IPad

Here is something I came across that may be interesting http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125503109

What an odd article. He starts off with the "iPad Will Change the World" thing (and doesn't say why any more than anybody else has) and next thing he's talking about Lulu, which is a printer, essentially...not stuff available on iPad.

I don't get it.

Apperently Lulu books are supposed to be available on the Ipad but I haven't seen anything on Lulu about it. Unless they mean the EBooks that Lulu do now, which makes sense. Lulu's started the new Ebook programme last year but it is seperate from the published books and I don't know that much about it.

My feeling is the writer (like so much of the media) is stumbling onto self-publishing and writing news about something everybody else did six years ago, but used the iPad to make it look up to date and sexy.

And I still haven't seen any reason given other than religious fervor that iPads will save publishing or help authors out any.
Comic books and kids books maybe.
If people like the idea of handing their child an $800 toy instead of a ten dollar book.

Giving a child a $800 toy harms the child. They haven't yet learned the value of money. Just because someone else has one is no justification. Values begin at home, and when parents "give in" to unreasonable demands of the child, they are encourage extravagant behavior.

Yes you are both correct in what you same but if manufactures can come up with a cheaper ebook displayer then we could see a change. After all it wasn't until the MP3 player became cheaper that it got the wide pick up that it did, though it did start with the more expensive units first. So maybe that is what we are seeing now with the Ipad for ebook readers. Cheaper varients may come next.

I do find these articles aggravating.

"Chou found a company called Lulu.com that charges nothing upfront and
will only print a book when someone buys one. But if they do, Chou
says, 'in the Lulu context, that same book, I'm going to get $10-12 per
book.'Chou has sold nearly 10,000 copies of Cloud
through Lulu. If you do the math, that means he's made more than six
figures."

I checked the sales rank on Lulu for Cloud by Tim Chou: 551

The sales rank on Lulu for the anthology, Stories of Strength: 264

The anthology sold just over 1,000 books. The article claims that Chou's book sold 10,000 copies. The sales rank shows that less than 1,000 of those sold on Lulu.com.

Many stories exagiarate the fact to some degree that is why we weigh up what we have read and decide what worth it is. The reason I posted the link was to generate this dicussion, to see what others thought and express some of my thoughts. Both Abe and Lin pointed out the expensive of the Ipad and EReaders in general which I feel does hold back the technology from wider acceptance. As for the Lulu ranking well that has always confused me. When I make a sale of one of my books there is never an movement on the books ranking, it stays static. For this reason I don't put a lot of faith in it. I was surprised to hear though that the publishers that were approached didn't offer money up front for the book. Maybe this was because they were small publishers rather than the major player?

Posting the article was very useful, Billy. Thanks! However, it is this kind of misleading information that causes more harm than good. You and I do not expect to make enormous sales on Lulu, but the gullible (and we have been slammed enough on this forum for not being sympathetic to those who feel they were misled and scammed) do believe that they can make tremendous amounts of money when they read articles inferring that a self-publisher made six figure sums by publishing on Lulu.

" Here is something I came across that may be interesting http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125503109 "

Interesting to whom, and why? Are you all excited about the prospect of the iPad bringing in sales for your Lulu books, Billy?

This is like the article posted here awhile back about the person who wrote up a marketing pamphlet about her business and said she had offers from commerical publishers for it, but she went with Lulu instead. Say what?

I assume that article (like this one) was a paid placement by vanity presses (like Lulu), similar to when Doritos are shown on TV shows. It targets would-be writers with zero critical thinking skills. Because surely no journalist would be dumb enough to write something like this?

thehairymob wrote:

I was surprised to hear though that the publishers that were approached didn't offer money up front for the book. Maybe this was because they were small publishers rather than the major player?

I'm sure that's exactly it.

Lulu is not a vanity press, for crissakes. They produce books for whoever wants to have books.

I still can't figure out what Lulu has to do with the iPad though. Except it's some dumbass content writer trying to get attention.

lin wrote:

Lulu is not a vanity press, for crissakes. They produce books for whoever wants to have books.

Which is what a vanity press does.

No, that's what any printer does. You come in, pay them, they print stuff for you.

If you want books, you have to pay somebody for them. Ask them down at Kinkos.

Kinkos will print up a pdf file for a book, as many copies as I want, so I could indeed use it for vanity pressing, same as Lulu, Createspace, Dorrance, etc.

So what you're saying is that a writer writes things and he pays to have them printed he's doing it out of "vanity" (instead of oh, say... profit motive?) and it's not legitimate for a writer to print their own books out?

Only by selling rights can a writer be legitimately published, are you saying? You're pretty clear on everybody's motives? Pretty sure that the only way for writers to work is to sell out their rights to some corporation and get back a small percentage?

