How real publishing works

A great deal has been said on forums around the Internet about how "real" publishing works. However, this model seems outdated. So how does publishing work in the twenty-first century?

Add information here that best describes the modern, changing world of publishing. Pose questions about POD books and which publishers are now using POD technology. Give insights into present day and future trends. Anything new? Let us know about it.

With magazines, it's getting tougher all the time. The two leading mystery magazines have each cut one story per issue. The latest issue I've seen contains five new stories. That equals about 120 per year total. Between the two they get about 10,000 submissions a year. Lousy odds. Wish I had some good advice but I don't.

Author C.J. Lyons tells in her presentations that her agent receives 200 queries a day. That agent only accepts 2 to 3 new authors a year. Big traditional publishing houses are the same way, though the numbers are higher. No wonder authors are seeking other avenues for their work.

Education is a big factor in choosing the right publishing avenue for YOU. What is good for one person is not necessarily what is best for someone else. So educate yourself rather than listen to horror stories from others.

Traditional small presses are considered not as good or able to do for the author the way traditional big presses are. That is not necessarily correct either. Some can give what big houses fail to do and can't give things the big ones can. On the other hand, the opposite is true. Again, education and doing your homework for YOU is important.

Many authors believe that a small press isn't good. Again, some are, and some aren't. However, one never knows until one contacts or checks them out. Sometimes the small press can lead to bigger things.

Case in Point.

One of my authors is writing a series of mysteries through another small publisher. Her time on her first book is up with that publisher. A big house who mass markets books, contacted her and she sold her book to this company. Seems the big houses troll the small houses for works they want to pick up. So going with a small press doesn't mean your work won't go far.

Read your contracts. Most importantly, understand the contracts. I know a couple of authors who almost signed a contract that stated they would only receive their royalties after the expenses of the book were paid. So in plain English, they were paying to have their book published by a so-called traditional publishing house. If they hadn't been more careful reading the contract they would have been very disheartened.

Anybody can self-publish. What these authors don't realize is that self-publishing is a business: controlled by the same taxes, forms, licenses, and expenses any business would be subject to embrace. They self-publish to get their book out there, to have full control of that book, and because they don't want to wait the 4 to 36 months it takes for a traditional (big or small) publishing house to publish their book. They are digging a hole for themselves if they don't consider it a business and adhere to the regulations.

Vanity presses are good for some authors. Some don't want to actually learn the publishing process or take the time themselves. They don't feel they can get an agent or publishing house to publish them, so they go the vanity route. That is okay if you have the money for it. Again, read the contracts thoroughly and understand them. Sometimes you end up more disappointed than if you never published your book.

I believe that the authors here may have more direct questions they want answers to, and/or experiences they would like to share about their various experiences with all types of publishing. I am looking forward to the discussion here. And please, no bashing of one over another. They all serve their purposes, so let's not talk about one company over another one. Let's just talk about publishing per se.

I think sometimes the more publishers see your name or your work promoted somewhere the more they will be willing to talk to you. It's like, maybe we are missing something here. Most publishers don't like to miss anything. *grin*

I am not talking just online but in magazines, etc. Sometimes taking out an ad about yourself in a mag or newspaper helps, too. What ever gets you out there, short of anything illegal or immoral. *grin*

Great posts, Sue!!!

How do you distinguish small presses from the traditional types (Harper Collins, etc.). Is there a number of authors, number of sales, physical location, number of books on the New York Times Top 10 list? Is it publishing method? Distribution? Marketing? Shelf space?

What are the distinguishing nomenclature: traditional? small press? POD? vanity? printer? publisher?

I have some ideas about the answers, but I would like to see some experts clarify the nomenclature in such a way that I could querry intelligently.

Thanks all for bringing on this thread. I hope it continues to spread light ....

A traditional press is one that does not charge its authors to be published. They are typical of the way publishers such as McGraw-Hill, Random House, Harper Collins, etc. operate. They may or may not give advances, but do give royalties. There is a traditional contract involved. You can have small presses that are not traditional; meaning they in some way require the author to pay whether through royalties or some other way. They do not follow the traditional blueprint set up by the above mentioned publishing houses.

The difference between the small and big presses are the big presses are usually associated with the major or older publishing houses of NYC. They don't necessarily have to be, they usually are. I would say it comes down to how many authors they have and what their sales revenue is. I also think it is just a differentiation from publishers such as me and, say, Random House. A traditional publisher is a traditional publisher no matter how big or how small they are.

