Is There Still the Stigma Around Self-Publishing?

I'm also curious. I tried it at the end of the "golden age" (2012-ish), and I feel like the gloss has worn off?

I don't think it is a "stigma" to have an awareness of whether achieving publication itself was hard or easy, as well as whether the ultimate product impresses you or not, whether it sells well or poorly, whether it wins awards, or whatever else might be considered nifty versus maybe not such a big deal.

Simply getting some consecutive words available for sale to a readership is not especially difficult. So that in itself is not a laurel. Just knowing some one has self-published really doesn't tell you anything about whether their achievement was mind-blowingly impressive or actually somewhat embarrassing.

I've been self-publishing for two years. After I released my fifth novel in my first series, a small press contacted me with an offer. I turned them down, for a number of reasons, the primary one being that I'm doing just fine at the minute with that series and I don't think a small press could improve it significantly.

So no, I don't think the stigma's still there.

And judging by how many self-publishers I've seen out there who are pulling in six figures a year, yes, you can hit the big time if you go with self-publishing. Mind you, it took most of them several years and a couple dozen books to get to that point, along with learning how to market their wares and do business without losing their necks.

There's no guarantee on either side of the fence, but by the same token, you've got a good shot with either avenue. The rest is skill, persistence, a lot of luck, and a little pluck.

ASeiple said:

The rest is skill, persistence, a lot of luck, and a little pluck.

Click to expand...

The bolded says it all about getting something published in general.

caw

I hope to get an agent and a publisher. I believe in my novel. But my feeling in the matter is if I fail, self-publishing will allow me to bypass the gate keeper.

I had a deal with a small publishing company. In my contract, I gave up creative control over the final product and a big chunk of the royalties. Plus almost all of the marketing was on me. The company folded and now I'm looking forward to self publishing.

So, this is based on observation more than personal experience, but depending on the small publisher, I personally think that self-publishing is a better, smarter route for authors to take. While smaller publishers may be able to dedicate more time to you than larger, their resources are much more limited. It's not just that they have less money, but the connection to readers is often just not there. If you self-publish, you can do things yourself and, depending how far you go and serious you are, you can hire individuals that you choose to work with, instead of whoever the small publisher already employs. I think that whether your goal is to get your work into as many hands as possible, make a bunch of money, or just plain write, you're better served by either a deal with a larger, more connected publisher or self-publishing. In between seems to be less effective.

From my somewhat direct experience and collecting a lot of reports from romance writers, most small presses have skills deficits and last less than 5 years before going broke. Small presses that are exceptions to those rules generally operate the same way as large presses, just smaller. Those that are the genuine best of both worlds... if you can pick them out I guess they would be a great choice.

I had a go at that 6-7 times, the closest was probably Samhain which understood my niche, got my books into chain stores (well, a few of them anyway), and was a good earner for the 12 years that it operated.

I do think the stigma has diminished quite a bit. Even non-writers know about self-published successes such as The Martian, or books that began as self-posted online stories such as Throne of Glass (or--gulp--Fifty Shades). I don't think the typical non-writer kind of reader recognize a self-publishing stigma at all, to be honest.

But I don't have enough confidence in my own work to self-publish

Recognition amongst writers has evolved so there is not automatic stigma but also not automatic kudos--overall more-or-less neutral as a fact. But my non-writer friends have largely evolved s from not even knowing how to spot self-pubbed titles, to some thinking the ones they can easily spot due to terrible quality represent what self-publishing it. So I would tend to see stigma as growing rather than decreasing in the general public.

There might be a significant generation gap among non-writers--not just in views of self-publishing, but in awareness that it even exists. My parents (who read a lot, but are not fiction writers) had no idea that self-publishing was even a "thing" until this year, when I started talking to them about it. My dad browses Amazon and buys books all the time, but I'm not sure it would occur to him to look closely at covers or check a publishing imprint.

veinglory said:

Recognition amongst writers has evolved so there is not automatic stigma but also not automatic kudos--overall more-or-less neutral as a fact. But my non-writer friends have largely evolved s from not even knowing how to spot self-pubbed titles, to some thinking the ones they can easily spot due to terrible quality represent what self-publishing it. So I would tend to see stigma as growing rather than decreasing in the general public.

Click to expand...

Agree with this ^^.
There are plenty of self-published authors who put out good books with professional covers and presentation that are on par with the big publishers, so on a quick glance readers don't necessarily realize those books are self-pub. The glaring obvious stuff, however, is what makes an impact; readers scroll through the lists and get lost in a sea of poorly done self-published books, and they remember those books as representative of self-publishing. I think the general awareness of self-publishing is increasing among readers, and yes, I do think there is some stigma attached (although many readers still couldn't care less). In the publishing industry in general, I think the stigma has sort of evolved. While it is still there, it's not an automatic kiss of death anymore. How any one author is individually perceived (self-published or trad published) is a direct result of the product the author produces and the total package associated with the author - public image, professional presentation, quality product.

The stigma probably diminishes based on perception of economic success. It's not always that simple, of course, and even economic success of individual ebook authors isn't always enough to trump a traditional cultural value (like being published in physical form).

I'd say a self-published book by a relatively unknown writer starts out at the same level of prestige (for lack of a better word) as an unpublished book, because there's been no second opinion at all that it's of publishable quality.

