Psychological advantage in showing POD book to publisher?

POD

You don't have to be an expert to tell whether or not a manuscript will become a good book. If anything, seeing something in POD form is a huge psychological disadvantage.

In fact, the reverse is true, in that it's much easier to see what's wrong with a book while it's still in manuscript form. And certainly a heck of a lot easier to fix it. Seeing the flaws is at least as important as seeing the promise, and being distracted by all the elements of a finished book in any form would be much too distracting.

Now, some agents and publishers do have a pool of beta readers. I won't go near one. Either an agent or an editor can tell or they can't, and if they can't they're in the wrong business.

But, no, seeing something in book form is a disadvantage, not an advantage. And proportionally speaking, a minuscule number of books have gone from POD to mainstream.

JohnJStephens said:

I can relate to this 100% in that double-spaced, wide margin, loose-leaf pages are easy to read and annotate. But doesn't this ignore the psychological factors that apply when assessing a book? Is it REALLY possible to form a complete assessment of a book from the manuscript, without holding it in book form as well?

Click to expand...

Good post, John. I’ve used POD paperbacks for submissions and I’ve never gotten a complaint. Quite the opposite, I’ve gotten complements. If trade paperbacks were difficult to read, then you’d expect they’d be difficult to market to the reading public, but no, they sell very well. And in my experience, beta readers much prefer a paperback to a 500 page ms, even when they’re adding annotations. So, can editors and agents be that different from regular people? Anyway, don’t they already look at printed books from time to time? Don’t they assess books already in print? Of course they do! That said, I would never send anyone a paperback when they’ve expressed rigid requirements as to format. And I would never send one with PA’s logo on it. Or any logo. The books I send have none at all, and often are personalized submissions with a letter to the agent or editor printed on the back.

Julie Worth said:

That said, I would never send anyone a paperback when they’ve expressed rigid requirements as to format.

Click to expand...

I think this is the key. If an editor doesn't mind a paperback, then send one. But in all honesty, I don't know a single editor at a pubishing house of any size who wants to see anything other than a manuscript.

If a writer sent me a POD instead of a manuscript, I wouldn't even respond, and I certainly wouldn't read it. It would hit file thirteen so fast and hard you could hear it for miles.

But if the editor doesn't mind, that's another story. Just make absolutely sure the editor doesn't mind, or all you'll get is a very polite, and sometimes very sweet, rejection. Editors seem to reserve the strongest praise for things they don't actually read.

For what it's worth, I worked in book production for 18 years and have been a freelance copyeditor for several years now. I can look at a manuscript and visualize it in pages without so much as a flicker of effort. Completely reflexive. Having to edit a manuscript on lettuce leaves would be annoying, but it would have no effect on visualization of the final product. I'd even know how many pages the final book would be (once I did a little basic math regarding characters per lettuce leaf). It might make me think a little differently about the /writer/, but the words stand (or fall) alone.

As a beta reader, though... hmmm. I think it would be easier for me to beta read a printed and bound book. However, not having a printed and bound book would not stop me from beta reading for someone.

My two cents only. Your mileage may vary.

Printing your manuscript in TNR, left- and right-margin justified, single-spaced, also makes it look nice. Beta readers may praise you for the look of the thing; it does look more book-like. Editors receiving such a manuscript groan, "Oh, God, another clueless newbie."

My vote would be, stick with the standard manuscript instead of a POD book. It's what the pros do.

Jamesaritchie said:

If a writer sent me a POD instead of a manuscript, I wouldn't even respond, and I certainly wouldn't read it. It would hit file thirteen so fast and hard you could hear it for miles.

Click to expand...

I assume you're not actually an editor? In any case, what if you received a paperback and a manuscript in regular format? Surely you would not hold it against the author in that case, and you might even appreciate the convenience of reading a paperback. And what about the New York editor who rides the subway. Having nothing else handy, she might pocket your book and read that.

Or so goes my fantasy.

Julie Worth said:

I assume you're not actually an editor? In any case, what if you received a paperback and a manuscript in regular format? Surely you would not hold it against the author in that case, and you might even appreciate the convenience of reading a paperback. And what about the New York editor who rides the subway. Having nothing else handy, she might pocket your book and read that.

Or so goes my fantasy.

Click to expand...

