As you may have read, earlier this week Harlequin announced that it has formed a new self-publishing division called Harlequin Horizons with Author Solutions. This is similar to the announcement we made several weeks ago about WestBow Press. This has created quite a stir on the Internet.
What I find curious is that much of the backlash has come from agents. Their arguments against self-publishing basically boil down to three:
- Self-publishing dilutes the brand of the sponsoring company. In other words, people will think less of Thomas Nelson, because we allow books to be published under the WestBow imprint. Readers will think less of Harlequin because they will allow books to be published under the Harlequin Horizon imprint.
I admit, this is possible. We certainly debated it internally. This is one of the reasons we elected not to include some version of our name in WestBow. We wanted to make a clear distinction between the two. WestBow is related to Thomas Nelson, but it is not Thomas Nelson.
Having said that, readers don’t care about the publisher as much as authors and agents do. I have argued this repeatedly on this blog. Several readers always feel duty-bound to tell me how much the imprint name matters to them. I am not arguing that it is not important to some. You can always find an exception. I am just saying these readers represent a very, very small minority.
Sidebar: Take the imprint challenge. Go to a bookstore and ask one hundred shoppers—people who love books enough to make a special trip to a bookstore—to identify the publishers of the top ten New York Times Bestsellers. Report back with your results.I can’t speak for Harlequin—I don’t even know anyone there—but I think we are fully capable of managing our own brand. We have been in business since 1798. We understand what our brand represents. It is mostly about innovation and refusing to accept the status quo. We see WestBow Press as fully within that tradition.
- Self-publishing will flood the market with poor quality books. More than half the books published in the U.S. today are self-published books. Very few of these find their way to bookstore shelves. Why? Two reasons. First, retail shelf space is finite. Retailers only buy a fraction of what is published. They just don’t have any more room to display more titles.
Second, booksellers’ time is precious. The buyers who meet with publishers and buy books for their stores do not have time to consider self-published authors. In fact, most of them don’t have time to meet with smaller houses. While publishers have been quietly cutting the number of titles they produce, retailers have been cutting the number of publishers they buy from. This is simply a function of trying to be more efficient by focusing on the 20% that deliver 80% of the results.
Yes, online retailing may change all this, because shelf-space is unlimited. But that’s where it comes down to a battle for the reader’s attention. This is the most precious, scarce resource of all. Merely having a listing on Amazon doesn’t guarantee anything. If you can’t get attention for your book, you still don’t have squat.
Self-published books are not going to flood your local bookstore any more than YouTube is going to take over your local theater. But why should traditional publishers, agents, and industry trade associations—which I refer to collectively as “the guild”—care? We live in an age when technology and the public’s desire for self-expression make user-generated content viable. If people want to publish their own book through print-on-demand (POD), subsidy or vanity publishing, or whatever, why should anyone else care?
- Self-publishing rips off the authors. I find this surprisingly hypocritical. Where is the public outcry about publishers being ripped off? We have been investing in authors for years. Most of the books we publish don’t make money. A high percentage of projects don’t recoup their royalty advances. No one is coming to our defense. Why? Because this is something we chose to do—and will keep doing.
Why is the author any different? If they want to make an informed investment in their own career (and I realize that the word “informed” is key), why should someone stop them? I get nervous when there are so many people who want to “protect” others from making these decisions. I find this paternal attitude condescending. I believe these people are fully capable of deciding for themselves which model of publishing they want to pursue.
Many would-be authors don’t need a traditional publishing house. That’s the dirty little secret. They already have access to an audience and can reach it without the help of a traditional publisher.
Yes, they can go to a POD supplier and get books cheaper than through a self-publishing or subsidy company. You can also build your own house, make your own clothes, or grow your own food cheaper than having someone else do it. But this is a personal decision, based on your goals and what you want to accomplish. For example, do you want quality packaging, editing, proofreading, and various marketing services? POD by itself doesn’t provide these.
Also, some have questioned our intention (and Harlequin’s) to use our self-publishing imprints as a “farm league.” In fact, some believe it’s a ruse—a carrot that we are holding out to would-be authors, knowing full well that we don’t intend to publish any of them. Time will tell. However, I can tell you that we are actively looking even now at the early submissions. We know for a fact that we miss lots of opportunities. So do agents. This is a way for the cream to float to the top where it can get our attention.
