Because as the OP has indicated, she is interested in seeking commercial publication, and that she is struggling to sell more than 10+ copies.
That is why I recommended trade publishing, or is that a dirty phrase?
Can I try and traditionally publish after making a kindle/e-pubbing?
- Thread starter LadyA
- Start date
- Status
Because as the OP has indicated, she is interested in seeking commercial publication, and that she is struggling to sell more than 10+ copies.
That is why I recommended trade publishing, or is that a dirty phrase?
Kevin, I'm sorry that you're not happy with Mscelina's post; but I can vouch for her, and I can vouch for the information she's provided. She's spot-on. If she wasn't, I'd shout her down: you know I would.
I see no double standard, but when you think there is one then please use the report-post button so that I can deal with it. As for people posting here because they are anti-self-publishing: that's ridiculous. The bickering usually starts when someone with a trade publishing background comes in and refutes some of the claims made by self-publishers about trade publishing and that's not being anti-self-publishing, it's being anti misinformation.
And yes, you're right that people aren't asked to cite their sources when they're expressing their personal opinions; but when someone refers to a poll, or a blog post, or a survey, or a study, then yes, they will be asked to cite their sources.
[snippety-snip]
With writers more and more expected to do promotion for their trade published books, this is no longer the advantage for trade publishing that it once was. Much of what they do isn't visible to readers; but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Kevin, Mscelina isn't slamming anyone; she's just explaining how things work in publishing, and attempting to refute a few myths. It's called trying to help people. Just because what she says contradicts your opinions doesn't mean she's wrong. And while I can't see any propoganda or misinformation in her posts, your posts here are thick with them both. Please take more care.
People in trade publishing tend to have a lot of experience in making publishing work well, though, and so when they see self-publishers make basic mistakes they're very well-placed to understand why those mistakes were made, and the implications of them.
I'd really like you to cite a few examples of these blogs and periodicals, and explain why they're wrong. You could start a new thread here to do it. I think we'd all find that very interesting.
People have been saying that for as long as I've worked in publishing, which is getting on for three decades now. It hasn't happened yet.
With respect, Robin runs Ridan, which is her own trade publishing house; she hasn't self-published at all as far as I know. And Dave Gaughran has self-published just two short stories, both of them just last month.
They regularly get disagreed with but I don't think they get attacked. If they did, I hope you'd use the "report post" button.
Now. Let's stop getting so wound up about things and start being a little more analytical. We're writers: we should think carefully about the implications of all that we write, and make sure that our claims can stand up to close examination. Otherwise we're just wasting time here, and none of us want to do that.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 17,874
- Reaction score
- 4,667
- Location
- dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
What's to stop you from commercially publishing a book that's been previously e-pubbed?
This:
This:
And I'll bet my next royalty check that this is pretty much standard language in many publishing contracts, be they from Teeny Micro House to ConglomoPub Inc.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,011
- Reaction score
- 697
- Location
- Sacramento area, CA
- Website
- www.umbachconsulting.com
But there is no reason why a commercial/trade publisher cannot contract to (re)publish a previously published book. Stephanie Chandler published a book via Lulu, but Quill Driver Press signed it to a revised, retitled edition. AW's own K.L. Brady self-published a novel that was picked up by Random House under a two-book contract. Soho Press published a new (and unfortunately retitled) edition of one of my favorite books, originally published by a very small regional press, which signed it over to Soho for the new edition. If a publisher sees the book as suitable and profitable, previous publication (e- or print) is irrelevant.
Obviously the author must not lie or deceive, of course. But if a publisher likes the book, finds it suitable, and can obtain necessary rights, nothing stops it from signing it to a new edition.
--Ken
The point is, it isn't standard to print something that's already been printed (e or otherwise) in a usual contract with an unsigned author. Which means an agent will think harder about it and it has more chance of being knocked back. And agents knock back99% of what they get anyway, perfectly good (and bad) books without that baggage, all the time. If you self-pub first and don't have uber sales...it's just another hurdle in a way strewn with hurdles.
