On Traditional VS Self-Publishing...

[seawasp]

Of late, I've seen many people extolling the virtues of self-publication. While I certainly don't want to tell people not to do it, or that it's a bad thing to do (I know people who have done it and been quite successful, and certainly have produced fine, professional looking material), there have been a lot of these which have tried to basically say that if you're not going into physical print, the traditional publisher really doesn't do much for you. The following is reposted from a comment to the most recent such post, this one by bigbananaslug. Note that his post is merely a trigger; I've read probably DOZENS of similar discussions in the last few months.

The following is also drawn from my personal knowledge and experience. I've been an actual traditional published author since 2003. I also offered my stuff online in an electronic publication form for several years before that. I've looked at the current state of self-publishing with consideration for using it if my agent can't sell some of the stuff I've already written, so I am not entirely unversed in these areas.

The traditional publisher offers something that not only DOESN'T the self-publishing route offer, but which the self-publishing route actively negates:

AN ADVANCE. And they do publicity and distribution (how much may vary, but the current distribution channels, even being pressed as they are by e-book tides of crap (mostly), are at least several thousand dollars worth of publicity.

They also do the editing, artwork, etc.

So on the traditional publisher side:
I offer Baen my latest book, Phoenix Rising. They say "Great", hand me $8k, get pro editors on the job, find distributors, start pushing the book to various markets, and find an awesome artist (Todd Lockwood) to do a fantastic cover.

Outcome:
Before book is published, I'm there with $8,000 I can spend to pay off debts, fix my house, and generally give me some leisure time to write my NEXT book. I also have to spend no time worrying about how to get the book into target markets, how it's going to be offered, how to collect the money, or anything other than registering that $8k on my income tax forms.

Self publication:
I have no actual idea how good my stuff is. I may think it's great, but it could suck. But I'm gonna get it published anyway. (and "suck" is the likely answer overall; I've seen the self-published maelstrom, and most of it sucks)

I have no idea where to find editors. Eventually I find one with a good rep. I pay him or her money to edit the book. Editor, being paid by ME rather than by publishing company, is less likely to really PUSH me in the editing process to make my book that much better; after all, if he peeves me I might just not PAY him.

I have no idea how to do proper formatting/publication of an ebook to look good. Eventually I either find someone who DOES (and pay them) or I figure out how to do it myself. I may or may not turn out to actually have done a good job

I have no idea where to find artists. Eventually I find one with a good rep and have him make a cover. To my specs. But do I actually know what SHOULD be on the cover, what image(s) will sell the book? Experience indicates that most authors DO NOT know the best choice for cover design and tend to obsess over the "right details" rather than the image that will sell the book. Oh, yeah, and I have to pay him. Good artists aren't cheap.

I have no idea how to market the book. Maybe I go with Amazon and have them put it up there, but how do I know that anyone will ever even SEE it? How do I kick it into someone's view? Maybe eventually I find someone who claims to know how to do this... and pay them. Maybe I do all sorts of work myself -- make my own website, run to every online forum and flog my book, run Zero Price "promo sales" on Amazon, etc, use Project Wonderful to advertise.

Outcome:
Before book is published, I have spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of my time preparing and trying to promote a book which may, or may not, ever sell a single copy. Like a REAL publisher, I have to assume it's actually a LOSS the first time out.


Overall, self-publication which takes itself SERIOUSLY (i.e., you're not just taking your fanfic-like product and shoving it onto Amazon without any other work) is for those with an awful lot of time and money to spare.

I would never have been published going that route. Understand this very clearly: if you like my writing, THANK the traditional publication route. Oh, MAYBE "Digital Knight" would have showed up, since I did finish the first three pieces of it and have it on Hyperbooks.com for years. But no Diamonds Are Forever, no Boundary, Threshold, or Portal, no Grand Central Arena, quite possibly no Phoenix Rising. I have neither the time nor the money to devote to that kind of thing. If I DID, I would also hardly ever WRITE anything, because all my spare time's already being used up. 

And -- being deadly honest -- if I *HAD* written those books? Without the editing (and in the case of Baen, mentoring) process I have gone through, the books WOULD NOT BE NEARLY AS GOOD AS THEY ARE. I could go over every single one of the books I've had on the shelves and point you to areas that I would have missed the boat entirely on without editorial input. Starting with the fact that "Digital Knight" would have probably never had the other three sections added.

Getting an advance allows me to justify MORE writing -- to my wife and kids, as well as myself. Having to do all that work AND pay for it? Argues that I should never, ever write anything, or at least not anything for publication. Go back to fanfic, it's a lot easier there.

Comments

[shanejayell.livejournal.com]

I think it can vary though. If you were, for example, Steve King, you could probably sell a original ebook like hotcakes. *lol* And even a original short story by you could sell quite well, I think.

