Self publishing - is it worth it? Sucess stories?

One of the reaons I joined this forum was to find out what the writing community thought of self-publishing, and judging by your view, Cogito, the situation is completely cut and dried. I don't know whether to be grateful for such certainty or disppointed that there's no grey area here! Suffice it to say that your view alone has given me cause to rethink.

I realise you are being vehement in this posting to make your view plain, but I have to throw in at least a small qualification. I can see that if I write a book, offer it to dozens of agents over the space of several years, then self-publish, I'm probably ignoring the writing on the wall; but to take an extreme opposite case to make a point, what if I write a brilliant book, offer it to no agents at all, but simply self-publish? I realise not many people would do that, but you probably see my point. If one cuts one's losses after a given period of trying the conventional route, surely that in itself doesn't prove that the book has no merit? Many other factors must have a bearing too.

 

Hi Cogito,

I agree and disagree. Self publishing is often a form of surrender - it certainly was in my case as after years of approaching agents and going the trad route I had fairly much given up. But at the same time times are changing and many people are not even bothering with agents any more. They aren't surrendering so much as not even bothering to fight the war.

As for the satisfaction, not so sure. There is a lot of satisfaction with simply completing a book and getting it published to the best of your ability, and seeing it up there in the various stores. There is satisfaction in seeing the sales numbers tick over and receiving good reviews (that you hopefully haven't arranged yourself). There is satisfaction in receiving those cheques every month even if they aren't going to buy you a house.

I think self publishing is more a wild journey to author success, which most will not be able to complete. Think of trad publishing as going through an agent, getting a ticket and hoping on the ship and hoping it's not the Titanic. Self publishing is more like skipping that entire step because you couldn't get a ticket, not even steerage, and simply building your own dingy and setting sail. You are far more at the fickle whim of the ocean, critics and readers and so forth will blow you around in all directions, and most won't reach their destination. But at least you're sailing and not sitting on the shore watching the cruise liners leaving without you.

And besides, part of the value is in the journey. I may not be cruising in luxury but I am on a journey and enjoying the salt air. How many others are still sitting on the docks waiting for a ticket that will never come?

Cheers, Greg.

 

Personally for me, perhaps the most useful things traditional publishers provide is actually reading the book and giving feedback/getting it to an editor (if it gets to that stage). Other than that, from what I've heard/read about traditional publishing, I don't care to go through the hassle. I'll most likely stick to e-book publishing and do my own marketing, since that'll probably cost me fewer nerve cells overall.

 

I'm not sure what hassle you mean - perhaps the query process? Other than that, trade publishers are going to be handling all the hassles that you, as a self-publisher, will have to deal with.

 

The query process included, yep. I'd hate to go through the entire fiasco with book proposals and agents and meetings, etc. which can delay my book from actually getting published for a year or more, when I can as easily, say, submit it for Kindle and have it up in a day or two. It's compounded by things like there being really no guarantee that the publishers will do much (if any, in worst case scenarios) marketing for me, especially if I do my own marketing as well (which I would be doing for my book in any case), and even if they do it probably wouldn't be very effective without my involvement anyway. Then there's of course the smaller issue that I'll have less control over the content/cover/design/whatnot. Well, and royalties are almost sure to be higher.

Most likely a lot of people don't have my experience/platform/contacts/whatever else to say with confidence they'd rather self-publish, but to me traditional publishing sounds like more trouble than it's worth compared to self-publishing on e-book.

 

No, they don't. They care whether they can make enough money that publishing the novel will make sense. They won't reject a popular novel (or one they like which hasn't sold well) just because they don't have first publication rights, though it would obviously be part of their calculation.

Numerous people have later sold some or all rights for their self-published novels to trade publishers. Most won't because their novel isn't commercially viable for them, but claiming that you can't possibly sell a novel to a trade publisher without first publication rights is silly when the #2 best-seller slot on Amazon is currently held by a novel that was previously published on a fan-fiction site (and the #1 slot is a compilation of the trilogy).