This (I) doesn't mean don't do it. It means think about it first, and research. Same as every writer should do when considering getting an agent. Just with extra caveats. Personally, if my goal was get an agent, I'd do the best I can in that avenue before I explored another. Same if I decided to self pub - I;d give it everything before I quit.
But that's juts me. If anyone wants to swim around without research and proper thought into the matter, that is for them to decide. All I'm saying just that whichever route you decide to go for, do your research. Make sure it's actual fact from agents (or whatevers) mouth.If they say they won;t take previously pubbed work (and several--not all--do) then you've limited your options out of the gate. IF you only ever wanted to self-pub and/or just get it out there and you know the pitfalls/problems etc then go for it.
Let your research influence your final decision. Go into whatever you decide with your eyes open.
This (I) doesn't mean don't do it. It means think about it first, and research. Same as every writer should do when considering getting an agent. Just with extra caveats. Personally, if my goal was get an agent, I'd do the best I can in that avenue before I explored another. Same if I decided to self pub - I;d give it everything before I quit.
But that's juts me. If anyone wants to swim around without research and proper thought into the matter, that is for them to decide. All I'm saying just that whichever route you decide to go for, do your research. Make sure it's actual fact from agents (or whatevers) mouth.If they say they won;t take previously pubbed work (and several--not all--do) then you've limited your options out of the gate. IF you only ever wanted to self-pub and/or just get it out there and you know the pitfalls/problems etc then go for it.
Let your research influence your final decision. Go into whatever you decide with your eyes open.
rsullivan9597
Banned
I see your point but there seems to be a perpencity here to refute people who have proven track records in self-publshing. After all they can never be anything more than outliers. When I want to learn how to play tennis well, I go to someone who is a good tennis player. Why the perpencity not to listen to those that are doing well?
Thanks for proving my point above...you trust those with years of experience in the "old model" but disregard real-world experience of those sucessful in the "new model".
Yes, they are changing "that fast". Which is at the crux of this arguement. We now have agents becomming publishers, retailers becoming publishers, ebooks outselling paperback and hardcover combined on Amazon, self-published authors making hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is all changing at lightning speed and those that continue to cling to the "old wisdom" are the ones in real danger of being caught with their pants down.
As for commercial publishing not knowing what to do. They are now starting to sort things out. An overriding sentiment I heard over and over again at BEA was that last year they were indeed clueless and flondering. That was coming from their mouths - not mine. But they are feeling more comfortible now and starting to make changes. Just another example that things will be changing very quickly as they are now starting to adjust to the new environment.
I think what you are seeing is people explaining models and paradigms that they have become accustomed to. They were relevant until VERY VERY recently. But now it's time to start listening to people riding the edge of the adoption curve not the laggards.
But the analogy doesn't fit. Of course you don't listen to someone who has a piece of paper but no knowledge on the subject. But when I speak, its not "theory" it is "real, hands-on experience. If I couldn't sell my way out of a paperbag then of course you shouldn't listen to me. The differnece is when I run across someone who is making big sales I immediately want to pick their brains. When a resource comes here and "offers" knowledge it is as welcome as the mess a neighbor's dog leaves on your front lawn.
rsullivan9597
Banned
You are not the only one who sees the double standard being administered. There are a lot of lurkers that send me emails and PM's to this effect and thank me for offering a "desenting opinion".
Lack of marketing $'s has existed for a long time. This really isn't new (although from my anecdotal evidence it is getting worse). But that's not the big elephant in the room. The big elephant is the fact that most trade publishers who use a bookstore model focus their sales on buysers at the big chains. But with print sales (both hard cover and paperback) sliding with each release of AAP numbers, and bookstores going bankrupt, the new world order is going to require a shift in marketing from the chain buyers to the end-users. These publishers are not equipped to make such a transition - This is one of the reason's why Amazon bringing on Larry Kirshenbaum and forming two new imprints (Thomas and Mercer and MontLake) is so significant. Amazon has what no other publisher has - millions of email addresses of INDIVDUALS and a complete history of their buying habits. Going to be really really tough to compete against that in a direct to consumer sales environment.
