Does self-publishing damage your reputation?

Discussion in 'Self-Publishing' started by cuzzo, Oct 2, 2011.

  1. Jefferson27

    Jefferson27 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1


    While I'm sure your comments are well intentioned, not sure they are entirely accurate, or even close.

    If at any point you want to go the route of an agent and a traditional publishing house (assuming they are still around then, kidding, kind of) they will look at one thing and one thing only to determine whether or not to take you work on, the likelihood it will bring them a profit. That's it.

    Now what ChickenFreak and others might be touching upon is this, there are plenty of bad attempts at literature out there that would otherwise not get published if not for the author going via the self-publishing route. Therefore there later attempts may also be of poor quality and thus have no chance of getting picked up by a traditional publisher. However, again, the quality of that work and its ability to sell in their eyes would be the determining factor. Not a failed attempt that they never even heard of in the past(self-published or otherwise).

    Many authors, even ones who have gone on to fame and fortune, have had early works that have faltered greatly. Whether they be self-published or not.

    Then there is the way of the industry, and people with good business sense or just common sense. I was told recently by an acquaintance who has had multiple national(Canada) best sellers that a friend of his and others(some whose books sell well, some not so much) he knows have gone the way of self publishing because the profit margin is much higher. No agent or publishing house to split percentage with. Is an initial fee of course but can be done fairly cost-effectively. But the point is that many in the industry are going that route because it boosts their final margin significantly.

    So if the worry to your reputation is in regard to self-publishing, it shouldn't be. It is actually funny and it will prove to be only more comedic as the years go by, because in almost certainty authors who you will never approach in regards to sales or talent have been self-publishing for years and that area is rapidly increasing. Your focus should be on your work, not your reputation anyway in my opinion. Plus your reputation will be tied to the quality of that work, not the route of publishing you choose to go.

    Now for those who still think they are too good to go the route of self-publishing. Maybe you should do your best to warn the likes of Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Stephen King and John Grisham about their reputations and future careers from being ruined from the taint of self-publishing.

    http://www.selfpublishingseminars.com/famousauthors.htm
     
  2. shadowwalker

    shadowwalker Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    847
    The profit margin may be higher if you don't count the total costs involved - which may include such trifling things as paying the author - or if the author is already established via commercial publishing. A commercial publisher will pay an advance. That's money upfront, in the author's pocket. How long will it take a self-published author to make that amount? And how much money and time (which also has to be paid for, unless one wants to work for free) will the publisher (not the author at this point) have to spend to reach those kinds of sales?

    But back to the matter at hand - if a self-published book looks like it was handled professionally - everything from cover and formatting to actual content (editing), it may not hurt. I'm not sure it would help. But if one's book looks like so many I've seen, it could definitely be one of those things an author shouldn't mention.
     
  3. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    The problem with this statement is that your manuscript has to receive a certain amount of attention from the editor and/or publisher before this determination can even be made. Not all manuscripts submitted receive this level of attention - the publishers simply get too many of them. Many go from the slush pile to the rejection pile with little more than a cursory review. All of the things Chicken Freak mentioned are actually right on target, because those preconceptions, if held by a publisher or editor, can prevent your manuscript from even receiving the level of consideration necessary for a determination of whether it will be profitable to the publisher. That's the reality. The publisher does not give each and every manuscript it receives the level of attention required to make the profitability determination. They weed many, many of them out very early in the process, and giving them a reason to make yours one of the ones that is discarded early is a bad idea.
     
  4. Jefferson27

    Jefferson27 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Okay well I just wrote a thorough response to both of the above stances against what I said, but it did not send for whatever reason, so please forgive me if this is a bit rushed.

    So quickly, extra cost of self-publishing - "The profit margin may be higher if you don't count the total costs involved - which may include such trifling things as paying the author - or if the author is already established via commercial publishing"

    Needing to pay the author? What the heck? While like I said before there are some production costs, when one self-publishes their own work, there is no extra cost for paying themselves a salary . . . not even sure how else to approach that.

    Secondly about not getting paid a substantial advance . . . Well, if you think you are going to get one that you can live on as you say, with your first book or any from a major publisher, not only good luck, but more relevant would be that such an author would already have a reputation that would not be tarnished by self-publishing any more than those who are doing it now or have done it are tarnished.
    Also, except for very few, large advances would not overtake the margin gain of taking in 100% profits from self-publishing. But sometimes, a business calculation would have to be made. However, bringing in 100% of the profits rather than a cut from a publisher, would likely outdo that several times over with sales(unless there is a ridiculous advance) if they reach best seller status, which those who receive big advances usually do. Point is this is not the scenario those who asked about this topic were referring to. Thus, it is not only an inaccurate stance, but also off-topic.

