Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Pros and Cons of different styles of publishing

+0
−0

I was reading on the meta site that someone thinks we're hostile to self-publishing, and I read over some old questions looking for evidence. I didn't really find signs of hostility, but I certainly did see several people expressing concerns about it. I think we've danced around the question a bit, but maybe it's time to look at it directly. What are the pros and cons of different styles of publishing?

I'm thinking we could look at:

1) the Traditional route - get an agent, sell to the biggest publisher possible;

2) the small publisher route - skip the agent, find a publisher directly (maybe I'm wrong in assuming that this is likely to be a small publisher?);

3) the self-published route - probably e-books, but maybe POD as well;

4) the vanity publishing route;

5) creative, new approaches - serialization on the web, co-operative writers' groups... what else?

I know it's a big question, but maybe it would be good to have all the ideas gathered in one place.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/3612. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

2 answers

+1
−0

The more work you do yourself, the more money you get to keep. It's a sliding scale.

Full-bore old-school publishers do almost all of the work beyond the writing, and they like to keep most of the money.

Pro: You get to go onto the next writing project, and you get some money (your advance) up front. Once the edits are done, you are no longer particularly responsible for the thing. Note that this may also get you qualified for membership in some writer's societies.

Con: You don't get too many more decisions about this work, and you only get more money if the book REALLY takes off. If you use an agent you have to split the money with the agent (on the plus side, the agent probably got you more money to split!)

Full-bore self publishing means you do ALL the work yourself (all the layout, manufacturing of books, deployment of e-books, marketing, etc, etc), and you get to keep all of the money.

Pro: You get all the money!

Con: You do ALL the work. And it's a LOT of work. Which prevents you from writing the next book just yet. Especially the marketing parts - that's a hard thing, and if you want to make a big splash (adds in newspapers and magazines) it's awfully expensive.

There's relatively few people doing absolutely EVERYTHING themselves, because it's just too much.

Pretty much no one prints their own books (they go to a printer for that). Maintaining your own printing plant is just too darn much overhead.

Lots of folks don't do their own layout (there are people and companies who will lay out your book for reasonable fees). The same companies may be able to do e-book layouts as well.

Few people sell e-books from their own website - Amazon is more than happy to run servers and deliver books to the large variety of devices they support. Apple and B&N have systems for this as well. If you want your e-book to have DRM, you really need one of these guys to have a significant audience.

There are folks who hire free-lance editors to edit their works before publication.

You could hire a marketing firm to try to promote your book, if you've got the cash and you want to.

Publishers are evolving to understand the new market realities, and you can count on seeing lots of companies with new approaches as time goes by. Most of these are going to be more middle-of-the-road sort of deals (especially in the e-book only publishing world), where you do some of the work, they do some of the work and the money is a lot more favorable to you.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/3614. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

+0
−0

Traditional Publishing

Pros

  • If you're in, you're doing good. If you've got an offer, that says a lot about your writing ability. Not that all good authors get published or all published authors are good, but being published serves as a sort of indicator that you're at least at a certain level of competence. This is important for a lot of the rest of the pros, because good editing doesn't much help a lousy manuscript. The pro here is the explicit indication that you've written something that has publishing potential - if it doesn't, then polishing your ms, marketing, etc. etc. has very little value. So that's a good thing to know :)
  • Professional editing. Good editing makes your book better. Usually, a lot better. You do want your book to be really really good, don't you? :P (...but see cons.)
  • Professional marketing and promotion. Publishers have access to marketing venues that an individual author can't get near. Conventions, catalogs, websites, contests, promotions; soliciting reviews from respected venues; getting media appearances and interviews. In today's glutted, over-saturated market, these are invaluable. (...but see cons.)
  • Professional distribution. E-books have changed this somewhat, particularly Amazon's distribution of self-published books. Nonetheless, an established publisher has tremendous advantages in getting books out to bookstores and libraries that an individual author can't hope to match. And this is important because the easier it is for a reader to stumble across your book and take it home, the greater the chance is that he'll read it.
  • Industry recognition. Previous published books look good on your credit list, and make it much easier to achieve future successes. You’ve made it before; that instantly sets you apart from the mass of slush who might not know how to string two words together or might go ballistic if an agent suggests that three semicolons is too much for one sentence. Doesn’t mean it’s an easy road, but they know that you know how to walk.
  • Saleable rights. Not every book has this potential, but plenty of books can earn some extra cash with translation rights, reprints, excerpts, even movie options (as opposed to actually buying rights to film, which is much much rarer and less of a consideration for most).

Cons

  • Hard to get into. It’s really, really, really tough to get published. Talent and effort help a lot, but they’re hardly a guarantee, let alone a swift entry pass. And plenty of times, industry practices and trends make it very difficult for a newcomer to actually get in, even if they write at about the same level that some published authors are.
  • Marketing effort expected from the author. While publishers market their books, it’s often far from the level or visibility of marketing that the author would like or expect. And authors are often expected to promote their books, in what can be a very arduous process -
  • Must work well with others. Since you're working in cooperation with lots of people who get a ton of control over your book, you need to be able to deal well with cooperative efforts and possibly painful compromises concerning your work.
  • Professional does not guarantee good. Writing, publishing, and marketing are fields that are both subjective and extremely risky. Editors, publishers and marketers are not automatically and infallibly right. This means you need to find a publisher whom you trust and respect, and you need to second-guess even the professional feedback you get.
  • Watch out for scams.

Big vs. Small

The main difference is that the entry bar is lower, but the publisher's resources are fewer, so they're less good at getting you the pros.

Self Publishing

Pros

  • No entry requirements
  • Complete control over final product
  • Profits are yours to keep

Cons

  • Lack of professional input
  • Amateur marketing efforts
  • Physical distribution difficult to nonexistent
  • Negative industry recognition
  • Book market is super-tough
  • Watch out for scams.

Self-Publishing vs. Vanity

Vanity publishing, by every definition I've found, seems strictly inferior to self-publishing - it's basically the same thing, but with more (false) pretension of getting you the pros of professional publishing. See: What's the distinction between "vanity publishing" and "self publishing"?

Creative New Approaches

This is reducible back to the other two categories. A great marketing concept is a great asset whichever publishing avenue you choose. Probably easier to market as you like if you're self-publishing, but again, this comes along with (A) having a lot more trouble reaching wide audiences, and (B) a greater chance that your brilliant marketing scheme isn't as brilliant as you thought.

In Summary

Traditional publishing offers modest percentages of a highly risky endeavor with a whole lot of quality control (which may be restricting and even mistaken). Self-publishing offers high percentages of a hugely risky endeavor with zero quality control (which many self-publishers do not properly appreciate the necessity of).

Therefore, self-publishing is most appropriate when one of the following applies:

  • Your book is such that its modest, targeted success is sufficient for you, while commercial publishers could not afford to invest in a niche product (nor an amateurishly published one, though many readers would not mind this in the least).
  • You are confident enough in the book and in your own marketing ability that you believe it will bring you greater success - i.e., that even absent the advantages of traditional publishing, you will sell enough that the advantages and rewards of self-publishing will play out in your favor.

In contrast, if you think your book has great potential but are not sure of your own ability to single-handedly bring it to fruition, then a publisher is likely to be both far better capable at that than yourself, and (when shopped to a wide range of publishers) a more informed opinion of the potential your book actually has.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »