- Joined
- Jul 16, 2006
- Messages
- 14,627
- Reaction score
- 2,057
Taking the points one by one:Cathy C said:Someone has to pay that fee and cost to the printer. A POD publisher has three choices of getting the money: 1) pay it out of pocket and hope to earn it back on sales (meaning the publisher is "financially invested" in production--there's a risk they won't ever see it back); 2) have the AUTHOR pay the fee and cost up front (no risk); or 3) have the READER pay the fee and cost, through a higher sticker price (no risk, because the book isn't printed, nor the cost paid, until the reader pays.)
I would say a publisher is not a vanity publisher whenever it makes its money by selling books to the general public, and it's a vanity publisher whenever it makes its money by charging fees to the author, or selling books to the author and his/her associates. A vanity publisher can use either offset or POD, and so can a commercial publisher.Cathy C said:It's only when a publisher chooses option #1--where they are footing the bill to get the book to the public that they are NOT a subsidy (vanity) publisher. When they are following the standard publishing industry tactic of taking a small percentage of a reasonable list price to pay themselves back for the up-front out of pocket expense, then they're showing what it takes to be a business. What other company can get away with not spending out of pocket money to produce a product?
Publishers using offset presses also face setup fees (higher than POD) and per-copy costs (lower), so I don't see this as fundamental. Even if you own the presses, you still have to account for the costs of financing and running them, and there's no fundamental compulsion that an offset publisher must own its presses, or that an on-demand publisher must outsource.
Here, in my view, are the key features of POD as compared to offset: low setup cost; higher per-copy cost; zero inventory cost; zero (or at least controllable) risk of returns/remainders. This makes POD suitable for titles where the cost and risk of an offset run cannot be justified (I include vanity and "author mill" type titles in this category, among other more interesting types of work).
1) the print setup fees are fairly modest, and the per-copy fees are pre-paid by the on-demand nature of the business. The more significant risk is time put into developing the title. This is why the majority of on-demand publishers don't address that side of the business, i.e. they slap the raw manuscript inside some grotty semi-generic cover and call it a book.
2) classic vanity press of course.
3) it's incorrect to say no risk, because you need enough sales to cover the POD setup costs and if your sticker price is too high, or your book too dreadful, that won't happen. If you said "have the AUTHOR pay..." then I would agree with you, because then we're talking about a classic author mill.
I would say a publisher is not a vanity publisher whenever it makes its money by selling books to the general public, and it's a vanity publisher whenever it makes its money by charging fees to the author, or selling books to the author and his/her associates. A vanity publisher can use either offset or POD, and so can a commercial publisher.
And of course you have to understand that the product of a vanity publisher is the service to the author. And they _do_ devote money and expertise to creating that product. The problem arises with the misapprehension that the product is a book.
Cathy C said:But a publisher using offset has an attendant out of pocket, even if they own the press, because they have to buy paper and ink, or because the printer won't DELIVER the books until the fee is paid. Without a product, there's nothing to sell, so the publisher is automatically financially invested in producing the books. But that's not the case with POD. As I understand it, Lightning Source (one of the major POD printers) is willing to CARRY the set-up fee for regular customers for a month or two, and give quantity discounts. Hence, no out of pocket before the book hits the shelf.
Cathy C said:But the "plus" of risk of returns/remainders is the primary DETRIMENT of POD. The world is what it is. Print on Demand books can't be returned unless the publisher is willing to . . . (and here we come back to the same issue) be financial invested. A company that is NOT willing to bear the risk of loss, who is NOT willing to bend to the will of an entire industry that requires returns has chosen its business model. And that choice is NOT #1.
If a POD publisher relies on readers to cover the costs (your original characterisation of this model) then the risk cannot be zero: the publisher might not sell a single copy to the reading public. That's why I said it's AUTHOR SALES and not reader sales that define this model. You actually seem to agree with this, as your analysis specifically talks about author copies...are we really coming at this from different directions, or have we got our wires crossed?Cathy C said:Nope. Not incorrect at all. The setup costs depends on what the company is being charged. That can be as much as $300 per title, or as low as $30. I know some printers of each variety. If the fee is $30-50 dollars, it only takes the AUTHOR'S COPIES to pay that fee.
You could well be right, I have no idea how specific author mills run their internal procedures.Cathy C said:I'd almost be willing to bet that the file isn't sent to the printer until the first order comes in. No orders, no fee. It can appear on Amazon without it being loaded on a machine.
I didn't say for sale, I said making money.Cathy C said:Well, heck--if that's the definition, then every POD publisher, including PA and AuthorHouse wouldn't be considered vanity. Every book offered by both houses are for SALE to the general public.
Just so long as you don't shift me to ground I never claimed ;-)Cathy C said:It's just that the public will never find out they're for sale, if left up to the company. No, that's not the definition. I'll hold my ground on this one.
Precisely my point. They are service companies who happen to have bought a block of ISBNs. The harm comes when they masquerade as publishers and con unwitting writers out of their money and rights.Cathy C said:The product of a publisher SHOULD be the book. That's the point. If the product that is the primary offering of a company is something other than a book, then they're a "service" company--no better than Kinko's or OfficeDepot, both of which have employees with every bit as much expertise in formatting a document for print.