But yeah, self-publishing is a incredible gamble for the average joe.

[seawasp]

Someone like Stephen King -- or to a lesser extent Lawrence Watt-Evans or even me -- is in a different box in a way. We've already BEEN published. Stephen King has worldwide recognition; his self-publication will AUTOMATICALLY get crowd-sourced publicity that some newbie starting out -- even a newbie willing and able to devote his full time and energy and skill to the work -- will simply never be able to achieve for his first, or probably even second or third, self-published book.

Even I would be able to draw on a small established fanbase who would help spread the word in a way that Joe Random Selfpublisher would have to work at it to match.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

I recall hearing of a writer named Steven King (with a v, not with a ph). For obvious reasons he had to use a pen name...

[julesjones]

And on the small press epub side -- my publisher pays only a small advance, and only for books in a particular word count range (they're trying to encourage people to hit the sweet spot for length). They still earn their 65% for the editing, cover art, file formatting, marketing, and most importantly, having a good reputation as a gatekeeper that encourages readers to risk putting down hard cash for a book.

I know people in my genre who self-publish and do well on it. But the people who have both the ability and the desire to be a competent publisher on top of being a competent writer are not that common. I probably do have at least the basics of the ability (I published a fanfic printzine for several years). But I'd rather spend my time writing the stories.

As for "just crowd-source your editing!", I'm a member of the crit group for one of our mutual friends. I saw the manuscript for one of his Hugo-nominated novels from first draft through to final submission draft. He's got a *good* crit group, and he's good at self-editing. The published version was still that bit better than the submission draft, in a way that I'd find hard to define but which means that I think his publisher's editor added significant value to the product.

[remus-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate. (cracks knuckles) :)

The problem with traditional publishing is that revolves around luck. A good manuscript by a dedicated author can still fail to be noticed by traditional editors. There's just one way to take luck out of the equation; impress the editors by other means.

How did you get your first publishing contract? You offered your stuff online for several years prior. Self-publishing is the same ethos. When an author puts their writing online, if it attracts the public's attention then it is likely to also attract the fickle attention of editors and agents.

For those of us who aren't good at networking, self-publishing may be a viable way of getting a foot in the door of the publishing industry. And those who can do it well no longer need the industry at all.

Now I agree with you that it's a lot of hard work that will drain an author's writing energy and time. It also takes a skillset that not many people have. That's the primary reason that I haven't self-published yet -- I'd be terrible at it. But it's a viable alternative that has been shown to lead to great success for a gifted few.

[seawasp]

The problem with traditional publishing is that revolves around luck. A good manuscript by a dedicated author can still fail to be noticed by traditional editors. There's just one way to take luck out of the equation; impress the editors by other means.

Yes. And the problem with self-publishing is it ALSO revolves around luck. In the trad area, your luck is in gettting chosen. In self-publishing, it's in being chosen also, noticed out of the ever-increasing volume of Other Stuff. Trad publishing has some built-in visibility.

How did you get your first publishing contract?

I insulted Eric Flint in public.

You offered your stuff online for several years prior.

After Digital Knight was published, I sent print copies to every single person who had purchased an electronic copy of its predecessor. All of them together did not make a significant dent in the first box of author copies I got from Baen.

The online offering? Made no difference to me, and to some publishers would be a HUGE negative; you've already DONE "first publication" and it made you no money, so you're double-sucky right there. Fortunately Baen didn't think that way, but there are trad publishers that do.

For those of us who aren't good at networking, self-publishing may be a viable way of getting a foot in the door of the publishing industry. And those who can do it well no longer need the industry at all.

I'd say that for those not good at networking, self-publishing seems even LESS likely to get you anywhere, but that's from my own experience.

But as you conclude, the real bottom line is that IF you are one of those with the (quite large) skillset to take advantage of it, self-publishing may well be the right road to go down.

[remus-shepherd.livejournal.com]

How did you get your first publishing contract?

I insulted Eric Flint in public.

Well, that qualifies as networking. I've talked to Eric Flint in public, didn't insult him, and it didn't get me anywhere. :)

I think that people without networking skills can succeed in self-publishing. There's a difference between networking and broadcasting like Amanda Hocking did. If you're a good broadcaster and can attract followers that way then self-publishing might work for you.

But I think we're in agreement that it takes a special skillset for self-publishing to be worth the trouble.

[muirecan.livejournal.com]

There is a very good reason I've compared self publishing to starting a business. The skill sets and time and energy that need to be invested to succeed in both are very very similar. The reality is that not everyone is cut out to start a business nor does everyone want to start a business. It is like going to college. Really it isn't something everyone needs to do to get on with their life.