You are 100% correct I capture and analyze the Top 100 list every week, and self publishers have routinely mainted 35% or more of titles (once games and periodicals are removed) this is not ancedotial it is cold hard data. Now...at the present time the Sunshine Deals is completly messing with the list as there is a flood of more than 600 titles from larger presses that are in the $0.99 - $2.99 price point. But in non Sunshine Deal Times Self publishers have completely outperformed small press publishers and do VERY well against the larger pubishers including titles offered by the big-six.
There is no question the are dominating Science Fiction. The also perform very well in Horror, Fantasy and Thrillers.
Of course a book with high sales gets more immediate attention, but you are correct. I've taken on many books with low sales knowing that better marketing could save them. Marshall Thomas was selling 5 - 10 books a month but after a revamp and some marketing he sold 17,000 in May.
rsullivan9597
Banned
There are no guarantees. But I must say that I'm grateful for all the self published authors who are sharing their sales data. Without it I thought what I was seeing was a "fluke" but by seeing there are others who experienced similar trends (like the incredible first wave spike in Oct/Nov 2010) it lets me know that that there is a bigger trend occurring.
I think a lot of that is projection. People accuse me of being anti traditional publishing all the time. Even though I'm activly signing with a big-six, and repeat over and over that each of the three paths has positive and negative attributes to them.
I will say this though...there has been a very one-side balance of power in publishing for years. Authors signed contracts heavily weighted to the wishes of the publishers since they were the only game in town. Now that self publishers and small pressses that are selling well electronically are making some serious money it helps to give the author more power and that is worth celebrating over no matter which path you take.
rsullivan9597
Banned
And yet you were the one to tell me to classify Michael's works as self-published because went through no third-party vetting process and had no one investing money in the production of their works.
I am both a self-publisher (the 5 books of the Riyria Revelations) and a small press publisher (the 15 boks by other Riyria authors.
rsullivan9597
Banned
If the book was e-published by the author then none of those clauses would prevent publication.
a) there is no "active contract"
b) rights never left author so fine there
I don't think anyone was saying that if the book is under contract with an e-publisher it could be shopped around again but if it was e-published with someone and as reverted then again you are fine.
a) the contract is no longer active
b) the rights have reverted.
I see nothing here that prevents a work from finding a "second home" if it was first published, and if published by someone else --- well of course it can't be sold twice.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 11,058
- Reaction score
- 2,657
Stephen Colbert's "real, hands-on experience" is that he got a doctorate without attending classes or enrolling in school. That doesn't mean colleges are moving toward honorary degrees instead of the old fashioned kind or that he has any real knowledge about what it takes to get a doctorate. I don't see how it doesn't apply.
You have built up an amazing business based around great marketing skill--but you did so without the experience in the industry that others require to get the job done. That's an amazing feat and definitely one worth considering. The thing is, you're not the norm. Your experiences don't represent those of the average publisher out there. They aren't invalid, but when you try to state your experiences as the norm or to draw conclusions about what a commercial publisher will or will not do based on them, then yes, I can see problems.
No one has questioned your success, and many of us are impressed by it. Hell, I'm pretty sure I've left you comments about it before. If I wanted to open a publishing business I'd look at your business model and see what I could learn from it, definitely.
I'm just saying that there is a burden of proof. I have absolutely no problem with people stating their experiences. I think it's awesome, as a matter of fact because it helps us draw good conclusions and see trends and what's happening. But if someone tries to draw conclusions about commercial publishing based on self-publishing experiences or because "I heard people say" and then other people who are experts in their field disagree, I'm going to listen to the experts.
Maybe that makes me look like an old fogey stick in the mud, but it just makes sense to me.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,352
I can't either. Wow.
For the record, I do NOT work in trade publishing. I am an e-published author who runs a historical fiction imprint for a respected e-publisher.
Now, if Kevin and Ms. Sullivan see a double standard on the AW self-publishing forum, they're obviously VERY selective about the threads they read and participate in. Self-publishing is a viable option for some authors without a doubt, but usually NOT for someone who mistakenly believes that they are going to be the one in a million who strikes it rich.