    Now to this post which included;

    "All of the things Chicken Freak mentioned are actually right on target, because those preconceptions, if held by a publisher or editor, can prevent your manuscript from even receiving the level of consideration necessary for a determination of whether it will be profitable to the publisher"

    1) You believe the publisher will see your manuscript and immediately recall your name for a work you published years ago? Really? Then immediately toss your manuscript away for doing something that many great authors have done over the years and many successful authors are currently doing now. Both speak for themselves whether they are "on target" with your misconceptions or not. I mean preconceptions of course.

    2) The fact that so many manuscripts are not given a fair chance no matter their quality like you stated is exactly making a case for self-publishing and is why the likes of Whitman, Twain, Grisham, King, and others went that route, and also combined with financial reasons why many successful authors are doing it now. Both are facts, not opinions of mine. As well as information any editor/publisher worth anything will know.

    Overall though, I did not put forward my information to criticize anyone else, and definitely not to have it diminish into a back and forth useless exercise as so many chat room/comments section discussions can turn into(not that it has yet). I did it only so that who asked the question and others who are interested in the answer, are not mislead. And of course they do not have to take my information and experiences over what you or even the consensus of some others here have said, they can do their own research and let the facts stand for themselves too. But did feel their was a need for some information of a different kind here. Thank You for allowing me to share.
     
  5. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    Not what I said.

    But unsurprisingly, as with many who adopt a wrong-headed position and then defend it zealously, staying on-point is a rarity. Easier to pretend something else was said. I'll leave you to it, and let the more discerning forum members view the information in the context presented.
     
  6. Jefferson27

    Jefferson27 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Your comments and those you called correct, I believe were regarding what I addressed above within the framework of the OVERALL TOPIC. I put forward the likeliest scenario that would have to occur for what you said to be correct. I also put it in question form and of course if you want to put forth a new on topic issue, you had that opportunity.

    And if my comments were not all about you and what you said, well then good, they were not supposed to be. But I guess I will have to wait for more "discerning forum members" to tell me if that was right or wrong. :)
     
  7. Jefferson27

    Jefferson27 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    On second thought, I can't let that pass. Staying on point would be focusing on you and what you did or did not say?
    I disagree that that is the point of this thread, however for the part dedicated partially to what you had said, I believe I did for what was useful. You were speaking about attention on one's manuscript and agreeing with the stance that self-publishing even decade ago a piece that went nowhere would decrease the likelihood of the publisher/editor picking it up then. That was the point of the thread and the original question posed. With 30 years being the cited example. Now with that piece of information, perhaps your last post was more of a confession of your own than something directed to me. In that case, I would have to give you much higher marks for accuracy than you would otherwise receive, because you are zealous, not staying on point, and definitely "wrong-headed" although I would never use that type of wording myself. You would be 3 of 3.

    But back on point, to what you said was correct and partially stated yourself, how would the publisher/editor even know you had a piece of self-published work 30 years ago if you did not tell them? That was my QUESTION. and did not know you could perceive that as being wrongheaded and zealous, but staying on the point of what you said is a rarity of mine. Yet in my defense, I'm more fact/purpose driven, and it is starting to appear those are two mutually exclusive fields.


    My wrong headed position? Really? Then you better get the word out to people who have actually had success in the industry and are self-publishing or have in the past. I'm sure they will listen to you.
     
  8. jamesE

    jamesE New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL. who is confusing self publishing with e publishing? If most books being sold will be online, through ebooks and POD, which author in his right mind would use a trad publisher? Who would give an additional 70% of his revenue to a publisher who is doing absolutely nothing for him? The only reason to use trad publishers now is to get into book stores, and book stores will be doing a disappearing act very soon.....


    Which is why i said "some of those will be published by trad publishers. But the vast majority won't."
     
  9. shadowwalker

    shadowwalker Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    847
    Unfortunately, many self-publishers do not consider paying themselves as authors - or as publishers. They consider all money coming in as profit; even if they subtract the amount of money they've spent, they don't consider the time they spent, either as author or publisher. And they don't get that money all at once - an advance - they have to wait until they hopefully sell enough books, which may be months and months down the road.

    Nowhere did I say someone could live off their advance. I know very few writers who can live off their writing. But I would much rather have that money in hand, without any money coming out of my pocket, and have the experts deal with the publishing.
     
  10. shadowwalker

    shadowwalker Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    847
    Unfortunately, many self-publishers do not consider paying themselves as authors - or as publishers. They consider all money coming in as profit; even if they subtract the amount of money they've spent, they don't consider the time they spent, either as author or publisher. And they don't get that money all at once - an advance - they have to wait until they hopefully sell enough books, which may be months and months down the road.

