I didn't get all the way through the comments, but I thought, in spite of the already published typos in the article by this well known figure, he knew what a transom was and I don't mean the motor board on the stern of a boat. I've had no luck with agents. Vanity press seems vulgar, but it seems to be the growing trend. One forum I frequented for a while fed me the thought that publishers don't like to publish work they see has already been published. What Mr. Smith says about "indie publishing" seems in line with what Picasso says about painting, comparatively, in that you don't learn to do anything by not doing it. Write. Publish. Repeat. Sounds like shampoo.
This article may have been through this forum already but some of the stats in it relate to this thread. Why Genre Rules e-Books, and What the Big Publishers Are Doing About It
As to the promotional assistance, do you mean if they get picked up by a trade publisher? I'm not clear on what you mean there. But certain genres do seem to work a bit better for self-publishing than others. M/M romance for one; I've heard that fantasy books also do well, comparatively speaking. And of course, nonfiction has always been strong for self-publishers. But definitely authors need to look at their book, their audience, their own expertise, their interests, and more pragmatically, at their finances, to determine which is the best route for them and that particular book (because it doesn't have to be a permanent, never-do-the-alternative method, of course). There is no "one size fits all" in publishing. That's the bottom line.
No. At the pitch session they never look at the writing. And they know you've practiced and polished the pitch till it's perfect. You may even have had help, even paid help in writing it. So unless it obviously has no merit they'll say to send it in. But once it gets there it's read like anything else that comes in over the transom. The simple truth is that the editors say yes to anyone who seems not to have their thumb up their ass. Look at the numbers. You've paid to attend a conference. You've paid to sit with the editor and make your pitch. You've had transportation and lodging costs. So for an agreement from one publishing house to look at your submission you've spent a fair piece of change. But for under a buck you can query an agent who, if they like your submission, will send it to more then a few publishers. There's no guaranteed sale, of course, but if that editor/publisher you would have pitched to is one of those the agent queries, their reaction will be precisely the same as had you sent it to them following the conference. Sure, if they say yes you pay a commission, but a good agent will get you more money so it might be a wash. In any case, if someone like Noah Lukeman or Don Maass has it the odds of success are a lot better than with that single editor at the conference.
Indie publishing is losing its stigma. As for the idea that publishers aren't interested in anything that's already been self-pubbed, many on this forum also promote the idea, but that's not the whole story. The idea is, if it's already been published once, then why would publishers pay to distribute a book that's already available to the public, sometimes for free? (so the publishers have lost the first publishing rights) But then you look at, say, 50 Shades - the publishers came calling because the book was doing so well. Essentially, all that matters is: does your book sell? Sure if you self-pubbed your book and then it makes peanuts, of course no one's gonna want it. But say it makes big bucks, then what the publishers would have if they bought your book is a platform of ready-made fans and supporters and enthusiasm, and therefore guaranteed big bucks. Why wouldn't they want to buy your book then? The question then for you is, why would you want to sell your book? Which is the author's point when he mentioned "if your book's bringing you $3000 per month..." The only question left is: would your book have sold more with a better marketing/sales backing, which requires a healthy budget, which only publishers can provide? But then again, publishers rarely pour all that much effort on marketing a new book from a new author because it might not sell. And nowadays agents and publishers both require the author to take part in the marketing and sales work. Whenever I've read that, I've always wondered to myself, "Then why on earth am I selling my book to you in the first place?" Look, I want an agent/publisher precisely because I don't want to do the marketing and sales. So if I'm gonna be required to do the same work as them, on top of giving them the bulk of my profit, on top of knowing for a fact they wouldn't try terribly hard or put much money behind the book - they wanna have the cake and eat it too, do none of the work but take a slice of profit, and we're letting them. Why on earth would I do that!? I'm still leaning towards traditional publishing, but I do rather like the idea of sending it direct to an editor. And in the end, if it's a choice between my book sitting on my shelf to rot or push it out on Amazon by myself, I'd rather do the latter. Most of us never started writing for the money anyway, so what difference does it make?
@Mcck, Best advice I've seen to date. I'm in a bit of an unusual category as it is, because I not only write, but illustrate. ( http://crenation.forumchitchat.com/post/the-site-creators-first-gallery-6635704?trail=15#1 I started a forum for the purpose of having a repository for my own work, i.e. artwork .) The approach I considered was the self publish (say Amazon) route to get my feet wet, but also to provide a simple link to a synopsis for a potential editor that would likely remain permanent. So much has changed in printing over just the last 15 years...
@JayG - thanks for clarifying. I agree with you. @Mcck - I am still leaning that way, myself, but at this point it will be at least a year and maybe longer before I am at a decision point, so I intend to keep my eyes open to evolving trends.