POD is a method or type of printing, not publishing. The big houses are using POD methods, as well as the small houses. That doesn't make them POD publishers. There is, technically, no such thing as POD publishers, though some vanity presses use that term to cover the fact they are vanity presses.

Vanity presses are those that will print anything by anyone who has the money to pay them. They don't care about the book as they get their money from the author.

Self-publishers are those who start their own company to publish their own books. They do everything, pay for everything, and are liable for everything.

A printer is just that, a printer. Some printers have branched out into distribution which helps in the selling of the book. Most have not.

Publishers take a manuscript and actually publish it. They take full responsibility for aspects of a completed manuscript, including the up front money, to get it into the process of publishing it.

I hope I have been able to answer you questions with clarity. If not, let me know.

I wonder how long it will take before "NY TIMES BEST SELLING AUTHOR (OR LIST)" will lose it's appeal?
I know people who only buy books that carry that label.
It will be interesting when a new label appears that encompass smaller publishing houses.
Shelagh, what about a "Top Selling List" or "Best Selling Author" for authors on the Published Authors Forum?

Okay, Abe. Here is the list:

#1 kdu

#2 meandu

Mystery Writers of America has a list of publishers that qualify a writer for membership. Unfortunately I lost the list. Only the major ones and the two leading mystery magazines qualify. However, a writer published by a small company may apply and each case is given consideration. No POD or online publishers are considered. If I come across the list somewhere I'll post it.

Abe F. March wrote:

I wonder how long it will take before "NY TIMES BEST SELLING AUTHOR (OR LIST)" will lose it's appeal?
I know people who only buy books that carry that label.
It will be interesting when a new label appears that encompass smaller publishing houses.

So long as the New York Times publishes in its Sunday paper the nation's preeminent book reveiw section, folks will take seriously the Times best seller list. Why should they not?

However, to imply that the NYT ignores small publishing houses is nonsense. Countless books from small houses have been reviewed; even a self-published book makes the review pages now and then.

Contrary to some of the crap posted on author's chat sites, the NYT is not a conspiracy against unknown authors.

Good thread, and great explanation Sue.

It is interesting that we sometimes say "Small Presses." My mother was in charge of a newsletter and her place of business had a "small press." My father, whose father was a printing teacher at a high school in Chicago and whose brothers were both in the printing business, would print the 9000 newsletters. (The only reason I come up with this number is that one time I came home a few years ago to a message on my answering machine from my mother saying she had to get 9000 newsletters to the post office. This was when she was in the nursing home and long after she had this responsibility.)

When my parents moved to Wisconsin, they brought the "small press" with them, gave it to their church and my father printed their church bulletins.

This is a great thread. Sorry to interrupt. My mind is working a mile a minute this morning.

Carry on.

Carol

Lane,
I didn't say that the NY Times didn't include books from small publishers. I was suggesting that it is their list that seems to dominate.
How many have tried to get the NY Times to review their book? What was the response - if any?

Before I logged in and read your post, Shelagh, I found yet another blog post about whether self-publishing is good or bad. It sums up the story we all know well: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At times, publishing looks like a mix of cultures: traditional mainstream (large, medium-sized and small), self-published authors (iUniverse, Lulu), long-time (often literary) small presses, new small presses, some of which focus on e-books.

Each culture seems to be struggling for validation and sales at a time when people are also debating whether heard copy books will soon go the way of hard-copy newspapers and whether people will really pay to read novels serialized on cell phones, Twitter and blogs.

What a chaotic opportunity. In 25 years, I expect most of us won't recognize the world of 2009 any more than today's teenagers know about the world of long playing records.

Writers seem to be paddling like hell, being swept along like flotsam and jetsam, or "out there" in front of the pack championing the new models and the democratization of disseminating literature.

Unfortunately, most novelists aren't yet earning much money unless they're somehow within mainstream publishing. A lot of people are telling us they'll take us to the rich veins of ore in the new gold rush, but like those who made money selling the shovels in the real gold rushes, the Internet promotion people seem to be making a lot more money than their clients.

So where is "real publishing" in all this? The answers aren't yet clear. To some extent, they depend on whether one seems himself as a person who views publishing as a hobby or a business. If the goal is simply "getting the books out there," then it's hard to say one is involved in a business. Others will dispute this because they're goals are different.

When it comes to answers, all I can do is add to the chaos. Each of us has to decide what we want and focus on that and claim responsibility for whatever success or failure we end up with. Odds are, none of us will get rich quick no matter that road we take.