 

Well, one problem with self-publishers is that "have it up in a day or two". The reason is takes longer with trade publishers is because they go over it tooth and nail, plus they take the time to do the marketing - marketing which involves getting it to all sorts of distribution points, to well-known reviewers, into catalogs, etc. And since they have the professional marketing departments, they are definitely more effective than the typical self-publisher.

As to control, from what I've heard from trade published authors, they are in control in the end, not the publishers. The only part I've seen mentioned where the authors have less control is in cover art - and again, the publisher is the pro, not the writer, so most authors seem quite happy to let that go.

Royalties may be higher, but when you add in the advance (which self-publishers don't get at all), the picture changes somewhat. Especially when you consider that the advance comes almost immediately (or in 2-3 payments over a period of months), versus those royalties trickling in over perhaps years.

Then you consider the time, effort, and money spent by the self-publisher to get proper editing, cover art, and any real marketing other than social media - I don't see where the hassles of trade publishing can really be worse than that. But, that's why I don't plan on self-publishing. I don't want those hassles. Two sides of the coin

I would question what you mean by "numerous". Certainly not most, and really not "many". I repeat: unless you've sold megatons of the book, most publishers won't even consider a book that's used its first publication rights.

 

Royalties _per book_. A ten percent royalty on five thousand copies sold is going to give you a lot more money than a ninety percent royalty on six copies sold.

Exactly - it's a part of their calculation. It makes your novel less desirable. Why would you want to make your novel less desirable?

(snip)

I haven't seen anyone claim that you can't possibly sell a self-published novel to a traditional publisher. Usually the advice is tempered with, "Unless you've had remarkable sales", or something of the sort. Sure, if you beat the odds and you're one of the miniscule percentage of self-published books that sells tens or hundreds of thousands of copies, a publisher may want to buy your book.

But what if you're in the far more common situation of having sold, say, twelve copies? Or even a hundred and twelve copies? You've used up your first publication rights, and you've failed to demonstrate that your book can sell. Sure, you haven't demonstrated that it can't sell when professionally published, but all the same, the value of the novel is damaged by the loss of first publication rights.

Remember, publishers aren't sitting around bored, wishing that someone would write a novel that they can print. They're buried in a sea of novels. If the publisher is looking at fifty very fine novels, deciding which one to print, and one out of the fifty has been already published, why should they take that one? Why aren't they going to choose from among the remaining forty-nine?

ChickenFreak

Edited to add:

Hmm. Maybe that's part of the key. I assume that at _best_, my eventual book will be one of the fifty.

I don't imagine an agent or publisher getting wildly excited about my book and rushing to sign me in spite of my having used up first publication rights, in spite of grammar and punctuation errors, in spite of a lousy query letter, in spite of a slow opening, in spite of a dull prologue. I don't imagine being a bestseller and changing the publishing world.

I imagine that by working really really hard and complying with every business and writing expectation, I _might_ make it to the ranks of "Wow, I'd like to publish/represent all of these, but we can only choose one. Which one?" If I get to that point, I don't want there to be anything that knocks me out of the competition. And having self-published the book would do just that.

 

One question: do any of the self-publishing skeptics here speak from experience with the traditional publishing scene, or are they just being hypercritical?

I for one think that self-publishing is a good thing. Two of my friends -John C. Luekce and George M. Behe- self-publish their books and are quite content with it. They also employ an extensive network of editors and proofreaders just like any major publishing house does. So the argument that self-published books are always junk thanks to lack of editing is narrow-minded at best or elitest at worst.

If a writer wishes to see his/her dreams of being published mowed down time and again by cold shoulders and indifference from the traditional publishing scene, be my guest. But don't try to drag into the mud those of us who yearn to have our voice heard and do not wish to waste time doing so when our works are completed, polished, and ready to publish.

 

Those who are against self-publishing are just trying to protect the writer. The entire self-publishing process can end up costing thousands of dollars. Most self-published authors are never going to make that much from book sales and are going to end up losing a lot of money. Also, when you consider how much time is required to market your book, come up with cover art, etc., you realize that self-publishing is pretty much a full time job.

If you want to spend all that money just to see your name on a book, then go right ahead. However, I still maintain that going the traditional publishing route is in the writer's best interests.