I'm a part-time editor now, working whenever someone gets behind and calls, and have been a full-time editor. I've also worked for a few editors, and agents, and probably will again. I don't consider a paperback a convenience, but only one more thing I don't need. It's really double the work, not a convenience. If I'm reading a manuscript while commuting, I can mark it up as I go. If I do this with a book, which is nearly impossible, I then have to transfer everything I do to the manuscript. And in truth, trying to mark up a book really is a pain in the you know what.

Of course, if I don't like what I'm reading, be it manuscript or paperback, it doesn't matter. I'll read two or three or five pages and stop, never to read again. But if I do really like what I'm reading, I need to be able to make notes on the pages, to mark up the lines, etc. A paperback is useless for this.

So if a writer sent both a paperback and a manuscript, the paperback gets tossed. I don't need it, don't want it, can't use it.

And I've yet to meet an editor who had nothing else handy for a commute. Generally, what you have on a commute of any kind is far too much to read, far too much to edit. No editor I know ever goes home empty-handed. They take home enough work to keep them up till midnight.

If I wanted two sources for a manuscript, neither would be a paperback. The things are a pain in the butt. But if I did want two sources, one would be a paper manuscript in proper format, and the other would be a CD with the manuscript on it in exactly the same format. A paperback may be easier to read than a laptop, but a laptop, with a properly formatted manuscript on it, is far easier to work with than a paperback, even when commuting.

I've never done this with novels, but I did once work at a magazine where writers were always asked to send both a paper manuscript and a CD with the manuscript on it in the same format, and it worked out pretty well.

There's simply zero need for a paperback that I can see. It's more work, more bother, not what I need or want, and sure as heck NOT what I ask for. And when an editor doesn't ask, don't send. Editors ask for what they want, and if they don't ask, it means they don't want it.

As a writer and as an editor, one change in formatting I'd really like to see is line numbering. This wasn't possible in typewriter days, but it's a click of a button now. I've found line numbering really speed things up when editor/writer are talking on the phone about a manuscript, and when you're editing a manuscript you have in both paper and electronic format.

Page numbers are good, but you still often have to count down the lines. I haven't talked to any other editors about this, so maybe it's just me, but I'd love to see that change in manuscript format.

JohnJStephens said:

Is it REALLY possible to form a complete assessment of a book from the manuscript, without holding it in book form as well?

Click to expand...

But that's the thing, they don't want to see it in book form. They want to simply focus on the words themselves, and not the layout, fonts, etc. etc. Just the words. That's why we have ms. standards, so everyone's ms. would look the same, so the agents or editors can simply focus on the words. They don't want to read a book (they read plenty of books already, I am sure). They want to read what you have to say in those typed words.

For a beta though, a bound book would be wonderful.

It seems to me that if you can produce a POD, you can certainly produce a word processor manuscript with much less effort. I would submit my work in the format requested.

If you just wanted to see how your work will look as a book, you could print out a bound galley at less cost than printing a single POD copy. On the otherhand, if you plan to manage, market and sell your own product POD seems to be the way to go. You could always test the market waters with a few galleys or POD copies and it you get the desired results and want to go mainstream, you could still submit to a publisher or agent. IMHO

I'm with James on this one. Another major thing to consider is that most won't read a self-published or vanity book. If they get a 'paperback' sent instead of a manuscript, to me, that is just saying it is already self-published and I'd deep six it without a thought. They aren't going to analyze it and try to determine if it is just a 'copy' of a manuscript or if it is self-published. They don't have the time.




Matter of fact, if you have it made into book form, isn't that actually self-publishing even if you don't sell a copy or put a ISBN on it?

Monet said:

Matter of fact, if you have it made into book form, isn't that actually self-publishing even if you don't sell on copy or put a ISBN on it?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It's no different than you going to Kinkos. I don't think it's considered "published" unless you start marketing/distributing it? I will leave this for the lawyers.

Hi, banjo. Welcome.

banjo said:

You could always test the market waters with a few galleys or POD copies and it you get the desired results and want to go mainstream, you could still submit to a publisher or agent.

Click to expand...

The problem with that plan is that once you've tested the market waters that way, you've self-published. Getting commercial publishers to look at a self-published book is a lot harder than getting them to look at a manuscript (plus, there's the headache of trying to market a self-pubbed book in the first place). If your goal is to publish with a commercial publisher, better to go that route from the start, if you can.

What is wrong with going the POD route from the outset? Bypassing the querries, the rejections, the two year wait to get you work published? If you have a good book, good marketing plan, a known and adequate market available, you should be able to do just fine.

