). Yet the same difficulties arise, because people who use the term mean different things by it. Plus, a publisher's use of a particular technology tells you nothing about how it selects, edits, and markets its books.

To avoid the negative connotations, I try to say "digitally-based publisher" instead of "POD publisher," and to use the term strictly to denote the printing technology used. As I noted above, the printing technology a publisher employs doesn't tell you about its selectivity, editing, designing, etc.--but it does tell you something about the size of its print runs, which in turn tells you something about its sales and marketing. So printing technology is relevant when you're evaluating a publisher--but not in the way that people often assume.

Moving on to other terminology...I would argue that outside of the academic market, there's no such thing any more as a "subsidy publisher," in the classic sense of a publisher that shares the financial risk with the author. "Subsidy" is more likely to be a claim by a deceptive vanity publisher attempting to make authors feel better about handing over cash.

Nor would I retire the term "vanity publisher," which many people feel should be gotten rid of because it's so negative. With most vanity publishers, the negativity is richly deserved. Using softer terminology, or employing euphemisms (such as the loathsome "independent author," which I'm seeing ever more often these days), may make for better PR, or make it possible for writers to tell themselves that it's OK to pay a particular publisher a bundle or to buy 1,000 copies of their books--but it doesn't change the fact that paying to publish is rarely the best choice for career-minded authors, and never the best choice if it's overpriced.

- Victoria

CaoPaux · Apr 17, 2009

Writer Beware also has a good description of the differences, here: http://www.sfwa.org/beware/vanitypublishers.html (Be sure to check out the rest of their pages for even more info.)

ETA: Speak of the Devil.

What she said.

BruceJ · Apr 17, 2009

victoriastrauss said:
Bruce, I think you've raised a legitimate concern. In my opinion, the problem arises partly from the fact that people are sloppy with terminology, but also from the fact that all of this technological stuff, and the changes it has wrought, are too new to have settled into accepted definitions.

When people say "traditional publisher," they are generally thinking of what you've described--a no-fee, royalty-paying publisher. But even vanity publishers and self-publishing services these days pay royalties (making the term "royalty publisher" meaningless), and some of the more notorious author mills charge no fees. Ditto for the many amateur publishing endeavors that can waste authors' time and effort as thoroughly as the worst vanity publisher. As the various markets and technologies shake out in the years to come, "traditional publisher" may come to have an accepted meaning, so that everyone who uses the term will mean the same thing by it--but at present, it is used so variously, and often so inaccurately, that it really is not useful.

It's the same for "POD." Strictly speaking, print on demand is just a technology. But--partly because of the POD-based self-publishing services and the POD-based author mills like PublishAmerica--it has come to be strongly enough associated with a particular complex of business practices that the term "POD publisher" has taken on (pejorative) meaning, just as "traditional publisher" has taken on (positive) meaning (these two terms, by the way, have developed concurrently over the past decade or so, largely in opposition to one another). Yet the same difficulties arise, because people who use the term mean different things by it. Plus, a publisher's use of a particular technology tells you nothing about how it selects, edits, and markets its books.

To avoid the negative connotations, I try to say "digitally-based publisher" instead of "POD publisher," and to use the term strictly to denote the printing technology used. As I noted above, the printing technology a publisher employs doesn't tell you about its selectivity, editing, designing, etc.--but it does tell you something about the size of its print runs, which in turn tells you something about its sales and marketing. So printing technology is relevant when you're evaluating a publisher--but not in the way that people often assume.

Moving on to other terminology...I would argue that outside of the academic market, there's no such thing any more as a "subsidy publisher," in the classic sense of a publisher that shares the financial risk with the author. "Subsidy" is more likely to be a claim by a deceptive vanity publisher attempting to make authors feel better about handing over cash.

Nor would I retire the term "vanity publisher," which many people feel should be gotten rid of because it's so negative. With most vanity publishers, the negativity is richly deserved. Using softer terminology, or employing euphemisms (such as the loathsome "independent author," which I'm seeing ever more often these days), may make for better PR, or make it possible for writers to tell themselves that it's OK to pay a particular publisher a bundle or to buy 1,000 copies of their books--but it doesn't change the fact that paying to publish is rarely the best choice for career-minded authors, and never the best choice if it's overpriced.

- Victoria

Thanks, much, Victoria, for another even and thorough response. I appreciate your posts.

It seems, as you note, that the author's personal goals (vocational/avocational/full-time/part-time) come into play to a degree when courting the industry ('cuz that's really what we newbies do

)--save slipping into the vanity-publishing arena, of course. The general guidelines you and Uncle Jim (and Cao's link) reference make sense and are helpful. Thanks, and, Julie, I'll probably wait for the movie to come out on DVD.

Thanks again, all.

James D. Macdonald · Apr 17, 2009

Print On Demand doesn't require a particular technology. You could Print On Demand using linoleum blocks if that was what you wanted to do. The monks at Lindisfarne were engaged in Print On Demand: Quill didn't touch parchment until someone requested a copy.

The association of digital printing with POD comes from the fact that digital printing makes POD economically feasible for some projects. (Those POD illuminated Bibles were pricey, and the delivery time was fairly long.)

Digital POD allows a museum shop to have poster-sized reproductions of every painting on display available, not just posters of the top-ten most famous paintings. It's a good thing.

The low entry costs, however, associated with the business model have allowed some people who shouldn't be in business at all to set up as publishers, with predictably disastrous results.

Matera the Mad · Apr 17, 2009

I like the idea of the Book of Kells as an early POD production

Question on tagging terminology

BruceJ

Me and my Muse

JulieB

I grow my own catnip

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

victoriastrauss

Writer Beware Goddess

CaoPaux

Mostly Harmless

BruceJ

Me and my Muse

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

Matera the Mad

Bartender, gimme a Linux Mint