3 ms·

In many ways, publishing houses are to new authors what accelerators and VCs are to startups. They not only vet and fund them, they give guidance, access to con

In many ways, publishing houses are to new authors what accelerators and VCs are to startups. They not only vet and fund them, they give guidance, access to contacts, and specialized help in areas like law and marketing. They pick riskier, less proven concepts, knowing that the hits will compensate for the busts. Well-known authors don't need publishing houses as much, but most of them would rather spend their time writing than publishing, and they know that their sales make it possible to bring in new faces.

fpgeek 12y ago
Unless you're talking about predatory VCs, comparing them to publishers is an insult. Publishers routinely demand that authors submit their next book (or even everything you write in the same genre for years) to them first and even if they reject it they have the right to match any offer you get later. How many VCs demand rights over your next N years of startups? Or we could talk about high-discount clauses: Where publishers get a bigger percentage when your books are discounted below a threshold they claim is unlikely... Only to turn around and encourage retailers (including Amazon) to discount your book just below that threshold - where they make more per book and you make substantially less. How often do VCs make more money by going behind your back to convince an acquirer to pay less? Or we could talk about rights reversion games, shuffling sales through shell companies cut royalties and on and on and on. I know VCs can be ruthless, underhanded and worse, but traditional publishers can make them look like kittens by comparison.
- JackC 12y ago
  To reverse your point: unless you're talking about predatory publishers, comparing them to VCs is an insult. You can't get anywhere useful by excluding the bad actors in one industry and focusing solely on the bad actors in another industry.
  - holdenk 12y ago
    I think its more that the industry standard among publishers is to demand the right of first refusal on additional books.
- icelancer 12y ago
  Well said. As a niche writer, I look at publishers like complete ripoff artists. Looking at their term sheets compared to what I got with self-pub plus retaining other services is a joke.

fpgeek 12y ago

Unless you're talking about predatory VCs, comparing them to publishers is an insult. Publishers routinely demand that authors submit their next book (or even everything you write in the same genre for years) to them first and even if they reject it they have the right to match any offer you get later. How many VCs demand rights over your next N years of startups? Or we could talk about high-discount clauses: Where publishers get a bigger percentage when your books are discounted below a threshold they claim is unlikely... Only to turn around and encourage retailers (including Amazon) to discount your book just below that threshold - where they make more per book and you make substantially less. How often do VCs make more money by going behind your back to convince an acquirer to pay less? Or we could talk about rights reversion games, shuffling sales through shell companies cut royalties and on and on and on. I know VCs can be ruthless, underhanded and worse, but traditional publishers can make them look like kittens by comparison.

JackC 12y ago
To reverse your point: unless you're talking about predatory publishers, comparing them to VCs is an insult. You can't get anywhere useful by excluding the bad actors in one industry and focusing solely on the bad actors in another industry.
- holdenk 12y ago
  I think its more that the industry standard among publishers is to demand the right of first refusal on additional books.
icelancer 12y ago
Well said. As a niche writer, I look at publishers like complete ripoff artists. Looking at their term sheets compared to what I got with self-pub plus retaining other services is a joke.