Also, if the cheerleaders will put their pom poms down for a moment, they might notice that the OP wants to SEND HER BOOK TO AN AGENT AFTER IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SELF-PUBLISHED. And why is that? BECAUSE IT'S NOT SELLING.
Hello? You see that, right? It's not selling. Just like e-published authors who release their books and do no promotion don't sell a ton of books. Just like self-published authors who don't have a partner doing all the dirty day to day work of promotion, plugging, formatting, editing, cover art, uploading, building and maintaining a web site with a sales option DON'T SELL THEIR BOOKS.
This isn't an anti-self-publishing comment. This is a realistic comment. Go to the major e-book review sites. Read their submission guidelines. What do they say? "We do not accept self-published books for review at this time." And why is that? Because the MAJORITY (not all, but the MAJORITY) of self-published books are absolute crap. Their production values are crap. The lack of editing-crap. The book covers-crap. And all this is due to the self-publishing industry drones peppering the internet with pop up ads selling the concept of get rich quick to a lot of writers who really need guidance, editing, and direction just to get their books in readable condition.
Kevin, you can call me anything you want to; it doesn't affect me. You aren't sitting in my chair, sifting through slush, explaining to devastated authors out hundreds of dollars to self-publishing sites that their book isn't good enough to meet my publication standards. But by God, if you're going to tell this forum you have a goddamn poll of editors, authors and agents and provide a link, I expect to see a goddamn poll of editors, authors and agents and not a blog that is...just like most of these posts...opinion.
There is a future for self-publishing. I firmly believe that. But by spreading misinformation to people who don't know any better, YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYONE A FAVOR. NO ONE. And if you don't believe that, I suggest you do a little more selective reading on Amanda Hocking's blog.
Although, of course, now she's gone over to trade publishing too. Why is that, I wonder? Maybe it's because she's tired of doing it all herself? Or maybe it's because the amount of work she's put in NOT writing isn't worth it anymore. And that's not a double standard. That's the godawful truth. Quit screening your sources and try reading for insight as opposed for ammunition.
If either of you want to make any more pointed remarks at me, please feel free to take it to PM. I'd rather deal with you there than here.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 11,058
- Reaction score
- 2,657
And yet you were the one to tell me to classify Michael's works as self-published because went through no third-party vetting process and had no one investing money in the production of their works.
I am both a self-publisher (the 5 books of the Riyria Revelations) and a small press publisher (the 15 boks by other Riyria authors.
I think she meant that you hadn't self-published yourself, that you had published your husband's works. And I'm under the impression he was small-press published for the same work, right? So he actually was commercially published first before being self-published, or am I remembering wrong?
rsullivan9597
Banned
What makes you say this? Where is your documentation to this "standard"?
The fact that the contracts have wording in it indicating that the rights must have reverted and no active contract should be in place indicates that standard contracts expect that works could have been previously published as they have language to handle that situation. If it was such a "rare and unusual" occuranc why would such language be in the boiler plate?
Again that is an opinion you have, which is reasonable as the business operated under this model for years. But times have changed and from my "read" of the industry this is not the problem it once once. Neither of us can speak with complete authority on this matter "today" so we are both just going by "what we've heard or read". To truly answer this question we would have to actually do a poll of agents to see if cracked first publication rights was
a) no big deal
b) a complete non-starter
c) will considered if the work is good enough.
So the real question is...where is this "reasearch" of which you speak? My guess is it does not exist - so everyone is forced to go on their "gut" instincts based on articles and forum posts like this one.
rsullivan9597
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,352
I work with several authors releasing e-versions of their backlists where the rights have reverted to them--usually books from the 1990s or early 2000s when the author has an established readership and a track record of sales. The earlier trade contracts didn't have provision for e-sales and we actively seek authors who want to get their backlists out there.
