Harlequin Jumps Into Self-Publishing, Then Out, Then In?

Harlequin started a self publishing division and the romance Writers Assn. threatened to pull their qualification status, they backpeddled, well read it for yourself:

http://www.jackiekessler.com/blog/2009/11/19/harlequin-horizons-versus-rwa/

Business is business. The changing economic picture requires business enterprises to be creative and seek new ways to be profitable for the future. Obviously, Harlequin sees a market just as I mentioned in another post.

Once people are buying their books at kiosks in the mall, the print to public mode may make the publisher role differ even more.

Perhaps in the future, a market for reviewers will grow because the mere publication of a work does not indicate its quality or content.

If the market ever shifts from the traditional publisher exposure for the top few titles, someone will have an opportunity to promote the middle tier that is growing rapidly, regardless of the publishing venue.

DT,

I have given up cairing about booksales, publishers, printing methods etc.,

Obviously with Sarah Palin's book number one, we do not have a very discriminating bunch of book buyers now.

I forsee no improvement either.

dkchristi wrote:

If the market ever shifts from the traditional publisher exposure for the top few titles, someone will have an opportunity to promote the middle tier that is growing rapidly, regardless of the publishing venue.

I don't see perceive that as the model right now. I perceive the middle tier as commercially published midlisters.

Harlequin is just trying to make money off its slush pile. Nothing new (or necessarily wrong) about that, Random House has done it for years with Xlibris. They aren't looking to promote or help unpublishable authors. All that will happen when more unpublishable authors publish is that a system will HAVE to be put in place so the reading public can be assured they're buying a real book, not a rambling mess. If there is no such assurance, people will stop buying books, period.

"'Perhaps in the future, a market for reviewers will grow because the mere publication of a work does not indicate its quality or content." - or some other system.

There already are reviewers for self-published books. Who reads them? Besides almost nobody.

LC wrote:

There already are reviewers for self-published books. Who reads them? Besides almost nobody.

And you've been doing so good lately.

Ann

Was I not supposed to say that these reviewer sites are not terribly popular?

Even mainstream reviewers of commercially published books -how many people read them or care about their opinions? I don't.

Please note that I proposed, "perhaps," a market for reviewers "might" grow - as ONE proposal to assist with the large number of publications without a sifting mechanism.

I made no claim that any reviewers today were or were not useful. I believe there are many opinions regarding reviews; Amazon seems to think customer reviews are useful for some purpose. Some newspapers continue to pay good money for reviewers. Some review lists still seem to influence book sales. There are blogs that have a large following.

Feel free to recommend other venues that might assist readers in sorting sorting through the many self-published, vanity-published, small press published, traditional published and whatever future publishing venues continue to flood the market - including internet and phone apps and more. The gates are open; the opportunities are wide open for a system to help readers with their discernment. Offer solutions.

I thought we were talking about reviewers that get books noticed in the first place. Customer reviews on a retailer site are a completely different animal from a reviewer with a platform, so you are muddying the water here. Of course customer reviews are influential, but only once a reader has found his or her way to the book's page in the first place.

If a strong review system for self-pubbed books DID spring up, I bet it would end up being exactly the same as mainstream review sites. That is, a million self-pubbed authors will be throwing their books at it, trying to get noticed.

As for a system that helps the reader sort through the many possiblities that exist right now, I think what we have works just fine. Those who care about reviews can read them in the newspaper (being aware that just a tiny percentage of commercially published books are ever reviewed at all, and only certain genres). The rest of us can browse retailer shelves and Amazon. Indie publishers with genuinely good books can take on the burden of promoting and negotiating for retailer shelf space just like established pubs, and manufacturers of every other product do. Customers can then follow their blogs and websites, and go to Apple's site for phone apps.

I personally don't think it's desirable to give self-pubbed and commercially reviewed books the same shelf space or access level, so I'm not going to spend time thinking up solutions.

I wish that book readers and reviewers would look at a book as a book.
Dividing books into self-published versus commercially published leaves out a lot of good books.

What is wrong wiith dividing books by how well-written they are versus who published them?

Why can't the bookstores say, "These are lousy commercially published books, I will clear them in favor of good books. "

Lane reviewed books for a job. He didn't care who published the book--a book was a book.