As I said at the beginning of this post, I find it interesting that most of the resistance to self-publishing is coming from agents. Why? The primary thing an agent sells is “access.” I fully realize this isn’t the only thing, but I would argue it is the primary thing, especially for new authors. The agent offers access to acquisition editors who otherwise wouldn’t give a would-be author the time of day.
The problem with the self-publishing model is that it takes away the would-be author’s need for access. If they are not going the route of traditional publishing, then they don’t need an agent. Could it be that this poses such a threat to the agent’s business model that some feel a need to speak out against it?
As a form of user-generated content, self-publishing is a disruptive force that isn’t going away. It is arguably the fastest growing segment of publishing. It will ultimately impact everyone in traditional publishing. As a result, publishers are having to change and so are authors. Maybe it’s time agents took a hard look at their own business model and asked how they can add value in the new publishing economy.
Building Champions has been coaching me since 2002. They have taught me to be more proactive and intentional in both my business and personal life. Visit their Web site to learn more and see their special offer for my blog readers.
Related posts:
In: 
Tags: 
I think one key word you mentioned in this post is “Access.” Authors want / need access. Publishers traditionally have provided access. Agents connect authors with publishers and negotiate the best scenarios for access. Access is… ultimately to distribution channels that enable the author to reach a larger audience. That’s what traditional publishing has provided but barriers to access have greatly diminished and that end result is impacting everyone in often dramatic ways. Demand is driving distribution in different ways. There is tremendous value in traditional forms of publishing for MANY reason but for those who are denied that opportunity, they should have the choice to go self publishing. Because of that, I think it’s great that a publisher like Thomas Nelson offers a solution like this. At minimum, it’s an option that hopefully can be trusted and not a scam deal like so many eager authors get sucked into and burned on. There will always be a need for agents but the role of the agent may be changing as well… it all goes back to access.
Thanks, Daniel. You clearly get what we are after. We are not saying this is right for everyone. It is merely an option. The market will determine whether or not we are offering something of value.
Mike, if TN published 500 titles in a year… how many of those actually earn out on their advance? How many of them actually sell enough to do what the publisher needs (for it to make $) and what the author wants (to reach a large audience and hppefully earn them $)? Only a small % accomplish that. For agents and authors… how many have been upset with their relationships with traditional publishers? Authors feeling like the publisher didn’t invest enough to make the book gain access and distribution? Happens all the time. Traditional is certainly the primary objective and one that puts far less risk on the author, offering the greatest chance for success BUT for the author who cannot get published this way, self publishing does offer an increasingly viable option – IF they are willing to assume more of their own risk. Let the author decide. If they choose risk over a dead dream, that is up to them. Yes, there could be perceived conflicts of interest in a publisher like TN backing a self pub option but that will work itself out by either proving to be a success or proving to be a bad choice. Time will tell but I think it’s at least novel for TN to try something new.
We track royalty advance recoupment (earn-out) as a major metric, as you might imagine. Advances are one of the major investments we make, so we have to keep close tabs on them. Pre-recession, about 70% of our advances earned out. That number was pretty consistent for at least the last decade. However, we have seen that number drop significantly in the recession. We are now at about 50%. That number will go back up, because we have adjusted the size of our advances to reflect better the actual market environment.
You don’t have to earn out an advance to make money. But the converse is also true. Just because you do earn out, doesn’t mean you do make money. You can earn-out but spend too much on marketing or print too many books and still lose money. We don’t run a formal P&L on every book, but I think the industry consensus is that about 70–80% of all books published lose money—especially when you allocate your fixed costs against them (editorial, sales staff, warehouse, credit, collections, and other back-office operations).
So in the traditional model, the publisher is taking a lot of risks, hoping to publish a few titles that actually make enough money to cover his bad bets and still have something left over at the end of the day.
1.Everyone wants to be published. Really! My husband forbids me to mention what I do when we travel because sure enough the waitress or hotel clerk will ‘have a manuscript in a drawer” they want me to read. So it is a not surprising to look at this potential market like an untapped China waiting to be sold.
