8 ms·

I run a website for writers. Very often we get the question, "Why should I bother chasing a big publisher if I can self-publish?" Then, people often turn arou

by acabal 14y ago

I run a website for writers. Very often we get the question, "Why should I bother chasing a big publisher if I can self-publish?" Then, people often turn around and call self-publishing companies "scams" because everything can be done by hand by the author for free or for cheap. How to reconcile these views, and those of this article? The answer is, companies provide value to a certain type of customer. If you're the type of person who is comfortable doing all of the marketing yourself, submitting to all the right places in all the right formats, hand-designing your book's layout, going so far as to demand a certain thickness of paper, well--traditional publishing is not for you. You're very correct to claim that you will get a raw deal from traditional publishing, in your case. However, 95% of authors know zero about that kind of stuff. They have no idea how to market their writing. They don't know epub from mobi. They don't know that they can submit to B&N as well as the Amazon store. They don't know how to format their ebooks. They don't know how to handle cover art, how to find an artist, how to find a good editor. Do you think submitting your book to the Kindle marketplace and the B&N marketplace and the Apple marketplace is simple? Maybe it is--but most authors just can't handle it. They'd rather be writing. The same can be said about self-publishing outfits. Many authors call them scams because they charge money for things you could do yourself or cheaper. Well, that's fine, if you know what to do and how to do it, and you have the time and patience. But many authors don't. That's why self-pub outfits aren't necessarily scams, because they provide genuine value to a lot of people. The important part is being aware that self-publishing mean you're going to be doing much of the legwork of marketing your book yourself, without the cachet of being able to say that someone is publishing you. My point here is--don't expect to be happy with a business arrangement if you're not the business's target customer. The author of this post by all means should have self-published. Does that mean O'Reilly, or any other publisher, traditional or self-pub, is a horrible scam and not worth it? Hardly. They're very much worth it for the right kind of author. It's up to you to know what kind of author you are and if the profit tradeoff is worth it. For the entrepreneurial-minded HN crowd, self-publishing would be the way to go. Edit: I should add that it is also on O'Reilly to realize that he's not their target customer. It looks like they obviously didn't figure that out despite his seemingly long and demanding contract.

chx 14y ago
Let me get this straight: the article says that O'Reilly maed no marketing effort so that's out. The rest you mention (layouting, uploading etc) is a one time effort. And yet, the publisher wants to keep the significant portion of profits ongoing. Is something wrong here? (Yes.)
- acabal 14y ago
  Printing, warehousing, distribution, handling remainders, the privilege of having your book on O'Reilly's market website, coordinating distribution of updates to ebooks, etc. are not one-time efforts. All of this invisible stuff eats out of your percentage and out of O'Reilly's. In fact in traditional publishing schemes books rarely make a profit. Publishing is a hits-based industry even though the publisher appears to take so much from the author, precisely because everyone glosses over the long-term invisible costs.
- SiVal 14y ago
  The author is the one doing the one-time effort. After the author finishes, he turns it over to the publisher, who takes the one-time writing effort, adds to it editing, layout, graphics, printing, reprinting, inventory management, etc., creates a product out of a manuscript, then has their sales force sell that product on an ongoing basis from then on. While the publisher's work never ends, the author's ongoing task amounts to cashing royalty checks and complaining. Or that's how publishers see it. Having said this, I should add that I'm both an author and a publisher, meaning I self-publish. I think traditional publishers take so outrageously much (in money and control) and deliver so ridiculously little that I'd never let them turn my writing into their product unless I were a celebrity.
epenn 14y ago
You make an excellent point that I fully agree with. Different companies have different target audiences and will therefore provide value in different ways. The value that O'Reilly can provide many other authors is likely not the kind that the OP needs given the amount of control he likes to maintain; and there's nothing wrong with that. With that said though, it's very important that you fulfill your contractual obligations, which if I take the article at face value it appears O'Reilly did not (although I don't know their side of the story of course). If I enter into a contract filled with a long list of technical details, but include a clause that demands a bowl of M&Ms with all brown ones removed, then on pain of legal action there better be a bowl of M&Ms with all brown ones removed [1]. The author no doubt had specific reasons for his requests that he felt were important to the success of his book. During negotiations there is nothing requiring O'Reilly or any other company to give someone any special considerations. They could just as easily walk away. However once both parties sign a contract agreeing to the terms, both parties are legally required to provide what they agreed to. According to the post that did not happen in this case. [1] http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp - According to David Lee Roth the reason for the M&M clause effectively boils down to he who doesn't pay attention to the small details probably won't pay attention to the truly important ones either; like making sure your arena floor can actually support the weight of the concert equipment (whoops).

by acabal 14y ago

chx 14y ago

Let me get this straight: the article says that O'Reilly maed no marketing effort so that's out. The rest you mention (layouting, uploading etc) is a one time effort. And yet, the publisher wants to keep the significant portion of profits ongoing. Is something wrong here? (Yes.)

acabal 14y ago
Printing, warehousing, distribution, handling remainders, the privilege of having your book on O'Reilly's market website, coordinating distribution of updates to ebooks, etc. are not one-time efforts. All of this invisible stuff eats out of your percentage and out of O'Reilly's. In fact in traditional publishing schemes books rarely make a profit. Publishing is a hits-based industry even though the publisher appears to take so much from the author, precisely because everyone glosses over the long-term invisible costs.
SiVal 14y ago
The author is the one doing the one-time effort. After the author finishes, he turns it over to the publisher, who takes the one-time writing effort, adds to it editing, layout, graphics, printing, reprinting, inventory management, etc., creates a product out of a manuscript, then has their sales force sell that product on an ongoing basis from then on. While the publisher's work never ends, the author's ongoing task amounts to cashing royalty checks and complaining. Or that's how publishers see it. Having said this, I should add that I'm both an author and a publisher, meaning I self-publish. I think traditional publishers take so outrageously much (in money and control) and deliver so ridiculously little that I'd never let them turn my writing into their product unless I were a celebrity.

epenn 14y ago

You make an excellent point that I fully agree with. Different companies have different target audiences and will therefore provide value in different ways. The value that O'Reilly can provide many other authors is likely not the kind that the OP needs given the amount of control he likes to maintain; and there's nothing wrong with that. With that said though, it's very important that you fulfill your contractual obligations, which if I take the article at face value it appears O'Reilly did not (although I don't know their side of the story of course). If I enter into a contract filled with a long list of technical details, but include a clause that demands a bowl of M&Ms with all brown ones removed, then on pain of legal action there better be a bowl of M&Ms with all brown ones removed [1]. The author no doubt had specific reasons for his requests that he felt were important to the success of his book. During negotiations there is nothing requiring O'Reilly or any other company to give someone any special considerations. They could just as easily walk away. However once both parties sign a contract agreeing to the terms, both parties are legally required to provide what they agreed to. According to the post that did not happen in this case. [1] http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp - According to David Lee Roth the reason for the M&M clause effectively boils down to he who doesn't pay attention to the small details probably won't pay attention to the truly important ones either; like making sure your arena floor can actually support the weight of the concert equipment (whoops).