It seems to me the biggest advantage of going mainstream is their distribution system. If writers manage to crack that nut, what do we need them for?

banjo said:

If you have a good book, good marketing plan, a known and adequate market available, you should be able to do just fine.

Click to expand...

Without going through the editorial process, how do you know it's a good book with a good market? People are in publishing business for a reason...

Everyone thinks their book is wonderful...

It seems to me the biggest advantage of going mainstream is their distribution system. If writers manage to crack that nut, what do we need them for?

Click to expand...

And how do you think a self-pubbed writer could crack that nut?

banjo said:

What is wrong with going the POD route from the outset? Bypassing the querries, the rejections, the two year wait to get you work published? If you have a good book, good marketing plan, a known and adequate market available, you should be able to do just fine.

Click to expand...

Sure, IF all of those things are real and in place and everything goes as you suspect. But notice the very small number of authors who have managed it. And realize that for POD self-pubbing, "success" is usually defined as "got picked up by a commercial publisher."

Then there's the issue of scale. For a self-pubbed POD to sell as many as 5,000 copies is a great achievement. For a commercially published novel to sell only 5,000 copies is a disaster. If you want to reach the greatest number of readers, you need to go with the commercial publishers. If your target market is narrowly defined and specialized--niche--you may do all right as a self-pubbed POD, but consider your definition of "all right."

It seems to me the biggest advantage of going mainstream is their distribution system. If writers manage to crack that nut, what do we need them for?

Click to expand...

Their expertise in editing, their marketing skills, their publicity departments, their economies of scale, their legal departments, their sales forces....

Of course I agree you need a good editor, perhaps more than one and you choose whether or not you follow their advice. But in either case you tighten up your book until it is very good book. I'm assuming you have taken the time to learn your writecraft well, before you write the book.

You print up a few galleys and distribute them and pay attention to what your readers think. And I'm not talking about your friends and family. You run your work past a few writers workshops and readers clubs, and take note of their reaction.

If it looks good at this point, you could set up some inimate book signings, perhaps in intimate settings such as a private home. You visit your local small bookstores and ask them to carry your book and arrange for a signing there. You contact your local libraries and offer to give readings to get the word out.

If you become your book's best salesman, which you'll have to do even in the mainstream publishing world. You approach the venture as an entrepreneur, you should be able to sell quite a few copies. And better yet, you'll get to keep the lion share of the proceeds, which will in turn defray the cost of printing more copies.

I'm not saying this is the only way to go, but I think it is a very good option. And if nobody thinks your book is good enough to buy, go back to the drawing board and perfect your craft.

However this way you would not have wasted the time sending querries and awaiting responses. Nor would you have wasted that long period from the time the publisher accepts your work, to the time he actually puts in on the street. Also you maintain editorial control of your work, you retain all of the rights, and you wouldn't be sitting on your hands while you hope the publisher puts an adequate marketing budget behind your book, which he may not.

I could be wrong, but this seems a more proactive approach given the technological advances that make self-publishing a more productive possibility today, than it has been in the past.

And if a publisher is a straight shooter, why wouldn't he consider distributing a book whose market you've effectively tested with good results?

There are many paths to success.

Always be prepared for failures.

Aconite


Okay, say you sell only 5,000 copies. At $20.00 a pop that is $100,000. Say you production costs amount to 50%. You walk away with $50,000.

On the other hand, say you go the mainstream route, where you might get 5% of the cover if that. You'd have to sell $1,000,000 wort of books to equal that $50,000.

I'm sure we can sell 5,000 copies in a year, minimun, if our book has any redeeming virtue at all. And since the average mainstream book doesn't hit the market for two years, we've got two advance years of sales to boot.

As a unknown novelists about to publish his first book, this seems like the way to get out ther with a bang if my book is good. Talk about creating a "BUZZ". If it sells well for me, I'm sure some mainstream press will find me. And if a sudio becomes interested, I still have all the rights to sell them!

As to your second point: I don't think most publishers have a much better record than you and I, if we write a good book. My understanding is, less than 5% of the books they publish, support their business. I think it is significantly less than 5%.

Yet from what I read in Writers Market, they usually only give pennies as an advance to new writers. And since they are as professional as you indicate, they should certainly know a winner once they read it. Do you think as a new writer they'll pay you and advance that is worthy of and outstanding first novel? Frankly I doubt it.