 

GodsandGenerals4Ever,

I am 'traditionally published' and while I am not 'hypercritical' about self-publishing, I am not convinced it's what many build it up to be. In addition to my experience, I know and have friends that chose the self-publishing route and those that have gone with major publishers and small presses.

First, for right now, if you can interest a major publisher, with all their 'flaws' as pointed out by those who promote self-publishing, they're still the way to go--especially for an author early in his or her career. It opens doors, helps to build an audience, and teaches/prepares a writer for what's out there.

Even with a small press, doors are open to me that are not to self-published authors. Book events, convention appearances/panels, and such. Is it fair? Maybe not, but that's the way it is. I think it’ll change, and in truth, with one event promoter when asked I suggested that they consider self-published authors/titles. The drawback, the literally thousands of requests they’d have to sift through—sort of what the publisher did to begin with. Fairly or unfairly, self-published writers are often tossed in with the crowd that slaps together a poorly written and edited work and publishes it to see what happens.

Writers considering self-publishing should think about the journey. It's complained that traditional publishing is slow and indifferent. Publishers, even small presses (and agents if one goes that route), are inundated with far more manuscript submissions than they could ever hope to publish. The competition is stiff--very stiff, be it with the major publishers (and agents) or with small presses. And it is a process that takes time, if success is reached. There is a parallel with self-publishing there. The competition is stiff, and the road to success (if it occurs) is generally a long one.

It also depends on your goal as a writer. You indicated you had friends that were quite content with the self-published route they selected. It doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. But it also sounds like they made the choice well informed and prepared to be professional and ready to do what it takes to put out a solid product for readers--hiring editors and such.

It is easy to point out the big success stories. They're mainly the ones that toot their horn. Nothing wrong with that. But what about all those who find their works selling only a few dozen copies? They're not likely to crow about it. I don't have any statistics (you can read about it online just about everywhere self-published vs. traditional is discussed, but I never see sources cited with respect to those numbers) but just from visiting forums and checking out what's available on Amazon and Smashwords, etc., there seems to be hundreds or more of the silent 'unsuccessful' than those getting large readerships.

To be sure, there are plenty of self-published authors that sell more copies of their works than I do, but I believe I've far outstripped that 'average' self-published writer.

One author with my publisher self-publishes some of his novels and goes with the publisher for others. He posted on his Facebook page that one title he self-published just sold its 11,000th copy (counting ebook, print and audio—the title has been out a little over a year). He has three novels out with my publisher, and one novel and several anthologies out self-published. With my publisher, I believe I am third (out of eight) with respect to sales among the authors there (to be sure, it's a distant third compared to the top two).

The point being, I've found what's right for me. The combination 'traditional/self-published' author has found what's right for him. The friends I have that are with big publishers, although things are not always 'wonderful,' are happy with the route they took. Of those I know who have gone straight to self-publishing, the majority are not thrilled, but still working hard to succeed. Personally, I believe some of them will eventually break out.

I think it's one-sided to state that 'going the traditional route is one that leads a writer seeing his/her dreams of being published mowed down time and again by cold shoulders and indifference'...when self-publishing can similarly lead to being mowed down by competition and the cold shoulder by readership. The difference is that the traditional route attempts to screen and put in the market place what they believe their readership is interested in/will purchase.

One caution--if a writer chooses the 'traditional route' make sure the agent and/or publisher you sign with is one that you're comfortable working with. I've also seen it go sour and south with some authors, especially with small presses. Not all are created equal. And as far as vanity presses, where one pays to in essence self-publish, the writer is far better off self-publishing. But that's fodder for another thread.

GodsandGenerals4Ever, you or anyone can message me here or Google my name (Terry W. Ervin II) for more about my works/publisher if interested. The link to my website, apparently since it includes pictures of my covers, and then a link to a page on my website that, if clicked, leads to a page that has information about where my works can be found/purchased is considered too commercial/self-promotional and thus improper for this forum and was removed from my signature file--but that's not fodder another thread. Just how things are structured/run at this forum.

 

Is it really being hypercritical to point out the problems in self-publishing? Certainly we do it with trade publishing. Nobody I've seen sugar-coats that route. Heck, there are sites with or devoted to pointing out the pitfalls and the charlatans. So maybe it's not us being hypercritical but others being hyper-sensitive...