Indie publishing never had a stigma. Self-publishing did - but you're right in that the stigma is disappearing. A couple misconceptions here. Publishers do put effort into marketing new books - they want them to sell so everybody at least breaks even. Why go to all the expense of publishing the book if they're not going to market it, or if they think it won't sell? It may not get the magazine ads that big authors get, but most marketing is not in advertising to readers - it's getting the book into retailers' hands. Second, agents and publishers do not require authors to take part in marketing and sales (agents don't deal with that anyway). Publishers may encourage authors to do promotional things, but unless you're dealing with a smaller indie publisher, that's still not a requirement. There's a saying on another forum about it being better to not be published than to be published badly. So unless you're planning on using a pen name (or several) and hoping people don't connect the dots, it does matter - because it's your writing reputation on the line.
I take marketing and promoting to be essentially the same thing. I have come across agents who say they do expect authors to get involved in this aspect of the work, although of course it could be only my own assumption that they meant anything beyond being present at book events etc. I am under the impression that a lot of agents nowadays want the author to maintain a blog for example, for the sake of exposure and marketing and if said author don't have a blog then they are expected to be willing to create and maintain one. Now for my book's sake I'd do that anyway, but I don't see why I should be expected/required to do it. As for publisher backing the book - I don't mean they won't promote it at all. That would be against their interests. But I mean they'd assign it a very small budget to keep it as low risk as possible. So if the book bombs, the publisher hasn't lost much since they never invested much. I'd say this is the same in most businesses. Publishers won't direct their customers to you over directing them to their bestsellers. So I guess saying publishers won't back your book is an exaggeration, but I still believe that they won't do half as much as we think they would, or should. If they have say, 9 well-known authors and another 10 bestsellers to push out, how much man-power, resources and most of all, budget, do you really think they're gonna assign to your debut? As for publishing badly - well, that's a thin line to walk, isn't it? Which author would consciously push out something they think was genuinely bad? Whatever an author self-pubs, they believe it is of their best quality at the time (unless they're actually dumber than the ones who push out bad books). So while you're right that it's your reputation on the line and pushing out a bad book would hurt your writing future, I'm not sure what one is to do about that besides wait for trad publishing (since by nature of trad publishing, you're waiting for an outside party's approval on your work's quality). But I don't think you're saying we should always wait for this, so there's not much more to do other than well, as I said, push out your books via Amazon or other self-pub platforms rather than wait for them to rot. One question. So what's the difference between indie publishing and self-publishing? Self-pubbing is of course making the book available yourself without paying any third parties and doing everything yourself. And what about indie?
I would define "indie publishing" as referring to publishing outside of the big, established, corporate-owned houses. So, anything from POD outfits like Ridan to vanity presses like PublishAmerica to do-it-yourself e-books on Amazon, et al. In my view, self-pubbing is a subset of indie publishing.
By published badly, does this mean publishing poorly written and/or poorly edited and/or poorly presented, or published on a bad publication site?
The first definition is correct in the publishing profession. However, vanity presses are not considered "indie publishers" because they charge the author to purportedly publish their books, which reputable indies do not do. Self-publishing can't really be considered indie publishing either unless the author is also publishing other authors.
[breaking glass] our hero reaches for the emergency cyanide capsule, then fumbles it watching a mouse scurry to snatch it up as his precious cat pounces on the mouse...
You miss the most important point. Unless you already have a name advertising would be a waste of time. Great reviews, the advice of a friend, and hand selling by the people in the store are what generate the most sales in the bookstore. Bookstores don't simply stock whatever a publisher sends them. They have to be talked into stocking it. The publisher has to convince them that they won't be wasting the space, because every pocket that's not producing revenue lowers the bottom line. Sometimes, because a publisher buys an endcap display for a novel they expect to do well, the bookstore take something they have no confidence in, but none the less, you have to earn that spot on the shelf. But look at the benefit. Every single customer for your genre sees your book because it's right there in front of them. You have every bit as good a chance of being noticed as any other book. Yes, people will take a name they recognize and like, first, but still, if the title and cover attract they will audition you. And your customer has a choice, in their genre, of a thousand books or so. On Amazon the number of choices is pretty much infinite, with every one of them shouting, "Buy me, I'm great!"
What you're investing in with an agent, or even with a publisher, is a network. All the key contacts that only come from industry success, experience, and reputation. That isn't all you get out of the association, but it's the piece that you can't put together yourself by sheer ornery gumption. And if you think you can get by without that ioece, more power to you. Self-reliance is an important trait for a writer. Creativity flourishes when a writer depends on no one but himself or herself. But there's a time to go it alone, and there's a time to set that aside and take advantage of expert assistance. Publication is the latter.
