[Resource of the Day] – Is it a Good Idea to Call Yourself a “Self-Publisher” These Days?
Today’s Article: “The New-and Disimproved-Meaning of ‘Self-Publishing’”
by Norma Lehmeier Hartie
via Publisher’s Marketing Association
I’ve railed before about how the word “marketing” has been misappropriated by pyramid schemes and sales scams to give my profession a bad name. It drives me crazy, especially when I’m searching the want ads. But something similar has been going on in the publishing world over the last few years — subsidy publishers, also known as vanity publishers, have appropriated the term “self-publisher” and used it to confuse the masses. See, there’s a difference between being a publisher (which I defined here as being the owner of a book’s ISBN and assuming all the risk of producing a book) and someone who’s paid someone else to publish a book. But subsidy publishers realize that there’s money to be made out there, and they want to take advantage of those who have dreamed about seeing their work in print, but who don’t have the patience, skill, or contacts to persuade a publishing company to publish their manuscript.
What’s happening now is that subsidy publishers are playing a PR game, convincing sources such as Publisher’s Weekly that they’re the future of small publishing. After all, the internet has made books of every sized print run available to the masses, and print on demand (POD) technology makes it easy to print books to order for customers. Where self-publishers used to be authors who published their own material, now the subsidy presses are claiming that it’s not necessary for an author to go through all that hassle. They, after all, are in the business of self-publishing, right?
Wrong. And today’s article discusses the fact that what seems like a subtle distinction is, in fact, incredibly bad news for traditional self-publishers.
The author of the article refers to an 8-page advertorial section in Writer’s Digest about the future of self-publishing. It’s interesting, and you should read it. But eventually, she says this:
What ticks me off most about all this is the gleeful message that this “new model” of publishing is making oodles of money for cutting-edge “self-publishers,” coupled with statements showing that only a fraction of the authors using these publishers will have anything more than a trophy book.
Having read what the subsidy publishers wrote for the publishing world, I needed to read the ads they aim at authors. Looking through the current issue of Writer’s Digest, I noted how each publishing company offers something slightly different (or uses phrases that make them appear to).
Outskirts Press allows authors to contribute to making their books by, for example, using their own cover designs. Lulu lets authors set their own prices. Trafford guarantees that its method is the best.
The only company honest enough to use the word subsidy was Vantage Press, established in 1949 and probably just getting over referring to itself as a vanity press.
Although I saw many ads for subsidy publishers in Writer’s Digest, I did not see any ads for book printers, graphic designers, or book-cover designers.
Again, the message to the uneducated aspiring author is: There are only two choices: publish with a traditional house or “self-publish” with a subsidy publisher.
It’s all a con game, intended to take advantage of people who are too lazy to do their own research. These subsidy publishers want to equate “self-publishing” with “self service,” and I have a feeling it won’t be long before there are mall carts or kiosks where people can upload a data file and have their own book printed using a system similar to the POD techniques already in use.
But I’ve got mixed feelings about POD, since many of the publishers who use it don’t seem to have a professional attitude. I’ve seen POD books that feature horrible layouts, that use unreadable fonts, or that boast clearly unedited text. Most of them look and feel very cheap, mainly due to the fact that the pages are printed through a thermal process that warps the paper. POD covers look generic and have little charm, and when they include author’s pictures, they’re generally horribly pixelated and ugly-looking. And, worst of all, POD books tend to cost a lot because the price of production is high.
Are there advantages to POD? Certainly. I think POD is great for nonfiction books about highly specialized topics, because it allows specialists to print very specific information and sell it to the small base of users to whom it would bring the largest benefit. I also think it’s great for books that are intended to have small print runs and that wouldn’t be economical to run through a traditional offset process, such as books of poetry. But is it great for fiction? Absolutely not. The final product is too expensive, and since there is no editorial oversight or quality assurance behind the product, the books almost always turn out terribly. That’s one of the reasons major booksellers won’t carry POD books– it’s not snobbery so much as it’s a concern about quality.
Self-publishing, the real self-publishing, is an entirely different beast. A true self-publisher operates like a large publisher, buying up ISBNs, handling promotional and editorial tasks, doing all the accounting, and, this is key, taking all the risks. You can’t outsource risk and expect a return; life just doesn’t work that way. If you’re an author and you’re not willing to risk rejection by submitting to a trade publisher, you’ve got to risk money if you want to see your work in print. And if you’re going to spend money anyhow, why diminish your return by paying a vanity publisher to take the risk or by trying to get your publishing done for free at the expense of your friends and family members, whom you’ll be hustling to buy your book?
The author of the article concludes this way:
I hope this comparison makes it clear that subsidy publishing is simply a way of doing business that requires payment from authors for publication of their books.
Subsidy publishing is not self-publishing, but subsidy publishers have ruined the term self-publisher. From now on, I will be referring to myself as an independent publisher.
I’ve always thought of myself as a small publisher rather than a self-publisher, but I can’t help but agree here. Why cheapen your product by insisting on holding on to a term that’s being used in a con game? Better to take the high road than to fight it out with the underworld of publishing.
Articles, Resource of the Day | SeanJJordan | 
May 12, 2008 8:46 am
5 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe
By Norma Lehmeier Hartie, May 12, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Nice posting…
Just want to clarify what you wrote about POD. You, like many people, are confusing POD with subsidy publishers. POD–print-on-demand–is a type of printing process. Yes, it is used subsidy presses; it is also used by all other publishers.
POD is a great option for a short run or to print galleys. It can be an option if you need books in a hurry, as offset printing takes 3-4 weeks to print books.
By SeanJJordan, May 12, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Thanks! Always good to hear back from another publisher.
I wasn’t as clear in this article as I have been in others, but I do realize that we’re talking about two different beasts. My issues with POD have more to do with the quality of the books and the mentality behind them than they have to do with the publishing process.
POD is a very neat, economical method of printing books that’s filling an important niche in the publishing world. But I don’t see it as being a solution for most independent publishers because the cost of the books is high per unit and the quality of the printing is different.
I realize a lot of small publishers like POD and use it, but many of the books I’ve seen that have been done via POD really lack a professional look, chiefly because POD is cheaper to set up than offset printing, and thus tends to suggest less planning. With that said, I’ve seen a few POD books that are really, really well produced, just as I’ve seen many offset books that are absolute garbage. So my generalization depends heavily on the publisher behind the book.
Subsidy publishers fill a necessary role, too, but so many of them are so dishonest that it’s hard to champion any of them.
By Norma Lehmeier Hartie, May 13, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Sean,
I completely agree with your comments. The reason I commented is that so many people–including publishers–don’t understand the differences between POD and subsidies.
BTW, my galleys were printed POD and the difference between those and the books printed by an offset printer are quite noticeable. The color of the cover from POD looks washed out. The physical book is thinner, as pages are a lighter weight; consequently, the print bleeds through.
By SeanJJordan, May 14, 2008 @ 3:15 am
Thanks, Norma. And incidentally, I’ve noticed the same thing… POD is great for those out-of-print backlist titles or for preview copies and galleys, but it’s definitely missing that offset quality.
Of course, in 10 years, when the technology is a little more advanced, the gap between the two is going to be a LOT smaller!
By Norma Lehmeier Hartie, May 14, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
I agree, Sean.
The quality and price will match offset and I think that will happen in less than 10 years. The best news is that POD is environmentally friendly from the point of view that only books that are needed are printed. While POD is currently not being printed in an environmentally fashion–like using recycled paper and soy inks–that, too, is bound to change.