However, the majority of the self-published stories I receive are in no condition to give to my editors to work on, much less publish. While some authors--like Hocking, obviously--don't require a lot of editing to make their books strong enough to stand in the current market of tech-savvy readers, unfortunately what I'm seeing in my slushpile are manuscripts cranked out by inexperienced writers--rough first drafts submitted as publication-ready. Sadly, they aren't. And those authors, who've anxiously watched their books dive straight into obscurity, start to panic and try to find some kind of publishing venue that will get their book noticed.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,352
Because the self-publishing forums don't exhibit a double standard. As long as you're not rude, you can express whatever opinion you want to express. However, if you think you're the victim of a double standard, perhaps you should take that up with the owner of the board.
Seems to me that you've posted frequently enough in support of your position that any claims of a double standard are kind of hypocritical. Your definition of a 'double standard' appears to be based upon the fact that you don't think your opinions should be disagreed with or criticized. That's not a 'double standard.'
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 20,006
- Reaction score
- 5,352
So let's take our personalities out of this thread altogether. Let's concentrate instead on sources and opinions from all aspects of the publishing industry and see what they have to say--as long as we all start from the same beginning point.
Self-publishing IS a viable choice for SOME authors, but not ALL.
That being said:
http://www.guidetoliteraryagents.com/blog/Concerning+Literary+Agents+And+SelfPublishing+Part+1.aspx
http://cba-ramblings.blogspot.com/2009/11/self-publishing-rant-and-q4u.html
http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2007/08/self-publishing-and-your-writing-career.html
There are three OPINIONS by agents or respected people within the publishing industry--people who want to find good authors with good material. But as Nathan Bransford goes on to say:
Now, let's look at some STATISTICS and they are out there to find.
Later in the same article:
And a different NY Times article--
And what's really killing me? The executives at the self-publishing companies are only too aware of what's really happening.
Same article; different perspectives from elsewhere in the business.
And of course, from one of my favorite blogs--which led me to some of these sources:
That's not even all the stats in this article. Read the entire article with all the stats, some provided by the self-publishing companies themselves. So how successful can a self-publishing firm be? Well, apparently--
And so then begins the bandwagon. Self-publishing is awesome! Self-publishing takes the gatekeepers out of the equation! Self-publishing is taking over traditional publishing! -- http://mickrooney.blogspot.com/2010/04/bowker-statistics-2009-non-traditional.html
But not so fast. That's misleading. According to Writer Beware:
And further still:
What would we do without the great folks at Writer Beware? I ask you...
At any rate, there are some of the bald, stripped down facts and stats about the self-publishing industry in the US. Writers can make their own decisions as long as they take the time to do the research...and the math...and determine which route is best for them. And the route that's best for them may not be the route that's best for me or for you or for any other writer in the world. And that's okay.
But this forum's purpose is to provide the average writer who is looking for information a balanced spectrum of information from all sides of the issue. First rights notwithstanding, I think most writers when looking at the model for success that Lulu aspires to, compared with the average sales figures, the opinions of industry professionals and booksellers will and should think twice about consigning their work to the uncertainties of self-publishing FIRST. I don't think anyone here has ever said that self-publishing shouldn't be considered EVER, just not FIRST. If you want the gratification of holding a book with your name on it in your hands then sure, go for it. That writer isn't looking for fame, fortune, recognition or a career. But for a writer who's looking for something more, it seems wise to consider other options alongside with self-publishing and to determine what is best FOR THEM.
And any writer who's wanting to make a career out of it is still going to try and land an agent so they can have a go at the big six or trade publishers.
Self-publishing IS a viable choice for SOME authors, but not ALL.
That being said:
http://www.guidetoliteraryagents.com/blog/Concerning+Literary+Agents+And+SelfPublishing+Part+1.aspx
http://cba-ramblings.blogspot.com/2009/11/self-publishing-rant-and-q4u.html
http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2007/08/self-publishing-and-your-writing-career.html
There are three OPINIONS by agents or respected people within the publishing industry--people who want to find good authors with good material. But as Nathan Bransford goes on to say:
Now, let's look at some STATISTICS and they are out there to find.
-- from the NY Times
Later in the same article:
And a different NY Times article--
And what's really killing me? The executives at the self-publishing companies are only too aware of what's really happening.
Same article; different perspectives from elsewhere in the business.