 

Wow - you've got your opinion well and truly set in concrete!

1) The traditional pubishing route seems to favour the 'sure thing' - celeb biographies, books by well known authors regardless of quality, traditional genres.
2) You are forgetting that many successful authors chose the self publishing route - James Joyce, John Grisham, Ezra Pound, Beatrix Potter.
3) A self employed builder choses to work for himself because that suits him - it doesn't mean he's not competent. It doesn't mean that he's surrendered. I means he wants to do it his way. He'll take the rewards and he'll take the knocks. His choice. Same with the self published author. He'll make what he can out of it. Some people are going to be pleased just to see their book in print. Some will want to sell thousands. Their choice.
If you are only going to be satisfied with the big gold pot at the end of the rainbow - then you're going to be dissapointed. If you are happy to have achieved a completed, published, read by some, novel, you'll be happy.
Doesn't mean that you've surrendered anything. It just means that you're probably a little more realistic than most.
4) A self published author may have many reasons for self publishing - and bear in mind that many people, thanks to e-books, have read an enjoyed self published authors.
5) Do you really believe that it doesn't cost anything to submit your book to an agent or publisher?
6) Kindle costs nothing but hard work. And the self published author works harder than anyone to get that book out there and noticed. Give him credit for that, at least.
7) Have you read any 'properly' published books that have turned out to be total rubbish? Have you ever spotted errors in grammar or spelling in such books? Have you never paid over the odds for a book that disappoints?
8) I have read a dozen cheap and cheerful books on Kindle which I wouldn't have otherwise had the opportunity to read. Thank you all those authors who have surrendered their integrity and avoided the quality approval process which has produced so many expensive and second rate books.

I think your tone is offensive to all those people who do work hard to produce good and interesting work. Many of them are more successful than most of us. Could it be a bit of the green eyed monster that's stirred your ire?

I say - publish and be damned. As long as there are people out there enjoying the self published world - from the aspect of the writer and the reader, then good luck to them.

 

Sure, that's why the editing and feedback one gets from a traditional publisher is the most enticing thing for me. The marketing would be too, but from what I've heard and read there's no guarantee a publisher will bother with it, especially if you also do your own marketing, and if they do it may easily require a lot of your involvement anyway. Now, it certainly does depend on the publisher, on if you're well established and of course how good your stuff is (and surely some other factors), but for me it's hardly a question - I will be doing my own marketing in any case. If this means there's even a minor chance that they won't be helping me out, I'd really rather pass. If I didn't have an option to market myself (or wasn't as cynical, hah), then I'd probably stick with traditional publishers.

Of course. For me a publisher wouldn't be a deciding factor on it, though.

 

There is no 'sure thing' in publishing. And trade publishers certainly have more to offer than what you list here (though I'm puzzled by the "traditional genres".). New authors are published every day.

Not if you go with a real publisher and/or a reputable agent. Any publishing house or agent who charges you one thin dime is a scam artist.

If you're talking "rubbish", are you referring to the subjective "I couldn't get into this book at all!" or the objective "The writing skills were sorely lacking."? And I don't believe anyone has ever stated that trade published books were always perfect as far as copy editing - but considering how few self-publishers even bother with that (or don't have the money to pay for quality editing), then add in how many are in the Big Rush to get their books out, and it's only logical that self-published books overall would be in worse shape in that respect.

I do think many writers are impatient, have given up too soon, don't understand how publishing actually works, or just have a chip on their shoulder, and thus they turn to self-publishing. Many others just have crappy writing and this is the only way their book will see the light of day. Many others have a niche book, nonfiction, or other perfectly acceptable and established reason for self-publishing. I don't agree that all self-published books are garbage - but they have a long way to go before they have the overall reputation for quality that professionally (trade) published books have. Yes, there are notable exceptions - but until those exceptions become the norm...

 

The worst traditionally published books that I've ever read were better than any of the self-published books that I've read. The traditionally published books were no good, yes, but they were nevertheless better than the self-published books.