He read and reviewed my book and gave it to otbers.

Who gets to decide how well-written they are? And who has the time to read them all to decide?

I daresay every author thinks their book is well-written. Accuracy and market demand also are factors. Why should a retailer be asked to give up shelf space for a book that may have weak demand, has never been peer-reviewed (an issue with nonfiction) and may have been rejected as not good enough for commercial publication?

YK, outside of the writing community, the general public is probably not aware of self pub vs. commercial. They see a book and think it's a book. I think there's a danger of nonfiction books written by people with no credentials, reviewed by no one, finding their way onto shelves (such as at used bookstores) and passing bad information off as good. Which is why a vetting system needs to be in place, staffed by people who presumably know what they're doing. Not by people who are just looking to sell services to people who think they're entitled to shelf space just because they want it.

I am not an author and do not think my book is well-written--I know it
is.

I had a great editor.

Newsmen know how to write.

alice wrote:

Why can't the bookstores say, "These are lousy commercially published books, I will clear them in favor of good books. "

Who at the bookstores will do this?

Right now, salespeople give their catalogs to bookstore buyers. The buyers flip through them, look at the covers and the blurbs, and make their decisions. They don't read every one. How could they possibly do this?

Quote :

Lane reviewed books for a job. He didn't care who published the book--a book was a book.

How many self-published ones were submitted to him? I bet not many. Especially since he posted that he ONLY reviewed history and political books.

My book was neither history or political.
Not self-pubbed either.

He liked it and his wife liked it and they gave it to a friend who had brain surgery because of it.

Ok. This means what, though? If Lane worked for a publishing company that places books on shelves, he probably could have helped you with that. I'm not saying that NO self-pubbed book is worthy of shelf space. I'm saying that realistically, there needs to be a vetting process, and without one, no one will buy anything anymore because there will be a free-for-all with too much junk to wade through.

You can always re-submit your book, or a different book, to one of those publishers.

My point is only this. I am not writer, but I know tripe when I see it.

99% of what commercial publisher's publish is mindless drivel.

I wouldn't read it if you paid me to. Hence I don't like commercially published authors to get too uppity.


You are not uppity.

The written word can be helpful, hopeful, educational and entertaining.

Why aren't best sellers this way?

alice wrote:

You are not uppity.

Well, glad you cleared that up, lol.

I have read plenty of commercially published stuff that I wanted my money back on. It's why I joke that I don't care if people like my books, their purchase is payback for my buying other people's junk, lol. But this doesn't negate the need for a vetting system.

We agree. A vetting process that judges books other than by publisher.

Sarah Palin's book is through one of the largest publishers in existence, Harper Collins, and people are coming out of the woodwork citing inaccuracies and outright falsehoods throughout the text. This book is # 1 on amazon and has sold hundreds of thousands of copies. There seemed to be little to no vetting or fact checking taking place. This is all a money grab. I am hearing of other hot selling genres, like urban fiction, that have poorly edited books coming out of major publishing operations as fast as possible because they sell briskly.

There is a thin line between some self published and some mainstream books in the middle from a quality standpoint. The spread between the two are at the extremes with budget and exposure aside.

Thanks DT for using facts to support your statements. You have also been successful with your publishing and have a record to support your comments also. I have followed your steps in this process as you apply your knowledge and act accordingly. I wish you continued success.

Different standards are applied to celebrities. So? Are you saying because Sarah Palin has some lies in her book, that means standards aren't applied to the millions of books that AREN'T written by celebrities?

I didn't make a blanket statement but only pointed out that there are no absolutes when it comes to vetting and fact checking. Whether a book is from a celebrity or not, facts should be checked such as if the correct person was attributed as making a statement which I understand happened in her book. Reportedly she stated that a quote was made by UCLA basketball coach John Wooden when it was made by American Indian activist John Wooden Legs

http://www.newser.com/story/75196/palins-john-wooden-quote-actually-from-native-activist.html

This is only to say that nothing is all pristine or all sludge. After all sludge is where gold nuggets are often discovered.

On the otherhand, my publisher/editor drew my attention to the difference between a chameleon and an anole and numerous other small issues in Ghost Orchid before it was published. The edits that went into that book when I believed the manuscript was perfect :-) was surprising! But then, we had the time. Millions of people were not in line....alas.