And of course, from one of my favorite blogs--which led me to some of these sources:
That's not even all the stats in this article. Read the entire article with all the stats, some provided by the self-publishing companies themselves. So how successful can a self-publishing firm be? Well, apparently--
And so then begins the bandwagon. Self-publishing is awesome! Self-publishing takes the gatekeepers out of the equation! Self-publishing is taking over traditional publishing! -- http://mickrooney.blogspot.com/2010/04/bowker-statistics-2009-non-traditional.html
But not so fast. That's misleading. According to Writer Beware:
And further still:
What would we do without the great folks at Writer Beware? I ask you...
At any rate, there are some of the bald, stripped down facts and stats about the self-publishing industry in the US. Writers can make their own decisions as long as they take the time to do the research...and the math...and determine which route is best for them. And the route that's best for them may not be the route that's best for me or for you or for any other writer in the world. And that's okay.
But this forum's purpose is to provide the average writer who is looking for information a balanced spectrum of information from all sides of the issue. First rights notwithstanding, I think most writers when looking at the model for success that Lulu aspires to, compared with the average sales figures, the opinions of industry professionals and booksellers will and should think twice about consigning their work to the uncertainties of self-publishing FIRST. I don't think anyone here has ever said that self-publishing shouldn't be considered EVER, just not FIRST. If you want the gratification of holding a book with your name on it in your hands then sure, go for it. That writer isn't looking for fame, fortune, recognition or a career. But for a writer who's looking for something more, it seems wise to consider other options alongside with self-publishing and to determine what is best FOR THEM.
And any writer who's wanting to make a career out of it is still going to try and land an agent so they can have a go at the big six or trade publishers.
rsullivan9597
Banned
The two spheres used to be completely independent of one another - for good reason. When self-publishers rarely sold more than a few books and made zero money there was no influence between the two. That is no longer the case. (But may be at the heart of the matter because if you contend that they are still irrelevant to commercial publishing, while I contend they are not - that might explain why we differ on the subject.
I don't know the history of everyone who has been posting - and you've been on the forum longer than I so perhaps you do. If the people who are doing the refuting are those responsible for selecting titles (i.e. agents or acquisition editors) then yes we have to take their opinions into account. But if the people expressing opinions are unpublished authors in the query go round or published authors who have never tried to take a previosly published title to market, then I'm not sure they have the "inside scoop".
I am an acquisitions editor so I can state my opinions on the matter. I've also sold works that wer preveious published - so again I have experience with this. It is not my self-publishing expeirence that comes into play here it is my buying and selling of previously published rights.
The important thing is "doing what" - if they are agents or aquisitions editors - yes - but if they are not on the "buying end" or "selling end of previously published works" then their knowledge on the subject comes from the same source as mine - which is talking to people, reading articles, attending conferences.
I've been "in the buiness" for 4 years which is a short time I agree - but I'll still contend that the publishing industry of 2010 is MUCH different then the publishing environment of 1990. What we need to be concerned with is the "current" environment.
The issue on the table is will this work be "snubbed" - the only people who can give a truly informed opinion are
a) people who do the buying
b) people who were bought dispite having first rights cracked
c) people who were told "tough luck" becaus the first rights hae been cracked.
d) people who were had their works considred even though the rights were cracked.
I have experience in a), b), and d) and never hit c) even though I was in a position to - i.e. submitting work that had been previously pubished. If each person posting on the subject could indicate their experience in each of these areas it would seem to me to use that as a gauge of whether they have any relevenat experience on the topic at hand.
I think those in the music industry would disagree with "no major collapse in the record industry.
If you believe this is about a new format than you are missing the importance of the momnumental shifts.
a) Authors selling in the tens and hundreds of thousands without publishers
b) The collapse of bookstore chains
c) A required shift of marketing from chainstore buyers to indivdual readers
d) infinite shelf space of online buying
e) the re-introducton of hundreds of thousands of out of print titles that can now be reintroduced into the market place
f) A huge proliferation of titles (ten years ago 50,000 titles a year were released last yeare there were 1,000,000 (Source)
g) long tail economics as books can remain "in print" forever through POD and ebooks
h) an end to publisher monopolies as a sole gatekeeper to getting a book to market.