Malcolm

Malcolm,

Since I am going through this right now, let me add my two cents. You may have heard some of this before, I didn't search every topic in the forum, so bear with me, y'all.

1. There is no such thing as a "traditional" publisher. The term is a made up one recently. The correct term is commercial (or trade) publisher. When you say "Baen Books is a commercial publisher or Samhain is a trade publisher." People know what you are saying. Saying "Tor is a traditional publisher" doesn't mean anything. Not tryin' to be mean and nasty, just setting the record straight.

2. A commercial publisher is interested in getting book in front of readers and on bookstore shelves.

3. When your book is accepted, you are made an offer. The offer varies depending the size of the house and market for your book. Baen paid me several thousand dollar. You should always receive something, even if it's a box of free books. Anything less is selling yourself short.

4. You and your editor go over the book, doing line edits, suggestion for clarifying something, or cutting something. It's a back and forth. It should never be one way, ie, "accept this or else!".

5. After editing is complete your book goes to a copy editor. A copyeditor checks for the general style of the book, to make the proper terms are capitalized, margins are correct and for consistency. Maybe you called your hero Bill through half the book, and Billy the second half. A copy editor will catch those. Copy editors also make suggested changes. You can keep those changes or reject them (stet).

6. Your book goes back to you and your editor for a final look over. If the house is big enough, it may employ a proofreader or combine that job with that of the production editor who actually does the task of getting the book in galley form and lining up print runs.

7. Once copy edits are approved, a galley is printed for you and your editor to look over. This is your last chance to make changes since this how the book will look in print.

7a. At the same time the marketing department is getting cover designs done and art commissioned, which you'll have little input over.

8. ARCs are sent out to reviewers, book sellers and salesmen. Your book has a release date. Ads and promotion materials are going out.

9. Your book is printed and sent off to the distributor and wholesaler. Everybody bites their nails and waits for the first week's sales.

This is what was told to me by my editor. Smaller houses may do things slightly different. Your mileage may vary. Proceed with caution.

Abe F. March wrote:

Lane,
a) I didn't say that the NY Times didn't include books from small publishers. I was suggesting that it is their list that seems to dominate.

b) How many have tried to get the NY Times to review their book? What was the response - if any?

a) Why shouldn't it dominate? Is there a better one?

b) If a book is of interest to a NYT reviewer, it will be reviewed. If it isn't, it won't be. However, there are countless other newspapers whose reviews can be equally useful to an author. Why writers bemoan their lack of success with the NYT is a mystery to me. It's a mystery as well, why writer's view the NYT as some sort of unobtainable nirvana.

W. Lane Rogers wrote:

Abe F. March wrote:

Lane,
a) I didn't say that the NY Times didn't include books from small publishers. I was suggesting that it is their list that seems to dominate.

b) How many have tried to get the NY Times to review their book? What was the response - if any?

a) Why shouldn't it dominate? Is there a better one?

b) If a book is of interest to a NYT reviewer, it will be reviewed. If it isn't, it won't be. However, there are countless other newspapers whose reviews can be equally useful to an author. Why writers bemoan their lack of success with the NYT is a mystery to me. It's a mystery as well, why writer's view the NYT as some sort of unobtainable nirvana.

Reference "b" above.

Getting their interest is the problem. My PR person finally got a "name" of a person who handles the incoming list of books for review. She was informed that the list was long with no guarantee that anyone would even look at the book. If it was presented by a known agent, it would eventually get attention.

Without connections, the chances are slim. For unknown authors, finding an alternative, as you suggest, is a better way to go.

Which brings the discussion back to my point: why are author's fixated on the NYT?

NYT reviews the very best from the highest profile publishers. Sometimes smaller presses get lucky. That's my experience when reading their reviews, anyway.

I would think an outlet catering to your book's genre would be more useful. For example, I would hope my book gets reviewed in Locus, which is the major sci-fi and fantasy outline. Not too many book of my genre get review in the NYT (It happens but it seems very rare).

cdemu, and the name of your book and publisher is...?

E. Don Harpe wrote:

cdemu, and the name of your book and publisher is...?

It's Baen books and it's due out in about 18 months. Its in editing now,

The title I submitted is "Battle for Serpa". I don't think that'll be the final title but I'll keep y'all updated.

Is this your first book?

...maybe it's his fifty-first.

Shelagh wrote:

...maybe it's his fifty-first.

Such cynicism. Just because he writes about the same things in the same non-style and resembles the guy who writes about the same things in the same non-style doesn't mean he's the same guy.