By the same token being a traditional writer is much like being a consultant. You basically perform work for hire to the publishing house. Thus the advance etc. And for a number of people that is a better fit than being an entrepreneur and handling all the fiddly bits of self publishing.

As you point out there is a lot of behind the scenes work that goes into a good book and someone self publishing needs to take that on for them self or find someone to hire to take it on.

Self publishing is a very viable path but only for those who want to do it. It isn't the one true path that everyone MUST follow for true happiness. ::sheesh::

[lwe.livejournal.com]

Except that it's not work for hire, because you own it; the publisher is only leasing it from you.

That's an important difference.

Another is that the publisher didn't tell you what to write.

[seawasp]

Yep. There ARE writing gigs where they tell you what to write and own the stuff, of course, but in those you're being guaranteed publication and pay for the work.

[muirecan.livejournal.com]

True but it shares aspects with that. Sadly the best description of it is Author/Publisher :D but people are arguing that isn't valid anymore and should be abandoned. Ah ... I may have it... Something like an art studio as a comparison. We have a studio called Orient & Flume in a neighboring city. Some of the artists do work for hire but others do work there and sell/distribute their work though the studio. That might be a better comparison. Hmm. have to think about it. I'll agree that work for hire isn't the best example but consultant is. Basically there is a relationship between author and publisher but it isn't quite an employer/employee one. Both sides gain advantages from it or both should be.

[jeriendhal.livejournal.com]

And this is why I refer to myself as a hobbyist writer instead of a professional one. My stuff isn't professional enough, likely never will be, and I'm never going to have the proper discipline to make a living off of it, but I can at least get by peddling my wares on Smashwords and Amazon to people looking for a cheap, quick read. It pays for the occasional indulgence.

[kira-snugz.livejournal.com]

i self published my poetry book. i have been happy with it. it was barebones self publishing and for what i wanted, it was exactly what i got. i went with lulu, where they print on demand and you don't actually have to pay to self publish (unless you want extra editing and an isbn). honestly, i put it together so that when people told me my poetry was really good and i needed to do a book, i could say "oh yeah, go here and buy it" especially my family members, who had gone past the whole "be supportive of my poetry" into "yell at me about how i'm wasting my life because i havn't published a poetry book yet" i earned 167 dollars in royalties, which was 167 dollars more than i thought i would get, and 6 years laters i still sell one every couple of months.

i do know friends who paid to have their stuff published, and it was such a scam. one girl paid 5000 dollars to get 200 books. they looked horrible and started falling apart on the first read.

what are your thoughts on groupfunding publishing?

[seawasp]

If a group wants to fund publishing something, I have nothing against it. If it's groupfunding one person's work, the potential snags I can see are the funders feeling that the writer owes them something other than the story being published and trying to dictate the work, so to speak.

But that wouldn't necessarily be much different from a patronage approach, which could also work if you were lucky enough to catch the attention of someone with the money to fund your career. That was the way artists and such often worked in the old days.

[lwe.livejournal.com]

If you're going to self-publish, Lulu is a great choice. CreateSpace is also pretty good. They'll both try to up-sell you options, but the basic service is free.

For something like poetry, or a family history, self-publishing is clearly the way to go; just don't expect to ever make money off it. $167 is exceptional! Well done!

Paying someone, though -- not a good idea.

[kengr]

One comment about publishers and "professional editors". For reasons of *space* (if nothings else) I'm buying Baen stuff as ebooks pretty much exclusively. But I still by other stuff as paper.

And editing has been going downhill for some years. Especially proofreading. Not only is it obvious that they sometimes only ran a spellcheck on the text rather than actually proofing it, sometimes they haven't even down *that* right.

But reading a text where it's quite obvious that the copy editor changed a word from a correct but obscure usage to something else that's a common word but *not* the right word for the context is pretty jarring in a supposedly professional work.

Which reminds me. I don't know if you know who to suggest this to, but Baen *really* needs to look into something like a source control program for keeping their ebooks straight.

They revise stuff for CDs, fixing errors, but continue to offer the older version if you *buy* it as an ebook. Even with something as simple (and old fashioned) as using makefiles, you can do better than *that*.

Worse, they've sometimes released "revisions" for CDs that don't match older CDs or the "official" ebooks that put back in errors.

Unless they are deliberately introducing differences as a form of tracking things (which isn't the best of ideas) this is indicative of some real problems with their editing/production process. Ones that are *exactly* what the source control setups for software are designed to handle. Just have the "master" file/format that the other formats are produced form be the "source code" and the conversion/formatting tools be the compilers.

I daresay somebody more familiar with modern source control than I am could recommend something that once configured would make a lot of the process *easier* (and more reliable). And thus leave editors more time to get the "source" right.

[seawasp]

I'd go on Baen's Bar and mention it, probably in Toni's conference since she's the one who would have to decide whether to do anything about it.