Maestrowork

Your advice is sound and I shall heed it. Having said that, I'm going to give it a try and test the waters.

I have a lot of books in me, and if the first one doesn't do what I want , I'll wait for the second or the third one. But if we write because we love it, what else are we going to do?

banjo said:

If you become your book's best salesman, which you'll have to do even in the mainstream publishing world.

Click to expand...

arrrghhh!!!!!!!!!! Not this one again! This myth won't die!

Commercially published authors are not expected to peddle their own books. You are expected to assist with publicity--show up at booksignings, participate in readings if you enjoy doing so--but it is NOT your responsibility to market the book. You , as an author, cannot possibly do as much as the markeing and publicity departments of your publisher can do for your book. Marketing makes the difference between whether your book makes money or loses money, and there is no way a publisher is going to leave it in the hands of an amateur. Publishers have full-time professional marketing and publicity departments for a reason.

You approach the venture as an entrepreneur, you should be able to sell quite a few copies. And better yet, you'll get to keep the lion share of the proceeds, which will in turn defray the cost of printing more copies.

Click to expand...

If it worked this way in real life, lots of authors would be doing it. They're not.

However this way you would not have wasted the time sending querries and awaiting responses.

Click to expand...

No, you've spent it peddling your book, instead. While you're waiting for responses, you should be writing your next book. While you're busy selling your first book, you're not writing.

Nor would you have wasted that long period from the time the publisher accepts your work, to the time he actually puts in on the street.

Click to expand...

That "wasted" time is going into such trivial things as editing, copyediting, and proofreading your book, having original cover art designed, sending out advance review copies, putting your book on advance order forms, and sending the sales kit around with reps. All of those things will greatly affect your sales.

Also you maintain editorial control of your work, you retain all of the rights,

Click to expand...

Vanity publishers are very fond of convincing people that commercial publishers snatch your book out of your hands and take all the rights. Editors work with you to improve your book, and unless you're written work for hire, publishers don't take all rights. (I should say, commercial publishers don't. I know at least one vanity publisher that does.)

and you wouldn't be sitting on your hands while you hope the publisher puts an adequate marketing budget behind your book, which he may not.

Click to expand...

Given that the publisher stands to lose money if your book flops, what's their motivation to inadequately fund the marketing? And how are you going to market your own book? Out of your own pocket? Publishers' marketing people know how to get the most bang for every buck, and they have avenues open to them that you don't.

New authors think "marketing" and "publicity" are ads in magazines and author tours and cardboard dumps at the front of the store--the things publishers don't do for every author. That's only part of the picture, and it's just the icing. Publishers market every book. Catalogues, advance covers, advance review copies, your book cover, your cover copy, jacket blurbs--this is all marketing, and it's provided for every book in a publisher's line.

I could be wrong, but this seems a more proactive approach given the technological advances that make self-publishing a more productive possibility today, than it has been in the past.

Click to expand...

It make the parts that rely on technology more feasible, but nothing else.

And if a publisher is a straight shooter, why wouldn't he consider distributing a book whose market you've effectively tested with good results?

Click to expand...

First, because publishers aren't distributors.

Second, because whatever number you've sold is a number that will have to be subtracted from projected sales when the publisher calculates them. If you manage to sell 5,000 copies (which would be really amazing--most PODs sell under 100 copies) and projected total sales for your book are 10,000, the publisher can only sell 5,000 more--which, in commercial publishing, is a disasterously low number. They'd lose money on the book.

Third, a publisher will consider picking up a successful self-published book, if sales projections are favorable. But it's a hell of a lot more work to go that route than to just submit your manuscript to them in the first place.

Banjo, your figures are flawed.

banjo said:

Okay, say you sell only 5,000 copies. At $20.00 a pop that is $100,000. Say you production costs amount to 50%. You walk away with $50,000.

Click to expand...

First of all, no one is going to pay $20 for a paperback. Try $16. Then you have to give discounts to bookstores (if you ever get them in the stores) or online outlets (at least 20%), unless you sell them directly from the trunk of your car (which could happen). What about marketing cost. Remember, if you self-pub, you will have to do EVERYTHING on your own, out of your own pocket.

And if you fail, do you have $50,000 to throw away?

On the other hand, say you go the mainstream route, where you might get 5% of the cover if that. You'd have to sell $1,000,000 wort of books to equal that $50,000.

Click to expand...