That doesn't mean that a self-published book has to be bad. But for it to be good enough to read, the self-published author will need to work just as hard to make his book a polished piece of prose as the traditionally published author does. He'll have to write a good enough book to be traditionally published. He'll have to get feedback from many, many people in order to get a true idea of the quality of his book and to know when it's finally, _finally_! good enough. Then he'll have to do the job of the editor that would have given that book its final polish. He won't do less work to get his book published than the traditionally published author does, he'll do more.

And then there will be no way for potential readers to know that his book is the one gem in a sea of self-published books. You argue with us that virtue isn't rewarded in the publishers' selection process, but we're supposed to think that it's rewarded out in the commercial world? That a fine self-published book will somehow float to the top... how?

ChickenFreak

 

I agree with some of that. And one of the big 'againsts' I had about self-publishing was that there was a lot of rubbish out there - still is a lot of rubbish. But there are also a growing number of writers who are willing to spend the time, and sometimes the money to employ professional editors, to make sure that their book is the best it can be. That, obviously, doesn't mean that it will necessarily be the same standard of trad. published books, but it can be just as enjoyable.
And I'm not saying that all good self published books will rise to the top and the poor ones will lanquish in the mud - just as in trad. published, flotsam floats. There are good books out there that will never become visible and there are those that should never be read.
What I really object to is the disparaging way that some commentators talk about those who go down the self publishing route. Some people slap a book together without giving thought or care - that's true. But there are also those who work hard, edit, edit and edit, put the ms out for proof-reading and then agonise over whether it's good enough to publish.
But to say that self publishers en masse have 'surrendered' to the desire to have their work published at any cost, have lost all credibility and are no different than those who stoop so low as to buy degrees, I think is a bit much. (that's me being polite!)
I have enjoyed books many books over the years. And I've read some that should never have hit the bookstands; most of those written by well-known celebrities or authors. Obviously publishers do like known names. They sell regardless of ability.
I've also read some enjoyable books via self published authors. I don't see why there shouldn't be room for them all.

 

A good writer can still make a poor business decision. I don't doubt there are some good, perhaps even great, self-published books. Few of those will be noticed among the vast landfill of literary sludge that dominates the self-publishing landscape. But those few will be paraded forth by those persons and companies that get rich off the self-publishing business.

Vanity press is vanity press. If you want to be taken seriously as a writer, the traditional publishing route is still the path to take. Of course it isn't easy. If it were, would it have any value?

 

I don't think that vanity press is the same as self publishing. Four cases for your consideration:

A) A writer friend of mine. Offered the services of a 'publisher' who promised that he would have the book edited, proof-read, book cover designed and produced and formatted to suit appropriate size of book. He did none of these things. The formatting was terrible, double line spaced, 12 point font reduced to 10 point on printing. And the cover was a generic cover you can download from a dozen or more sites. He charged her a lot of money for a dozen books (£1700.00) for the 'work' that he did. Then she had to pay for any additional books required. She did the selling, he did nothing. To me he is a vanity publisher.

B) An poetry publication. The writer is asked to submit work for consideration. As far as I can see, all work is accepted. Again, no formatting. No editing. As many poems as possible crammed into a badly bound book.
The worst case I saw was at my grandsons' school where the publisher produced an collection of the childrens' poems and charged £15 per book. Again, no editing, no formatting. Poorly produced and falling apart on first reading. An insult to every child in that school. - Vanity publishing.

C) Local man, an historian. Writes about the locality in which he lives. His work is of interest to those who live here. He produces the book, complete with photographs. It's a work he takes a great deal of care over. Obviously a very limited market and no mainstream publisher would be interested in a book with possibly a few hundred potentia l readers. He's a local celebrity, gives talks, people enjoy his work, enjoy listening to him. He's a regular contributer to local radio and has a monthly column in the local paper. He writes the book, edits, designs the layout, designs the cover, has it printed and then sells what he can. Maybe he makes a profit, maybe he doesn't. How can you say that he has surrendered anything? And far from comparing it to someone who is willing to buy a degree, he has put his years of training, education and experience into what he does. Good for him. He's self published.