There's a wider world than that. Just as there is a wider world than textbooks. Producing books is a tool that writers can use. A really good reason to do so is to make money.

So is a print shop a "vanity press"? Or does it suddenly convert into a vanity press when a writers wants to print a book instead of a brochure or phone directory?

There is no similarity whatsoever in the business model of Lulu and Dorrance and even mentioning them in the same breath like that reveals either ignorance or some sort of odd defiance.

It's a new world. People do things you don't understand. For reasons you might not comprehend.

Don't toss labels and scorn around too lightly. They might bounce back.

Do you really want to go through all this crap?

Why?

Just stating it as I see it. I see non-vanity publishing as having a gatekeeper besides one's own self. The similarity between Lulu and Dorrance is that there is no gatekeeping. Lulu is a better economic choice, I'm sure.

Anyhow, it doesn't preclude legitimate reasons for wanting to vanity press. People can do whatever works for them.

eta -I think the movement to call vanity publishing "self-publishing" and claim it's basically the same as commercial publishing is part of the reason there is so much confusion and articles written like the one in the OP.

lin wrote:

So what you're saying is that a writer writes things and he pays to have them printed he's doing it out of "vanity" (instead of oh, say... profit motive?) and it's not legitimate for a writer to print their own books out?

This is a non-sequitor. Profit motive drives commercial publication, too.

A keeping WHAT gate?

So now it's imperative not only that writers give up rights to their work in order to earn from them, but also that somebody else has to allow them to do so?

How about.... if it's for legitimate reasons (or actually any damn reasons, unless you are a "gatekeeper" for other people's needs and wants) then it's not really "vanity publishing" is it? It's just fucking publishing.

There was private publishing before there were publishers. Guttenberg, for example. When did it suddenly become "vanity publishing" not to have to sell out? It's a stupid, judgemental phrase that you should consider educating yourself out of.

I could go on and on. If I publish myself, then later publish 4 others under the same imprint... is it 1/5 vanity press? Am I vain, but they not? If I'm the gatekeeper for them, why can't I keep my own gate?

Why is it "business" for me to print up a bunch of coupon books to sell to businesses and door-to-door, but "vanity" for me to print up a guide to Mexican slang to sell?

Again, do you really want to get into all this? Are you getting a feeling that you can't really answer those questions and just maybe are being intellectually lazy to toss a term like that around when you haven't really thought it out?

Here's one more. I print and publish a book to make money. Somebody else spends 10 years searching for a publisher because they want to "be a real author".
Which of is is vain?

Try thinking this one over a little bit, okay? I get tired of this mindless crap.

Quote :

This is a non-sequitor. Profit motive drives commercial publication, too.

It's by no means a "non sequitor" It's a flaw in your logic. Or lack of it.

think it over. Really. Give us both a break and think not just knee-jerk. Can do?

It's always been "self-publishing" what the fuck else would you call it if I publish myself. Just like being "self-employed", a term I'm sure you've heard.

The "vanity press" label came into vogue to describe certain practices... see Dorrance, etc.

You are taking it to a ridiculous extreme out of sheer laziness and lack of awareness.

lin wrote:

If I publish myself, then later publish 4 others under the same imprint... is it 1/5 vanity press? Am I vain, but they not? If I'm the gatekeeper for them, why can't I keep my own gate?

If you think you can make money off those four books, invest your money and make a genuine effort at marketing (just uploading to websites doesn't count), I would say you are running a business and they are commercially published. In this scenario, I doubt you would take any and every book offered you and put your money into it. Which is what I mean by gatekeeping.

I would consider your Mexican slang book to be a good business venture on your part.

LC,

We have been through all this before. Indie publishing is the same whether an individual is publishing a piece of art (print) or a piece of music (CD) or a piece of writing (book). The term "vanity" was coined because a group of authors, for insecure reasons, felt threatened by the idea that unpublished authors could produce a book for themselves.

In the 1990s, I set up my own indie publishing business, painting, printing on top quality, acid-free art paper, and selling to local art shops (on sale or return). I received nothing but praise for my endeavour and willingness to be my own boss.

In the 2000s, I did the same with writing and I have been treated like some kind of literary leper; someone who should be shunned and looked down upon.

You keep your views; you are entitled to them, but allow those of us who want to use the technology that is available to us to make our own choices without being put down all the time.

I'm not putting anyone down. I'm not humoring anyone, if that's what you mean. The biggest argument in favor of Lulu being a vanity press is that Billy is "published" with them. Sorry if I don't ooh and ahh like the rest of you over the misspelled, rambling mess that he wants people's hard-earned money for.