2.Life isn’t a level playing field. Everyone is not talented at everything or even many things. Confession: I personally cannot sing or dance. The majority of people are not going to sing in Carnegie Hall, compete in the Olympics or perform heart surgery—or get a publishing contract. There really is a question of talent as we can see from Idol contestants. You’ve been away from agenting for quite a while Mike, and, as you say, Nelson only accepts agented material. Perhaps you have forgotten how truly unpublishable much of what we receive actually is. It is I suppose a good thing you are willing to provide a vanity service for these writers.
It may be unpublishable from a commercial publishers perspective, as someone who has to make it work with traditional booksellers. But if an author has his own market or he just wants to publish something to leave to his family, why shouldn't he be able to do that?
I agree Mike. See my later comments. I have encouraged some writers including clients to self-publish. I think it is important for writers to understand that a keepsake is what they are buying from ASI and not an avenue to a career as a writer. I have no problem with self-publishing or even TN making a profit from that. I have no problem with downloaded books from websites–I've even purchased a few. I've encouraged some clients to publish their out of print titles or even NEW works on Kindle. I just want it to be clearly stated to the writer exactly what they will receive for their money and what exactly TN is doing for them.
3.Aside from actual talent, there is training involved in every human endeavor. College, graduate work, apprenticeships, coaches, teachers, etc. Amazingly, writing is no exception. As Robin Lee Hatcher points out in her blog, writers really do need editors and years of training and practice to actual become masters of their craft and art. I have never understood why writing is the one thing that somehow people think they are magically born knowing. Even those who are successes in any field still have mentors, take refresher courses, increase their skills and work with coaches, agents and editors.
4.In addition to talent and training and lots of practice in an endeavor that has a long learning curve, there is a need to work with a support team that includes agent and publisher to achieve success. There are different venues that are appropriate for different books. Just as one pianist is best served playing part time in a pizza parlor, another in a night club and another in an orchestra, books have different potential. Publishers of necessity work on books that have a broad appeal. Even all well-written books do not. For the team to reach the audience is an equally great endeavor.
5.Yes, there are agents who do not even negotiate an offer and accept anything; who don’t know e-rights from their elbow; who have never seen let alone helped to develop a marketing plan; who can’t edit proposals; who don’t brainstorm ideas; or write jacket copy; or get new covers designed; screen outside publicists; partner with the publisher; handle subsidiary rights like film rights or foreign rights and the dozens of other things competent agents do daily. But many agents do these things and far more! How many writers can do these things for themselves? Yes, writers need agents who actually are good at what they do. Don’t hire a shyster lawyer to represent you or an incompetent architect or agent. Check the bona fides.
Yep, like any profession, there are good guys and bad. Caveat emptor.
7. Sure some nonfiction books can reach their readers via a website and can even be sold as a downloadable book—perhaps better than this POD model. The problem with doing this with fiction is that it really is hard to succeed in this way—and it is FAR better to have a good book you can market that provides higher profit margin than a POD book will. A “best-selling” POD book sells 500 copies. I have a client who did start as a self-publisher. She sold 15,000 copies of her first trade paper novel ON HER OWN! You think I didn’t take notice of that??!! So consider why she looked for an agent after her third book had achieved similar success. Yep, there is a point to having one! And now she is under contract with three current publishers. She could not have pulled this off with a POD vanity book. She did it with a GOOD self-published book and an immense amount of very hard work on her part
And finally, 8.I recommend self-publishing if it is appropriate. It is already an option I consider. My client Nikki Arana self-published her nonfiction book Through The Eyes of Christ successfully. She knew nothing about how to do this and is not a techno-oriented person. She spent $500 and in a few weeks was making solid sales on a book that had been edited, proof read, well-designed, and had a great blurb and when we reach a sufficient sales level, it can be presented to a larger press. Would it have been better to have paid an additional $1,000 or more to AuthorSolutions? I don’t think so.
I think Natasha has great point on Fiction vs Non-fiction. Type of book makes a HUGE difference as to which pub direction would work most naturally.
I rarely comment twice, but feel I have something of value to add here. I am self-published, although since I have plenty of past experience doing non-profit and business design and fundraising (I think writing grant proposals is an overlooked training ground in writing concise, heart-wringing fiction in order to generate money) I hired out my own editing and already knew how to do the technical stuff.
What started me on this road was information gleaned from a major writer's conference. The cost of that conference, where I hoped to attract the notice of an agent, was ten times the cost of getting my novel into print.