    Nowhere did I say someone could live off their advance. I know very few writers who can live off their writing. But I would much rather have that money in hand, without any money coming out of my pocket, and have the experts deal with the publishing.
     
  11. shadowwalker

    shadowwalker Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    847
    Who wants commercial publishers? The authors who don't wish to be publishers, for one group. Authors who want their books given the very best editing, marketing, and distribution, for another. Authors who don't want their books lost in a sea of ebooks that never should have been published for another. Commercial publishers do nothing for the author except get their books into bookstores? Obviously you don't know as much about commercial publishers as you seem to think you do.
     
  12. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Nothing other than giving the book credence by selecting it from among thousands of others, guiding the author through a process of editing and improving it, laying it out, creating a cover (ebooks do have "covers", even if they don't serve a physical purpose) and other advertising material, marketing it, getting it to reviewers who recognize the publisher and therefore give the book credence and choose to consider reviewing it, based on the publisher's reputation?

    Apparently all those editors, designers, and marketers are accomplishing nothing at all for the publishers - they should just fire them and print the author's unaltered as-submitted manuscript on plain white paper, because none of that other stuff matters a bit.

    OK, sorry for the sarcasm, but bookstores are not the point. Quality is the point. Again, I'd be delighted if there were a way for a reader to be reasonably confident of the quality of a self-published book, without having to read a few pages of several hundred of them. That's the problem to solve, and it's not solved yet.

    ChickenFreak
     
  13. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    Shadowwalker and CF:

    Let me suggest that you are wasting your electronic breaths :D
     
  14. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Yeah, I know. But it is true that I'd _like_ to see a solution to the winnowing problem - I'm not just using it as a debating point. I'm apparently under the delusion that if I can get the dedicated self-publishing advocates to acknowledge the problem, they might work on it. (For example, it seems to me that in theory, it should be possible to set up some kind of reviewing standard or...er... something.)

    But it is probably a delusion on my part. :)
     
  15. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    I would too. And I'm a huge advocate of self-publishing. I have sold short stories, but my only published book is self-published, so I have a personal interest in seeing that model succeed. But I'm also a reader and I think the problems you point out with respect to self-publishing are on target from a reader's perspective. And of course this thread starting with a question about reputations, and I do think that among traditional publishers it harms one's reputation. Or at least among many of them. I've been told directly by editors at big markets and publishing houses not to mention any self-published credits if I pursue traditional publishing because it looks bad. One of them, from a big publisher, told me the message he gets is that not even the author considers the work worth being paid for or good enough to be published by others.
     
  16. shadowwalker

    shadowwalker Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    847
    Oh, I know, too. I've gone through this discussion so many times on so many forums. I guess I just keep going because I don't want other people to get into SP looking at the fool's gold so many are salting the internet with. I'd rather they did it with eyes wide open.
     
  17. Jefferson27

    Jefferson27 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not really, I read and listen to those opposed to me. I try only to hold a stance on a position being correct until another position credibly improves upon it. (And for the person who jumped over someone else for not identifying a quote before, I believe this is fairly close to a famous quote by possibly Lincoln, so relax not trying to take credit for anything).

    But the point is that that is what I try to do. And while I do find some credibility in some of what has been posted in the favor of self-publishing hurting your rep in the eyes of some, and of course it would to some, as it does in yours for instance or people you know. Although you noted Steerpike that your only published book is self-published. Which is surprising to me if you think it is such a blow to one's reputation and if you've been told by someone whose opinion you find valid that it sends the message "that not even the author considers the work worth being paid for or good enough to be published by others." Is that how you felt about your work?

    Personally while I could see some people holding that view, it is exactly the idea that I do not believe in. While it may be the case, it does not send that view because I know of authors who have published books with traditional publishers that have been successful and could publish there more recent works with them also. However, they choose to self-publish. They do so for different reasons, and while I can not know for certain the exact reasons for each one, I do know that none of the reasons were that they did not value their work or think it could not be published otherwise.

    So while your typing breath has not been wasted on me, I just do not ignore the other side to the argument. We may have to agree to disagree on certain aspects, however, it does seem possible that we are closer to agreement on the issue, and just putting forth the opposing sides. Long as people realize that credible and prosperous authors have self-published in the past and that the industry is shifting in that direction at least a little, then all the better.
     
  18. Jefferson27

    Jefferson27 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    Never knew you were such a humanitarian :p
     
  19. shadowwalker

    shadowwalker Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    847
    I'm not. I just detest snake oil sales pitches.
     
