INTERESTING ARTICLE ON PUBLISHING..

12/19/2009

Hi Everyone..

Here's an interesting article on publishing..

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/vanity-publishing-is-booming-and-the-big-houses-want-in-at-a-p/19254418/?icid=main

Cheers.Joe..

For all of those exposing the purity of mainstream publishing, this is the real story, money. If mainstream publishing was based upon the selective acceptance of the best material to publish, then they would not make deals with the devil to get at the cash flow of pay-to-publish. They try to create the illusion of distance by creating a different division with different names, but the halo is gone. The message is "If we don't want to publish your book the traditional way we will be happy to take your money to publish your book and put your money in our other pocket. This shows that if the pay-to-publish market proves to be more profitable, why do the traditional publishing model at all?

"I'm sorry author we can't publish your book as it does not fit our model, however we will gladly publish your title through our subsidy division, the fee schedule is attached."

Interesting Joe. I also read the comments. It seems to me that those with a limited vocabulary like to vent their frustrations using the term, "Nazi" as a cliche. Most often, the term has no relevance to the subject. And then they consider themselves writers.

Dt. You got it right. If you have money, we'll find a way to take it.

dtpollard wrote:

This shows that if the pay-to-publish market proves to be more profitable, why do the traditional publishing model at all? "

It's not either/or. Pay-to-play may be more profitable, but since its books will never get stocked on retail shelves or be accepted by the general reading public, traditional publishing will continue. However, pay-to-play may end up subsidizing the traditional.

LC wrote:

dtpollard wrote:

This shows that if the pay-to-publish market proves to be more profitable, why do the traditional publishing model at all? "

It's not either/or. Pay-to-play may be more profitable, but since its books will never get stocked on retail shelves or be accepted by the general reading public, traditional publishing will continue. However, pay-to-play may end up subsidizing the traditional.

LC, that is my problem with this. It is the height of hypocracy to say that someone's work is not good enough to be published by our mainstream arm, but we will take your money and publish your book to support our declining traditional model. These companies are trying to create a closed loop where the reject pile is sent to their subsidy division before would be authors go elsewhere.

My main question is when does rejecting manuscripts become more profitable than accepting them? Publishers could become even more selective in what they will publish and not give a good reviewing of manuscripts and send them to the for-pay side quicker. Their incentive to take the traditional publishing risk is gone. I could not trust the rejection judgement of a company that plays both sides of the street.

Well, if a house wants to maintain its image and reputation as a traditional publisher, it will continue to the accept the books it thinks it can make money on that way.

As for it being hypocritical to take the rejects' money to support it, I see it as just business. They've identified a huge market and are going for it. Sort of like the selective colleges who sell their reject lists to lesser-selective colleges, who then contact the applicants. This tactic is old news.