I suppose you can check to see how many authors have been published by this 'indie' publisher. If it's just the one ...well, you've probably got your answer. Unfortunately, many readers won't bother checking, and will just assume something about the quality of the work that may, or may not, be correct. I do think that self-publishing, now that it's so easy to do, probably needs to establish some kind of quality control over itself. Reviews are one way to do it, but not if the reviews come from family and friends who are simply trying to boost the author's sales. It's an open topic, isn't it? How to work quality control that the readers can trust into the mix. If authors could submit their self-published books for an independent review, by a panel of reviewers that other people trust, that would maybe help. Of course the reviewers would be swamped with submissions. But they wouldn't need to respond to any they didn't like. If they only review books they liked, their response wouldn't hurt anybody's sales, but would help to promote the 'good ones.' If a book didn't get a review, that could mean the author just didn't submit it, or the reviewers haven't got around to reading it yet, or whatever. Not being reviewed wouldn't be a black mark against the author. But GETTING a good review might be a big boost. Dunno. Just a thought. I often buy books on the basis of reviews. Not reviews on Amazon, (or not very often, anyway) but certainly reviews in newspapers and magazines. A well-written review can certainly sell a book.
Hi Bay, But while you're saying that perhaps you should be considering what it is that makes an indie (non self published) publisher different from any big five publisher. The success of the company? Because that's just a cop out in my view. An artificial distinction. You're all just trade publishers. And to get back to the theme of legitimacy didn't small press publishers use the termy independant publisher as a means of gaining legitimacy themselves? They wanted to be perceived as somehow distinctive from the larger companies. Better somehow. Of greater originality or quality. And now that self publishers claim the same mantle they want to object? Isn't that hypocracy? Because in my view there are indies and there are trade publishers. Trade publishers take works from other authors and publish them then pay back royalties etc. Indies do their own thing. Cheers, Greg.
I think independent publishers are different from Big Five publishers mostly based on size. But the publication path is the same - both types of publishers have industry professionals sorting through and selecting manuscripts, editing them, promoting them, etc. I don't think independent publishers were necessarily trying to distinguish themselves from the Big Five - I can't really see why they'd want to, business-wise. And I'm not sure they're the ones who labelled themselves as independent. It's just a descriptor, I think, not a marketting tool. In their case. And I'm not sure Independent Publishers are the ones who "want to object" to self-publishers trying to take over their descriptive term. In this thread, at least, it's been writers who are objecting, and we're doing it because there's a lack of clarity if the term means two distinct things at once. As you say, there are "indies" and there are trade publishers. You seem to agree that it's important to keep this distinction clear, so I think you pretty much agree with me that it's not practical to use the same term for both independent publishers and self-publishers. Right? You just seem to think... what? That we should make up a new word to use for independent publishers, rather than maintain the distinctions that already exist in "self-publisher" and "independent publisher"? Does that really make sense? (And, for clarity based on your pronoun use in the sentence "You're all just trade publishers"... I'm not an independent publisher. I have books with some independent publishers, but I don't own a publishing company...?)
Hi Bay, First up apologies about the pronouns. Second, no. I don't think small press should be called indies at all. They are trade publishers every bit as much as the big five. Calling them indies gives them a cache they simply aren't entitiled to for the most part in my view. To my mind an indie should be a publisher who has not sold his work to another organization with commercial aspirations. Who does not intend for his work to be turned into something not true to his vision in order to sell. The only exception I would make would be for author's collectives who publish and non commercial press. Of course I know that a great many authors do want to write the next Twilight or Fifty Shades and do compromise their vision - if they can truly be said to have one - for sales. But for me they are still indies - just sad indies. (Indie - Lite?) They are independant of the trade publishing concerns. Cheers, Greg.
But they've been called independent publishers for decades. It's because they're independent of the Big Five... And I'm not sure how much self-publishers deserve to be termed "independent", considering how completely dependent so many of them are on Amazon... Yeah, this argument doesn't work for me. I'm not worried about "cachet" one way or another. I just want clarity. And it doesn't make sense to try to transition word usage. Not to me. And, again, I'm wasting time on a self-publishing thread! I clearly lack discipline! I'm gone, now. Scold me sharply if I return.
Wait. So you're trying to confiscate the term "independent publisher" for EXCLUSIVE use by self publishers? The independent publishers that have been using that term for decades should give it up?
I don't agree with the idea of stopping use of the term for entities that it has described from the outset (and, I expected, created to describe). I do think it makes sense to widen it to encompass more of the plain meaning of the term.
Yes, that's what independent is meant to signify. Self-publishers are also independent of the big five, so the term describes them as well, on its face. The question is which of them deserve the term "publisher" and which do not.
Hi, I agree it's probably not fair to kick small press out of the indie band wagon in some ways. But for me the question becomes - what the hell were they ever truly independant of? Just the big five? Because that's hardly a ringing endorsement of independance. They are still all the same beast - trade publishers. Self publishers, author collectives and non profit publishers can however, legitimately make the claim that they are truly independant. It's a better fit for the term, especially within the literal meaning of independant. Cheers, Greg.
"In some ways"? What gives you the idea that you're allowed to decide who gets to use a phrase that has been used for decades? Who put you in charge of language? What does that mean? What's wrong with trade publishers? What is so inherently evil about the idea that a business (gasp!) helps an author publish a book? ("Oh, my God, it's a book! It's WORDS ON A PAGE! Run faster, RUUUUUUUUUUUN! It wants to eat your brain!") Independent of what? Can I assume that you would also withdraw your approval of a self publisher who ever wants to be paid for their work? After all, if they get paid, they're dependent on the money of the reader. And that you would disapprove of them ever wanting to be read? After all, that would make them dependent on the time and attention of the reader. So I'm thinking that an "indie publisher" should be someone that scribbles with homemade ink on homemade papyrus (after all, we wouldn't want them to be dependent on manufactured products) and buries the result in their back yard.