The only reason why self-publishing might have a bit of a bad repute is that anyone can self-publish pretty much anything. Self-published book doesn't have to have writing quality at all. I personally have nothing against self-publishing, but I have to admit I look at self-publishing the same way I look at vanity press: If you got money, you can publish anything.

Self-publishing is a good way to get yourself out there and earn a bit of money, If you are good at it, but if you are someone who wishes to achieve something remotely close to the fame of Marquez, Coelho, Dostoyevsky etc. you should focus on small press in the beginning and, with experience, move on to big publishing houses.

Everything I wrote is just my personal opinion and I do not have experience in publishing with small press nor self-publishing, so don't be harsh on me. I just started writing in English language and publishing poetry in literary journals and magazines. After I build up my biography and get my poetry out there I'll try to publish a collection of poetry with some small press and then work my way through to the bigger publishing houses, eventually writing novels and poetry collections. (P.S. Wish me luck )

Harris, I do have experience researching small presses vs. self-publishing for poetry, and I'm not sure your advice fits the current market. Marquez, Coelho, and Dostoyevsky built careers in a very different environment.

The problem with self-publishing is the problem that became endemic to fanfic: there is just so much out there, it's a chore trying to find something good to read. Reader buzz in the form of good reviews and book bloggers have become the new gatekeepers, rather than editors and publishers who were picking what gets past the gate. (In fanfic, there are other criteria -- the quality of the work is one, but also the writer's ability to make friends in the community and support it.)

I consider the stigma to be almost non-existent these days, honestly.

Anna Iguana said:

Harris, I do have experience researching small presses vs. self-publishing for poetry, and I'm not sure your advice fits the current market. Marquez, Coelho, and Dostoyevsky built careers in a very different environment.

Click to expand...

Quite possible, I said I'm not experienced. But I still stand behind my statements. I understand what you mean, I just picked those 3 out randomly. In their time, it is true, market was greatly different, but still, quality is quality. Self-publishing doesn't require any quality, while, I believe, publishing with a somewhat respectable publisher, guarantees some literary quality. Of course, it differs from publisher to publisher regarding the type of fiction/poetry they publish and their own literary merits.

I know a lot of poets self-publish their poetry collections, but it feels like cheating to me. You can't one day look at your own book on your bookshelf and feel proud. At least, that's how I feel about it. For me writing is never about money, but about leaving mark on this world, being recognized as a quality writer, but then again, we could easily discuss what is quality work these days.

But, like I said, just a personal opinion, I'm far from being an expert on the current situation on the market. I have a very specific taste in literature (for example: 19th century Russian literature and 20th century French literature, etc.).

Anna Iguana said:

Harris, I'm a fan of trade publishing, for many reasons mentioned by other people, above. I haven't self-published, and I'm querying a manuscript right now. However, I'm not a huge fan of you labeling hard-working authors as "cheating" and declaring they "can't... feel proud" while admitting you "do not have experience in publishing with small press nor self-publishing." There are many good reasons to self-publish.

I'm most confused because you prominently feature poetry on your own website that you appear to have self-published on Poetry Nook.

Click to expand...

PoetryNook is a contest type page, those few poems were entries for a weekly poetry contest (They are also submitted to multiple liteerary journals and I will remove them from PoetryNook soon enough). But I said multiple times that this is just my personal opinion, I didn't say that those authors were cheating nor did I ever try to diminish their work at all. I just pointed out how I feel about my work and that self-publishing might not be satisfactory enough for MY writing passion. Perhaps I came out wrong or expressed myself wrong, I really didn't want it to look like I was talking about people who self-publish, it was a personal statement about my own work and how I would feel about it.

Hey there Harris, it's all good. The funny thing is, for the genre you've got experience in, I think you're right. Poetry is an area where you pretty much need a traditional publisher to make much progress.

Self-publishing can be rewarding and productive, but some genres are better suited to it than others. This may change in the future, mind.

Is there a distinction in this conversation between "Indie" publishing and using a so-called "vanity press"?

God, yes. By 'indie' I take it you mean author-published? That kind of self pub requires (or at least offers the best chance at good results with) a finished and polished manuscript, good formatting, a strong cover, and some basic marketing.

Vanity publishing claims to do everything, usually with a ruinous $$$ author-paid package up front or fees on the back end. Because vanities make most of their money from authors, not readers, they have little incentive to do a good job with their books...or even try to sell them. Fortunately for most authors, true self publishing is getting so easy that the vanities are dying out. But they still prey on the elderly, the poor, the ultra religious, and hopeful Third World authors.

If you can handsell your own books through physical or online venues, a printer or book service might be good. They're upfront about formatting, printing, and binding. You pay them per copy, and it's up to you to sell the books.

I've published hundreds of bestsellers for non fiction and fiction authors, all from my home office, I offer a quality service and always deliver what I promise.
I think there is still a stigma attached to self publishing, but only by 'book snobs', if you market your books correctly they can still be great.
My latest book I released for my client last weekend, has become #1 in Kindle and paperback here in the UK, It's a soccer autobiography.
My client is super happy, as are all the others.
I'm passionate about what I do and love helping unpublished writers become bestselling authors.
Hope this helps.