* Big Pub are financially in trouble. So they spend their time and bucks on
known authors--who guarantee the $$
Part of that is simply misleading, in that it suggests they don't spend any money on debut authors or mid-list authors, which is simply untrue. The bestsellers of today were once unknowns, and their careers were built one book at a time, with increasing marketing. Also, rather than assuming you'll be lost in the shuffle, and striving to be among the lowest of the low, the answer, it seems to me, is to strive to become one of the well-known, best-selling authors. Short of that, the major pubs still have more money and more resources to throw at even a mid-list or debut book than most individuals do.
* Self-Pub has become a lot more normal and acceptable.
People know self-pubbing exists, but that doesn't mean they buy the books. How many have you bought? If it's more than a handful, how about your extended family? Your friends? How many self-pubbed books have they bought, compared to the ones they can find in bookstores?
* Big Pub test books [i.e. put them in book stores] for 4 months--then take
withdraw them. With Self-Pub you can hawk your book for longer.
Two things: first, it depends on the book. Once you've got a reasonable backlist (4-6 books), you can remain in print indefinitely, and even before that, they often re-release the previous books as each subsequent book is released, and you get a bump in sales of backlist at the time of the release of the new book. Second, just because it's out there doesn't mean anyone's buying it. Most of these arguments are based on a fallacy akin to "if you build it, they will come." Just b/c the book is available, just b/c it's listed on-line (where a very, very small percentage of books are bought), doesn't mean anyone will buy it. And this is particularly true of fiction. As has been noted in other threads, most of the successes in self-pub are specialized NON-fiction.
*Big House royalties--8-15% of NET receipts. New writers count on 8%--the
'receipts' include everything Big-pub pays for...they're not giving anything
Actually, the royalties are usually on the cover price, not on net, even though the publisher discounts the books by about half to its distributors and major booksellers. Plus, you're getting professional editorial input (both big-picture editing and copy-editing) and marketing plans/advice and cover art and contacts to distributors and placement on bookstore shelves and advertising and placement in catalogues and so on.
*If you have an Agent that's 15% gone
A good agent is worth that, and more, in protecting you, in helping you develop a career plan and negotiating for benefits you might well not even know exist.
* Big Pub work on an 18 month schedule--and that's AFTER the contract--
so it can be 3 years til your book is pub and in bookstores!
True. But wouldn't you rather wait three years and sell a gazillion copies than have it hit the internet today and sell 75 copies total?
* Big Pub---give you little control.
60%--do NOT give writer final approval of cover, copy-editing. I worked
too hard on my words, and editing to have them take chunks out.
Editing is not a matter of taking chunks out, unless they ... well, I won't give in to the obvious straight line ... deserve to be taken out. Most really outstanding authors will tell you that editorial feedback -- suggestions and questions, not line-editing -- has made them better storytellers. Copy-editing is also not taking chunks out. I'm not always happy to be copy-edited, and I disagree with some (okay, many; I'm a little territorial about my words myself) suggestions, but there are lots of little things that a copy editor will notice that the author, in love with his/her creation, will skim over and not catch. There are always continuity errors and simple failure to communicate to someone who isn't inside the author's head, and those are the sorts of things that the author can miss.
*Big Pub--23% don't let you title your book. You can pay a 'think tank'
within pub to help you with this if you need.
Huh? What think tank? Some editors will suggest a change of title, but they'll often give the author a chance to come up with a list of possibilities before they take over, or the editor might brainstorm along with the writer. The thing is, this can actually be good for the writer. Sometimes the new title is better than the original one. (Okay, and sometimes not. I knew someone who had a GREAT title, and the editor went to contract on the condition that it be changed, and the new one was mediocre, and eventually the editor came around, and it was released with the original title.) This is something that editors and marketing professionals know more about it than writers who are, generally speaking, more skilled at storytelling than at marketing. If your title has a word in it that they know turns off readers, don't you want to know that? Wouldn't you rather have a title that readers will be intrigued by? And, of course, there's the problem of having two books with the same/similar title within a short time frame; that's often the reason why editors ask for a title change, to avoid confusion, and, really, you don't want readers thinking, "hmm, that sounds familiar, I must have read that book already." The thing is, you and the publisher have the same goal in mind -- sell as many copies as possible and make as much money as possible. Why not take -- or at least consider -- their advice, when they have the same goal of maximizing sales as you do?
*Big Pub--only 20% consult writer on back cover.
I've never heard that figure, but again, so what? Back cover copy is a completely different skill -- more marketing and argument and persuasion than storytelling -- than what the author does. Just as you wouldn't want an amateur making the paper and printing the words on it and sewing the cover on, you don't really want an amateur doing the marketing for your book (and that's what the back cover blurb is: marketing). I know a few authors who do write the back cover copy, but they are in the minority, and most of the ones I've talked to, who don't do that copy, are more than eager to hand over that responsibility. And, generally speaking, if you have a good relationship with your editor, the editor will let you look at the back cover copy, as a matter of courtesy, regardless of whether you have actual veto power, and would certainly consider any input you might have (e.g., a reference to green eyes instead of blue or any such factual inaccuracy), although, again, it's important to remember that what matters to the writer and the story is not necessarily what needs to be on the back cover to pique a reader's interest, and this sort of thing is what the publisher has experts to do for you.
*Big Pub--36% RARELY involve writer on promotions!!! That's strange!
Not really. There's not much an individual, unknown writer can do. There's not much call for fiction writers to talk on the radio or tv. Book-signings seldom generate much interest unless the author is already a well-known name or a local-interest story (and if it's the latter, then you're only talking about two-digit sales, at best, not the serious numbers). Writers generally have websites for promotion, and the publishers encourage that and might even work with the writer to maintain a consistent brand, etc. What else would you expect a writer to do him/herself? The real promoting and marketing is going on behind the scenes, to the distributors who can sell THOUSANDS -- tens of thousands -- of copies, and, really, they've met authors before, so the author attending the negotiations isn't going to do much.
*Self-Pub has tax benefits galore
Whether self-pubbed or major-pubbed, the author is self-employed, and the tax consequences are identical. The expenses, perhaps, are less if one is major-pubbed, b/c the publisher is paying for the cover design and editing and printing and marketing, but it's always better (from a strictly tax point of view) to have someone else pay your expenses outright, rather than pay them yourself and merely deduct them from your taxes, knocking about a third off the expense instead of being free of the expense entirely.
*self-Pub you keep control
Control is just the flip side of saying you have to do all the work. You have to have skills -- generally involving marketing and sales and graphic design -- that most authors don't have. It also means that instead of writing your next book, you're doing marketing and sales. Do you want to be a writer or a salesperson? Which would be a more effective use of your time?
*You can promote longer than 4 months
As noted above: Just because it's available longer, doesn't mean you'll sell more copies than if it's promoted better over a short period of time. Also, there's the problem with spending your time promoting instead of writing. And, if you do well, your books will be available a lot longer than 4 months.
*You can 35% profit from wholesalers and bookstores [not 8% of receipts]
Still, 35% of 100 copies is a lot less than 8% [of cover price, not net] of 50,000 copies.
*The Big-pub have you do all the promoting, so why not get more of the $.
Because, first, you don't have to do any promoting, although you can if it's something you enjoy, and second, they do the MARKETING, which is actually where the sales get made.
*Self-Pub, if you sell directly---you keep all the profits.
As noted, 100% of 100 copies is a lot less than 8% of 50,000 copies. And, you'll have your time free to write the next book, which will sell even more copies.
JD