Trade publishing definition - clarification? [moved from self pub]

Captcha said:

No, I'm not going to wade into the trade/traditional thing!

Click to expand...

Then why mention it at all?

But I've recently realized that "trade" is being used, at least by some, to refer to Big Six publishing exclusively. Is this the generally accepted usage?

Click to expand...

Nope.

If it is, what's the accepted term for other publishing companies? Is every publisher who's not Big Six classified as "indie"? Like, Harlequin, for example, would be classified as "indie"?

If so, how does one describe an author who publishes through these houses?

Click to expand...

Independent publishers are those which are not part of a bigger conglomerate. They range in size from the big independents, like Bloomsbury and Canongate, to the smaller presses like Myrmidon and Salt. If they publish a variety of authors--and not just themselves--they are trade publishers. If they publish only themselves then they are self publishers, and not independents.

As for how one describes authors who publish through these various houses, I'd just call them writers.

I'll move this to the Round Table, as it has very little to do with self publishing.

Captcha said:

No, I'm not going to wade into the trade/traditional thing!

But I've recently realized that "trade" is being used, at least by some, to refer to Big Six publishing exclusively. Is this the generally accepted usage?

Click to expand...

I've been entirely unconscious of this.

On my planet, 'trade' refers to a quality paperback, often 6x9 and perfect bound.

'Traditional' refers to publishing the 20th century way, where you try to 'hook' an agent, who tries to peddle your book to a publisher, who sends you a one-sided contract and sometimes an advance, and sometimes your book will sell, and sometimes you will collect royalties.

No, trade (or commercial) publishing is where someone pays you to allow them to publish your book and sell it to others. The trade publisher pays all the expenses and takes all the risks.

"Trade" as in "trade paperback" doesn't mean 6x9 paperback. (A trade paperback is one that's whole copy returnable, rather than strippable. Trim size has nothing to do with it.) "Trade" there means "meant for the bookstore trade."

Trade, or commercial, publishing has a known and defined meaning. Both "big six" and independent publishers are trade (or commercial) publishers.

"Traditional" publishing is an undefined term, originally use by a scammer who was trying to avoid being identified as a vanity press.

We won't get into academic presses here.

Captcha said:

But I've recently realized that "trade" is being used, at least by some, to refer to Big Six publishing exclusively. Is this the generally accepted usage?

Click to expand...

I've never ever heard of anyone using 'trade' to mean 'Big 6'. Can you cite instances of this?

Terie, I've seen it happen quite often, usually in the context of self publishers talking about the problems of getting a trade publishing deal.

I've read numerous conversations where people discuss how one can either be published by a Big Six or by an independent publisher. Due to the confusion of terms introduced by self publishers calling themselves "indie" publishers, this means that many writers now think that trade publishing is just the Big Six. Which means that they're ignoring a huge (and extremely creative) chunk of publishing.

This is one of the many reasons I wish self publishers wouldn't style themselves as "indie" publishers. It's confusing and misleading, and can lead to huge misunderstandings for the writers who follow them.

RichardGarfinkle said:

In the lists of trade publishers, can I also bring up University Presses. They're neither Big Six, nor independent, but do fit the paradigm.

Click to expand...

They're independent of the Big Six, so do sort-of work as independent presses: but academic publishing (which is sometimes what university presses do, and sometimes not) is another thing entirely, with a whole new set of rules.

James D. Macdonald said:

"Trade" as in "trade paperback" doesn't mean 6x9 paperback. (A trade paperback is one that's whole copy returnable, rather than strippable. Trim size has nothing to do with it.) "Trade" there means "meant for the bookstore trade."

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that.

OTOH, if I use the terms correctly, I'm afraid that a lot of folks will misunderstand. 'Traditional' seems to have taken the place of 'trade', even in the case of articles by people who should know better (although it's often restricted to comparisons with self-publishing, favorable or un).

dangerousbill said:

'Traditional' refers to publishing the 20th century way, where you try to 'hook' an agent, who tries to peddle your book to a publisher, who sends you a one-sided contract and sometimes an advance, and sometimes your book will sell, and sometimes you will collect royalties.

Click to expand...

You left out the part where your wonderful and brilliant agent crosses out the more "one-sided" parts of the boilerplate and replaces them with less "one-sided" language, even if he or she is still recovering from that "hook."

dangerousbill said:

'Traditional' seems to have taken the place of 'trade', even in the case of articles by people who should know better.

Click to expand...

Not in trade publishing circles it hasn't.

If we want to be seen as professional, capable writers that involves making sure that the people we talk to can understand us and sooner or later, we're going to talk to agents, editors, or booksellers about our work even if we self publish.

Those industry professionals know what trade publishing means: they understand the term. If we use it correctly, we'll be able to talk to them on a reasonably equal footing. If we say "traditional publishing" then we mark ourselves as uninformed at best, or as part of that big evangelical self publishing movement which so often sneers at trade publishing. And that alienates those trade professionals we could learn so much from.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Yes, but some of them also do non-academic publishing (he said from personal experience), so I thought they should be mentioned.

Click to expand...

It gets very convoluted, very fast. For instance, if you look at the Publishing FAQ: [Publishing] Who and What are the Big Six

Pearson PLC owns Penguin, who publish fiction as well as the Penguin Classics, and kid's lit, and non-fiction, and who control Putnam, Viking, Dorling-Kindersley. Pearson PLC also own really big textbook publishers, Longman, Scott Foresman, Prentice Hall, Addison-Wesley, Allyn and Bacon.

And then you have W. W. Norton, an independent publisher, owned by the employees, and who publish all sorts of books, including textbooks, and fiction, and non-fiction and poetry. They're not part of the Big Six, but they are very well known.

And then you have various University presses, like Oxford, and Cambridge, and Chicago, and University of California and Columbia . . . also not part of the Big Six, and who publish all kinds of things.

It is, as people say in other contexts, "complicated."

Old Hack said:

. If we say "traditional publishing" then we mark ourselves as uninformed at best, or as part of that big evangelical self publishing movement which so often sneers at trade publishing.

Click to expand...

Except that more and more agents are transitioning to the use of "traditional" to mean "not self-published" when they blog and tweet.

If you want to see a "one-sided contract" check out the contract that every single self-published author with a story on Amazon Kindle has agreed to.

I use "traditional publishing" to mean on-paper trade publishing, as opposed to e-publishing. As far as I'm aware, it often gets used that way in that context. There isn't really another elegant suitable adjective. (Is there?)

Cyia said:

Except that more and more agents are transitioning to the use of "traditional" to mean "not self-published" when they blog and tweet.

Click to expand...

Except that only a miniscule proportion of agents and editors blog or tweet, so that's not indicative of the majority.

Transatlantic said:

I use "traditional publishing" to mean on-paper trade publishing, as opposed to e-publishing. As far as I'm aware, it often gets used that way in that context. There isn't really another elegant suitable adjective. (Is there?)

Click to expand...

I talk about trade publishing, and print and electronic editions. Does that help?

Old Hack said:

I talk about trade publishing, and print and electronic editions. Does that help?

Click to expand...

Yeah, definitely - if when I talk to anyone in the biz, those will be useful. Thanks.