The standard royalty is 10-15% for paperback, a little less for mass market.

I'm sure we can sell 5,000 copies in a year, minimum, if our book has any redeeming virtue at all.

Click to expand...

That's a little optimistic, even considering the best marketing plan ONE person could work out. But for argument's sake, I'll make that assumption, that you could sell 5000 copies a year...

And since the average mainstream book doesn't hit the market for two years, we've got two advance years of sales to boot.

Click to expand...

True. But you forget that you need upfront cost. If you go tradition, you spend $0.00. If you self-pub, you will have to pay for editing, design, printing, shipping, marketing, etc. So, using your example, you will need at least $50,000 up front for the first year (considering you print and sell 5000 copies), then use your profit for the next year... so it's pretty much a wash, too, until the end of the 2nd year...

If it sells well for me, I'm sure some mainstream press will find me. And if a sudio becomes interested, I still have all the rights to sell them!

Click to expand...

And Oprah will come knocking! It's good to dream big, but it's also good to plant your feet firmly on the ground. Yes, if the book sells 5000 or 10,000 copies in a year or two, a publisher might come knocking and you will become one of those "self-pub success stories." But the statistics is against you. The odds of a self-pub book (non niched fiction) breaking out is really abysmal.

less than 5% of the books they publish, support their business. I think it is significantly less than 5%.

Click to expand...

That is certainly not true. If that's the case, the publisher is doing something very wrong and they should quit their business.

Yet from what I read in Writers Market, they usually only give pennies as an advance to new writers.

Click to expand...

That's not true either. I'm a new writer with a small press and I got more than that for my advance.

banjo said:

It seems to me the biggest advantage of going mainstream is their distribution system. If writers manage to crack that nut, what do we need them for?

Click to expand...

Even publishers find this a hard nut to crack sometimes. For writers, it's waaaayyyy more difficult, even if they do true self-publishing. As for POD books...they aren't really distributed at all (at least in the industry sense of the term, which means "physically placed in bookstores"). They're simply made available to order.

The average POD-published book sells just over 100 copies.

- Victoria

banjo said:

Okay, say you sell only 5,000 copies.

Click to expand...

You seem to have misunderstood my point. It's very, very, very, very unlikely that your self-published book, whatever it is, will sell AS MANY AS 5,000 copies. It's very, very, very, very unlikely that a commercially published book would sell that few.

At $20.00 a pop that is $100,000. Say you production costs amount to 50%. You walk away with $50,000.

Click to expand...

If you can convince 5,000 people to spend $20 on an author they've never heard of, who has no distribution. And you're forgetting to factor in expenses other than production: marketing and publicity, the cost of your time and effort in selling and promoting the book, and so on.

On the other hand, say you go the mainstream route, where you might get 5% of the cover if that

Click to expand...

I don't know what commercial publishers you've been looking at that offer only 5%, but that's a very low number.

I'm sure we can sell 5,000 copies in a year, minimun, if our book has any redeeming virtue at all.

Click to expand...

*sigh* Everybody thinks they're different, and even though this model hasn't worked for the majority of people who've tried it, it will work for them. Tell me, how many self-published books do you have onyour bookshelves, compared to commercially published ones? Why do you assume your self-published book will be different, and people will buy it?

And if a sudio becomes interested, I still have all the rights to sell them!

Click to expand...

See my above post re: rights.

As to your second point: I don't think most publishers have a much better record than you and I, if we write a good book. My understanding is, less than 5% of the books they publish, support their business. I think it is significantly less than 5%.

Click to expand...

Publishers know that not every book is going to turn a profit. For example, publishers often take on new genre writers expecting them to start making money for the publisher by their third book. They consider it an investment. And sometimes books flop. With a commercial press, you get your contracted advance regardless of how the book does, plus royalties if the book earns out your advance. If you're self-publishing, if you lose money, it comes out of your pocket.

Yet from what I read in Writers Market, they usually only give pennies as an advance to new writers.

Click to expand...

You might be surprised at how many pennies. See http://www.justinelarbalestier.com/Musings/Musings2004/firstnoveladvances.htm and http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/archives/001423.html, as well as some of the trade publications that list sales.

Do you think as a new writer they'll pay you and advance that is worthy of and outstanding first novel? Frankly I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't they? If it's outstanding, they know they'll have to offer me a good advance or I can take it elsewhere. The real question is, of course, is it as good as I think it is?