3 ms·
I think it's reasonable to assume that if a store discovers a serious product defect, they should be able to expect the producer to respond in a short period of
by notafraudster 7y ago
I think it's reasonable to assume that if a store discovers a serious product defect, they should be able to expect the producer to respond in a short period of time or pull the product for sale. If the product is not important and never gets fixed, it never goes on sale. If other things take priority, it's off sale for a while and comes back. If it's the most urgent thing in the producer's business, it gets fixed immediately and never lapses.
I would argue that the whole point of having a publisher is to avoid having to do this kind of thing yourself, but I know many authors forego publishers because publishers don't want to publish their stuff or they don't agree with the publisher's cut. Both reasonable objections.
It's sort of like if you own a restaurant. If someone dies in your family, and at the same time a health inspection gets failed, you have one of two options: Drop everything and coordinate passing the inspection; or deal with your family stuff first and lose income when your product is not selling in the mean time. The more employees and structure you have, the easiest it is to get away for a few days. The more it's a sole proprietorship, the more your fate is in your hands.
(FWIW I am from Newfoundland -- although I'm not an author -- and while the isolation of rural areas is not exaggerated in the comment, it's also not a surprise to people traveling there. When I travel home, which in the last few years has just been for funerals, I have a plan in place)
- jtbayly 7y agoOne author mentions that publishers don’t care enough to do anything about it, leaving the author once again the one punished. It’s not as though this is a result of self-publishing.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]