Well said. The second best piece of advice I've seen in this thread. This is what I see. Amazon can get me published through CreateSpace. It's up to me to copyright and promote. A well written, well edited book could gain some market impetus on a well designed, well written, well edited (Smith's narcissist page is not well edited with all those typos...) and preponderated website that uses all available marketing outlets and gimmicks to draw attention to the site that has the book nested and lurking as the prize to be had. Buzz cut kitties draw lots of attention. I would always have the website as proof for my insanity defense. Once I have an online following, I can take out an 800 number (1-800-4my-book) hire a few models in thongs, sport rockets red glare et al that taking out that second mortgage on my house will allow. Then I can make my own binding jigs, fixtures and French assembly line, buy that end cap space and spend countless hours in church because I'll likely have to rent out my house to make the new mortgage payments. Problem solved. Yes, Virginia. There is a future to indie publishing.
But, Jay, it seems you ended up actually AGREEING with me, rather than disagreeing. You say advertising is useless unless you already have a name, and the go on to say that the buyer will likely give you a chance assuming they like the title/cover and sees your book. So... it's not useless then. That spot at the front of the bookstore, as you said yourself, doesn't come handed to you on a plate. The publisher has to persuade the bookstore to do this, has to perhaps buy the spot with real money - well, lookit here, would a publisher really do that for a newbie's debut? That's what I mean - that a publisher wouldn't, or probably wouldn't anyway. Therefore back to what I said about the publisher assigning a small budget to you and not making all that much effort in marketing your book. While I agree with you that the thing that sells the most books is of course word of mouth and good reviews, but it's silly to say marketing is "useless". Useless it is not, because even bestsellers require marketing. If no one knows the book is there, no one will buy it and there will be no word of mouth. Now if bestsellers need marketing, how much more marketing does a debut require? A lot more, I'd say. As you implied, people are less likely to buy you simply because they don't know you - then you have to be all that much more persuasive, which is... marketing. And by logic of saying there's no point in marketing unless you had a name for yourself already (because what else then would persuade someone to read your book? Any kind of ad or sales pitch or even posting links to get word out there is a kind of marketing), then there's no hope for new writers. But it is because marketing does work that new writers have hopes of gaining a readership at all. The point of marketing is also not only to announce the book's existence and make it look good - the point of marketing is to generate interest, or better yet, generate hype. For example, as good as Harry Potter might be, does it warrant the obsession that at least England went through? No. There're thousands of books written better and with a better story. Yes, a completely terrible book with nothing to offer wouldn't do well regardless of how much marketing is behind it. But equally I think a great book will not always be recognised as such without the right marketing. It's as much about psychology as it is about book quality.
Regardless of how many times they are told not to, many people will judge a book by its cover. I never would have stolen and read Bertram Chandler's "Rendezvous on a Lost World" were it not for the cover art. I was 10 and couldn't afford the book. Had I seen the cover art first for Azimov's "I Robot" collection, I wouldn't have bought it. Instead the Sci-fi book club presented it with a lithographed pencil illustration of one of the short stories.
Mckk, the problem with the discussion here is that you keep equating marketing with promotion/advertising. It's not the same thing. It just isn't. Marketing is on the retailer side; promotion/advertising is on the reader side. Two different audiences, two different purposes. Until you see the difference, discussion is just at cross purposes.
It's true, I don't see the difference. Even with that, I don't see how anything I've said about the publisher not marketing your books too fervently is wrong? I'd probably get it if you endeavoured to explain it to me in a little bit of detail, but that should probably be in a PM! Well, if I'm still wrong, it's just as well that I never intend on going into business then eh?
They do that in the moment, in the bookstore, because it's so easy to do—because it "catches" their eye. . No one is going to look at an ad for someone they've not heard of and rush to the bookstore with a burning desire to read it. Nor will they seek it when they're there because they read an ad. These aren't my personal opinions I'm giving. it's industry data you can find online. Here's some comments from several sources. That they don't work is evident in the fact that the few ads you do see are for authors who have a following, and they're mostly to let the following know that something new is available. How many times in the past month have you seen an ad for a book, as against cars, detergents, and beer? That, in and of itself, tells you how effective they are.
I like to equate advertising books with real estate open houses. It's well known among real estate professionals that open houses rarely sell the house being shown. What it does do is give the agency (and agent holding the open house) exposure and leads (possible buyers). Ads for books do the same thing - they bring attention to new offerings by the publisher and/or the retailer. And while readers are initially looking for the latest and greatest from their favorite author, they may also find another book they like. It's a draw for the publisher/retailer, nothing more.
Quite often, really. They call them infomercials. Talk shows also tout new books from world famous authors we've never heard of.
Most of those books are the "make a gazillion buying real estate" types, however - not to mention airing at some ungodly hour so only insomniacs see them anyway.