  20. JSLCampbell

    JSLCampbell New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    East Sussex - United Kingdom
    The self-publishing route does command that you have to become more of a writer/entrepreneur hybrid. If you are that, and know how to market, maximize profits, and have all those skills that a clever businessman has, then it's going to be a better move. Business means you need control, and self-publishing gives you much more of that too. In fact, I think the first person to reach 1million e-books, John Locke, treated the whole thing as much more of a business endeavour. I'd like to self-publish at least a few books because I want to try my hand at that, but then I'm much more interested in that side of things than a lot of writers.

    If you just want to be a writer, though, then traditional publishing all day long. The emphasis is much more on being just a writer, and they handle that all for you.


    So, I wouldn't knock anybody going either way, but it really depends on what you want to be. Self Publishing gives you control and a larger percentage of the profits, but also brings the risk, and takes away the professional guidance (unless you want to pay for it).
     
  21. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    A larger percentage of the profits _per sale_. Yes, I realize that that's implied by the definition of "profits", but I think that it's important for a self-publisher to realize that he absolutely cannot assume that he'll make as many sales, or even a tiny fraction as many sales, as a professional publishing house. Ten times the dollars per sale accomplishes little if the author makes one-hundredth as many sales.
     
  22. jonmaxwell

    jonmaxwell New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    its fine.
     
  23. TH3T4

    TH3T4 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, the people are right, i dont think it would affect sales but it might affect other things.
     
  24. JSLCampbell

    JSLCampbell New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    East Sussex - United Kingdom
    Well, it seems to me that there are so many variables involved. But, traditional publishing is still an incredibly tough avenue in itself. It depends on the aspiration of the author, but if we assume under normal circumstances a traditionally published book sells 1000 copies over its life and thus a self-publisher sells 10, for an author wanting to hit it big time neither figure means much. If luck is going to determine whether the book takes off, again depending on what the author's aims are, it could be better for that to occur with a book that's self-published. Hypothetically, As an author for a book I publish either traditional or myself, the overwhelming chances are the book won't be successful either way. I personally don't believe a traditional publisher will handle it in some special way that's going to drastically improve the chances of the book being a major success - or, at least, I have to believe the position that I'd be sufficiently talented an entrepreneur that I could achieve the same outcome (exposure to the public). On that point, that's essentially what you want a publisher to do. You're assuming (assuming the book is of good quality) traditional publishing can get more people to read your book than you can, and all the details (the cover art, the editing, the price, the marketing, getting in touch with reviewers, putting it in book stores and so on) are just what they're doing to achieve that as best as possible, as obviously book sales and profit is linked. If for any reason you think you can get more people to buy/read your book, or if you want to take it as an actual challenge, then you may as well cut the traditional publisher out, otherwise you're essentially paying for a service you don't need and losing control to top that. But this is why self publishing means treating the whole thing as much more of a business, and you have to take all the risk that you actually don't have what it takes to get the book to more people than a publisher could have for you.

    So I guess it depends. Either way the odds are firmly against your book being a massive worldwide success, so having 10% or 70% isn't going to make much different. At smaller volume of sales it may work out that you sell enough books with a traditional that you financially out-perform even the percentage extra for a self-published version, which may be nice, if you want to make okay profits out of your endeavour. Then again, I had read this article: http://write2publish.blogspot.com/2011/04/midlist-authors-traditional-or-self.html which compared profits between a traditional and a self-published author. Obviously it's only one example, but I've never got the sense from anywhere that there is some kind of massive gulf between self-publishers and traditional publishers in terms of profits. And then you have to throw in all the other variables, not least the quality of the work (as anybody can self-publish that market is going to be full of a load of terrible books which keeps average sails low, whereas all traditionally published writers are going to be much more competent).
     
  25. shadowwalker

    shadowwalker Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    847
    Personally, I would hesitate to accept at face value figures and claims made by anyone who uses terms such as 'legacy publishers'. It's an indication of obvious bias, and frankly, I have a hard time viewing any information from the 'cheerleaders' without great skepticism. Particularly when numbers typically given are "possible outcomes" - not "probable". Anything is possible - probable is a horse of a different color.

    I think it's a matter of common sense. An author who has to pay for all services (that fact in itself puts the author in the hole), receives nothing upfront, and has very little in terms of marketing power is definitely at a disadvantage when compared to the author who has professionals doing all of this for him/her *and* has received an advance (money in pocket now). Not to mention, of course, the time spent on the publishing side which is not time spent writing the next book.

    Now obviously, the author who goes through agents/commercial publishers takes a chance of not getting published, while the author who does it themselves is already out there. But if that book is lost in a sea of books because the only real advertising is word of mouth (or blog), does it really matter? And if that book hasn't been properly edited, or has a lousy cover, or has formatting problems...
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice