I am an unestablished author with a decent book. Should I publish online, or try to find a 'real' publisher?

Personally, I would not regard self publishing as an alternative to traditional publishing but as a market for work that does not fit in the traditional publishing sphere.

Publishing is book marketing. Marketing is about knowing a particular part of the market and figuring out how to sell to it. Each traditional publisher has figured out how to sell to one or more segments of the market. In some really lucrative markets there are multiple publishers competing. In smaller markets there is often only one or two publishers competing. In some niche markets there may only be one.

And then there are all the markets that are too small or too obscure or too difficult to understand for it to make business sense for a traditional publisher to serve that market. This is where self publishing makes sense, providing you understand that market. Since no traditional publisher will attempt to address that market, the only way to get to it is to self publish. Web based self-publishing platforms make it vastly easier to reach such markets now, so self publishing becomes a much more viable vehicle for reaching that market.

Of course, those misunderstood markets sometimes turn out to be huge, and produce the odd self publishing success story (which always ends with traditional publishing once the traditional publishers figure out the market). There are also a few (very few!) cases of mainstream works being self published and breaking out -- but those inevitably lead to traditional publishing, which is where the belonged all along.

If you go the self publishing route with a work that is in the market currently served by traditional publishers then you are competing with them and your chances of success are slim. Plus you cut yourself off from the discipline of refining your work to meet the demands of the market.

In short, a mainstream work should go to a mainstream publisher; a work intended for an unserved market has no choice but to go the self publishing route.

posted over 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Mark Baker‭

4371 reputation 12 1104 744 58

I agree with most of the points made in other answers here. But I would add this, having come from a conference where numerous, published authors shared their thoughts on this question.

First, you need to examine one big assumption: "If I have a decent product..." I won't say you don't, however, it was pointed out, human nature being what it is:

• 1) For the vast majority of aspiring authors, the first novel (and second, and third) aren't really that good. It takes a lot of writing to be able to write well.

• 2) Human beings are very bad at judging their own recent work (and your friends and relatives are not likely to give you the frank opinions as you might need).

Thus, the risk for new authors who self-publish is that their first novel is mediocre (or worse) and now their name is attached to that. Even if they vastly improve with later books, it is too late, their name is tainted.

That being said, if you go through the traditional publishing route, numerous sets of eyes will review & edit your stuff. If you can get past that gauntlet, you can be assured you have probably not given birth to a giant turd.

Of course, if you go the traditional publisher route, you have to be prepared for a LOT of rejection (Harry Potter books were rejected by numerous publishers).

Full disclosure: I am not a published author, I am just repeating what several published authors said in a large conference (and some of them self-publish too). Just more stuff to think about. If I self-published, I'd probably still consider engaging an editor, to get that non-biased feedback.

posted over 9 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Tim ‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0