No the environment will not look like it once did. It already doesn't.
For the record I don't subscribe to the publishers will go extinct bandwagon. I will say that small pressess and self-publishers have been more "agile" and took advantage of opportunties brought on by new technology (online buying, ebooks, POD) so yes they have adjusted more quickly. I think the bigger houses will make adjustments and will continue to play a major role but it will no longer be the monopoly they once held.
The important aspect to operaing in this "new environment" is recognizing a - h above and understanding what that can mean to how you map out your strategies in this environment. But if you are of the opinion that publising in 2011 is not any different then in 1990 and therefore we need to continue to operate as we did then and follow the advice of people still holding onto that business model then yes I see a big disconnect and probably why we disagree so much.
You scare me when you speak like this. Look at a - h above and tell me how commercial publishing is "same as it ever was".
Do you see how this paragraph of yours completely refutes your previous one. You said "commercial remaining largely the same." and then you cite some very minor change that occur and mention how you expect more change. But you are completly missing the big elephants of change i.e. a-h.
And why are the contracts changing? Is it because publishers thought...hey I should be more author friendly today? Or is it a direct result of having to be competive and offer big sellers a reason not to go self and take their loyal fans with them?
You do realize that many of the people who are self-publishing aren't "looking" for a publisher, right? Yes, some gave up and went that route because of that. For others it makes more sense based on their own goals.
I never said that they won't adjust - I said they will be slower to adjust. Whether their adjustments now...and those required on into the future...will be quick enough to keep them profitable? I can't say.
You are correct Oct/Nov 2010 marked the tipping point. But the toothpaste is out of the tube and publishing (even commercial publishing) won't continue "pretty much as it always had.
As someone who has been in this for a long time including before and after the transition I'll say that I don't think "pants down" is correct. We all knew it was going to blow big as a model with low overhead is such a no-brainer. The only x fator was when and how quickly. Those two things were a surprise but most of those there before it occured made strategic business decisions to be there ahead of the curve.
Again go back to my notes above. I have first hand experience with a), b), and d) that is relevant experience to the issue at hand. For those that are stating their opinions I want to know their first hand (not heresay) experience with each of those. If everyone posting a discenting opinion says - yep I self-published first and it screwed me big time when it came to publishing elsewhere...and they were turned down recently (not 4 - 5 years ago) then they have an opinion that matters on this that matters and we should hear from them. It's not because I'm a self-publisher. It's becuase I've walked in these shoes. I think that most others stating opinions are on the "author side" having either queried or published for many years. But unless they buy rights or have tried to sell a pre-published work nope I don't see where they have more experience then myself who has been, and continues to be, in a position both of buying and selling previously published works.
Again - let's talk "first hand experience" I actually picked up Nathan Lowell because of his podcasting. And several other authors on my radar once I'm back open for submissions come from that environment. Look at the auhors on Dragon Moon Press. They completly farmed the podcast environment so yes podcasting did produce paths to trade publishing deals.
In this instance it is not my marketing experience that comes into play - the question wasn't whether you'll sell more books by self-publishing. My relevenant experience here is the fact that I have both bought and sold previously published titles.
I'll reiterate that the only "experts" I'm interested in on this particular topic is those who have recently experienced buying or selling of previously published works.
Last edited:
rsullivan9597
Banned
News to me - Although I'm not "plugged into memes" so I didn't realize it was "a thing". The reason I brought it up was because Friday at dinner I was discussing with a friend and he asked me why I stayed and that was the answer I gave him and a big part of why I just don't fade away. That and the fact that I get great ideas for future blog posts from what goes on here
rsullivan9597
Banned
One of Michael's five works were published by AMI (a small press that has nothing to do with Ridan) all the others have only been through Ridan. Based on the guidelines for terminology posted on this site I should keep Michael has had all three types of publishing, but for the most part he would be classified as self-published since most of his works are produced without vetting nor others investing money or time in them.
- Status