D) Local writing group, produce an anthology and aim to sell 200 copies, locally. The proceeds will benefit the local hospital. They have paid for the printing. Produced the artwork. Edited until they are sick of seeing it. Finally they have the book in front of them - and now the real work begins. They have to sell it. Three weeks in and they have already raised almost £400 of the £1,000.00 they are aiming for. Sure, they may be a few mistakes (not many, trust me, I have scoured that book from cover to cover several times) It's taken months for them to write the pieces, to edit and re-write, to design the layout of the book. They didn't falter. What have they surrendered? Vanity publishing? Not in the least.

You seem to think that there is only one way to produce a readable book. Why should that be the case? I agree that some self published books aren't worth reading. I still maintain that some traditionaly published books aren't too. That doesn't mean that you, or anyone else, has to decry the efforts of those who work hard to get their book into print and then work harder trying to get it noticed amongs the millions of others that are out there.

 

If you pay to publish, and that is the criterion for publishing, it is a vanity press.

There are reasons for using a vanity press other than vanity, but call it what it is.

 

Then how come there are so many great books by new authors each other?

Grisham actually did not self-publish. He published his first novel with a small publisher and has always gone the traditional publishing route. As for Joyce, he only self-published Ulysses (his third book) because publishers found it obscene. However, keep in mind that the details of the publication of Ulysses are a bit unclear, so the book may have first been picked by a traditional publisher.

The only costs I can think of are the costs of printing the manuscript and buying envelopes/stamps (you don't even need to worry about those things if you submit electronically). Otherwise, it shouldn't cost you anything.

 

So you can see no good in anything other than traditional publishing? You must see the whole field of self publishing in a totally negative light? You can't give credence or credit to any aspect of it?

I can see the pitfalls in self publsihing both as a writer and a reader. Yet still, I say, there is room for both and good and bad in each.

And you'd sumbit a ms to an agent or publisher without the benefit of having it properly proof read or edited. Because that's the job of the publisher? While the self publisher must ensure for himself that the ms is as good as possibly can be (yes, I know that the argument against SP is that most writers are idle, can't be bothered to formatt properly, throw a book together and hope for the best and undoubtedly some do).
Sounds to me as if the SP has far more interest in the overall presentation of his book that a trad. writer.

 

A writer should be able to edit his/her own work. Hiring an editor is completely unnecessary. If you really want a proofreader, just ask someone who you know will do a good job of giving critical feedback. Besides, publishers have in-house editors to go over the manuscript if it's chosen for publication.

 

A writer's work should be as good as they can get it before the author even thinks about sending out queries or self-publishing. Where the difference lies is that the book going the trade route will get even more scrutiny by professionals at no cost before the public sees it.

(And obviously no system is perfect so yes, trade books will get out that aren't perfectly proofread. I don't know why that even needs to be brought up, but it always seems to be.)

 

I write software to help self publishers. I don't think I've ever seen anyone succeed in novels or fiction.

Non-fiction, trade publications, short papers, videos and so-forth however might have some success.

Traffic is what matters. Second to that is fame. Cory Deitz seems to have had some success with his work, (sadly, not one of my clients) he's also got some fame from working at about.com as well as several other ventures. For Mr. Deitz, self publishing made sense.

As a self-published SOFTWARE author, I have to say.... talk yourself out of it. My software products address actual needs.

I don't sell nearly enough to justify the work in maintaining them and I get free advertising in various places. I have several products, one of my products hasn't sold a single copy.

The world is dominated by what I refer to as alpha-cows. These are the people who, for whatever reason, are able to make waves and promote things. (whether they want to or not) people listen to them in an almost monkey see, monkey do fashion. It almost seems to happen by accident.

Unless you are, or know an alpha-cow type person... you're not going anywhere.

But if you do self publshing anyway (and I don't blame you.. ambition is a sickness, if you have an idea or have something to say, it's hard to ignore it) at the very least, put up a contact form. Let people contact you directly, and respond to them. You stand a better chance of selling something if people interact with you.

One other thing to know - people don't like to spend money online. There's been research conducted on this. In physical form, parting with $0.99 isn't a big deal. But online, it's as if $0. is perceived to be much higher.