My God, my independent TRADE publisher did such horrifying things as: Providing a professional editor who made my story 10000000% better Commissioning original cover art that was so awesome I cried when I saw the proof Selling my book on multiple platforms in both ebook and print formats including Amazon, B&N, iTunes and Smashwords Soliciting reviews via ARC's on NetGalley Paying me quarterly royalties in a timely manner EEEEEEEVILLLLL I TELL YOU
This has been interesting, but at the end of the day I think everyone is smart enough to know if they are being deceptive with the terms they use. If someone asks who's your publisher, are you really going to say "Oh, this small indie press called White Lies?" Or are you going to say you published it yourself? And just like self publishing, I think that's a choice as well.
I don't think that's the issue so much, for most. It's more a discussion of business categorization. If a self-publisher is a subset of the set of independent publishers, the person would still respond to such a query by saying self-published because that term provides additional information. However, from the business side of things there is no reason not to consider them an independent publisher, since on the face of it that's what they are, so one wonders at the consternation associated with their accurate use of the terminology.
Hi Chicken, "What does that mean? What's wrong with trade publishers? What is so inherently evil about the idea that a business (gasp!) helps an author publish a book? ("Oh, my God, it's a book! It's WORDS ON A PAGE! Run faster, RUUUUUUUUUUUN! It wants to eat your brain!")" Did I say it was wrong? Evil? Did I say any of that? No. Stop reading meanings into my words that simply aren't there. The point is that in my view the "independant" part of independant publisher means someone who is outside of the established publishing system. Big five and small press are both trade publishers. They both don't "help an author publish a book" as you put it. They purchase the rights from an author to publish their book and then make it fit their commercial template better. That's not a judgement, it's simply a statement of what they do. Self publishers are not part of the same system. And you can make the same argument for authors collectives and non profits. So they are truly independant. Outside of the system. They fit the actual term independant publisher better. Cheers, Greg.
That may be your view, but the term wasn't coined by you, so you really can't come after the fact to redefine it. That is, you can try, but it's not going to catch on. And why would you assume that a self publisher wouldn't also alter their book to make it sell? You seem to assume that no self publisher ever cares about money. But self publishers frequently point to the royalty rate received by traditionally published authors. Their conversation is frequently about money.
That is 100% the opposite of my experience with my independent publisher. The editing and marketing process was enormously collaborative, and I had the right to refuse any editorial changes - which in quite a few cases I did. I was presented with several options for cover art and picked the one I liked best even though the Editor In Chief was leaning towards a different one. Did you look at the list above of what my publisher provides me with? How are any of those services not helping an author publish their book?
Hi Laurin, Glad it worked out for you. You're missing the point though. If someone was helping you publish your book - you would be publishing it. You aren't - they are. That's why it's trade publishing. It's sort of a definitional thing. Cheers, Greg.
...yeah, the publisher is publishing something. Why that means that they can't be an independent publisher is something that you still haven't really explained. Because they need the author? They may also need companies who own presses, and people who own bookstores. Self publishers also usually need someone--it's rare that a self publisher owns his own physical press and owns the store or website that sells his work, from top to bottom. So?
Hi Chicken, But what are they independant of? The big five? Big deal! Couldn't the big five then turn around and call themselves indies on this basis because they are independant of other publishing companies? The term becomes meaningless. Self publishers by contrast are completely independant of the entire trade publishing system. They use other services. Other publishers don't use them. Cheers, Greg.
It's not meaningless. It's significant, both as an identifier of their size and position in the market, and can also be useful as a marketing tool. We have bookstores here that are called "independent" bookstores, meaning they're not Barnes and Noble or some other national chain. Likewise, we have independent coffee shops (namely, not Starbucks). Far from being meaningless, that's actually the genesis of the terminology and it has been used that way for decades.
It really doesn't. "Indie" is very frequently about the size of a company and its relative freedom of action. You are choosing to make it about whether all aspects of the process are done by the same person or group. We have no obligation to agree to your takeover of that word. A local soda company that sells a few thousand bottles a year is "indie" in my book, even if they buy some of their recipes from someone outside the company. Coca-Cola is not "indie"--they're a massive corporate monstrosity. If Coca-Cola buys the local soda company and tells them what to do, the local soda company ceases to be "indie", even if at the same time the recipes are all created within the company. "Indie," to me, means that THE COMPANY does pretty much what they please. (For this reason, I think that when a company starts selling stock publicly, it's a stretch to call them indie.) You seem to be deciding that it also requires that the author or other creator do what they darn well please. But the term under discussion is not "indie author." The term is "indie publisher."
But just because you have a coffee maker and make coffee for yourself every morning, it does not make you and independent coffee shop. Sure, you can use or twist the words to match the definition you want. But we all know there is a huge difference between self publishing and having someone else publish your work. It just is what it is no matter what you want to call it.
Hi Chicken, No, what I'm saying is that an indie should be someone who publishes what they damned well please. They may choose to follow market trends. They may choose not to. The point is that they make the decisions and not some trade publishing concern. The term cannot be indie author since every author must be independant save for perhaps ghost writers etc. And Steerpike, I know the genesis of the term. And I think that's the heart of the issue. At the time when indie was coined for non big five publishers they were as independant as you could get. Self publishing largely didn't exist and what there was was largely vanity publishing. Now that situation no longer applies and small presses are no longer the definition of independant. Self publishers are. Times change and the term better fits self publishers. Cheers, Greg.