That first novel wasn't as bad as many that I read (what author doesn't think that?) but it also was a starting point. It had several readers who liked it, and several more who gave me a less favorable but honest opinion. From that feedback, I learned and I grew. And I didn't lose money.
So I wrote another. Same process, better writing, more readers, somewhat more positive feedback. I learned and I grew. And I didn't lose money.
Number three really worked for my audience, who recommended it to their friends and relatives, and bought extra copies to give them. On that one, I netted a little money, and am still making money. But not much, of course, because my reach is not yet long enough.
The next step in my reality check was realizing that although I had a good product, I did not have enough recognition, and the resistance to new /unknown entertainers without an entree is very high. So I professionally recorded #3 (which took a lot, but I have people who owe me) and got it into a format that people were more likely to test–and that cost me only fifty cents per unit to give away. I'm not making any money, but I can give away 2,000 mp3 disk/cover sets for the cost of ONE conference to fish for an agent. Not every disk finds a listener, but according to my feedback, hundreds have, including the certain people in my life I most want to reach, and I am thrilled.
Maybe when I finish the next novel, I'll make money. But even if I didn't, as a storyteller, having an audience is what matters most to me.
The moral to other writers is, go ahead–you don't have much to lose. You'll get your work in front of real readers, if you can stand the heat you'll improve, and at the end of the day it really is more cost-effective than becoming a writing conference groupie endlessly dating agents.
That said, one day I hope to break into a royalty-paying deal. But it will have to be better than what I can do for myself.
The moral here is don't pitch at conferences!! Do you really think we go to conferences trolling for clients? To sit in a windowless room all day hearing a new pitch every ten minutes when just at my agency we get 10,000 submissions each year! I've long lobbied for group appointments so writers can actually get to know us. Have pointed out that we respond to WRITTEN material not pitches and thus email queries are FAR more effective.
And further those who are good at pitching invariably turn out to have training as actresses or sales people or presenters which has zero correlation to writing ability. We attend conferences for many reasons– to see our clients, to meet prospective clients whose work we have already read; to meet with editors and other agents and professionals; to cheer on clients winning awards; to present workshops that can inform and genuinely support new writers . . . a longer list here. Bottom line: if you have a ms. and want to connect to agents go to websites. Guess what? We read all submissions for FREE! And often provide feedback if we are genuinely interested. I signed a writer at the last conference I attended I had been exchanging emails with for nine months. That happens.
Let me confess right off the bat… I'm a longtime literary agent. I have a financial stake in the authors I represent. But I've also self-published books of my own, and done well, so I'm not someone who is down on self-publishing. To be fair, I don't see that literary agents have been terribly vocal about self-publishing. I'm certainly not opposed. I just think authors need to understand what they're getting into — you should ONLY self-publish if you (1) want to spend a bunch of money on a book to give to family and friends, or (2) have a means for selling books. In my experience (and yours too, I think, Mike), most wannabe authors don't have the means to actually sell books. Some nonfiction authors who speak can do very well with a self-pubbed book by selling them in the back of the room (I did); but it's very rare for a fiction writer to self-pub and sell many books. (No matter how many times you bring up THE SHACK.) -Chip
Last thing: I disagree with you on the tenor of your argument. Frankly, I DO care about writers getting scammed (maybe because I used to make my living as a writer). And I was surprised at the negative tone you took toward agents. (You could poll the authors I represent, and see if I assist them with idea development, career guidance, marketing, and working through the rough spots. I wouldn't be afraid of the replies. I sometimes fail at it, but my stated goal is to assist with all those areas.) But maybe you've taken a bunch of hits on this decision. Without sounding argumentative, what exactly does an author receive from his or her self-pub relationship with Thomas Nelson that he or she would not receive from self-pubbing directly with ASI? I'm missing that. Thanks! (And no more long agent posts.) -Chip
-Chip
Chip, I think I was pretty careful in the post not to swipe ALL agents. We work with some great agents, who are true partners. I personaly have a literary agent. We don't even look at proposal at Thomas Nelson (with rare exceptions) unless they are represented. So, I am not arguing against all agents any more than someone would argue again all publishers or all authors. People are people. Some are good; some are bad.
If you read back through my comments here—and I know there are a ton—I have clarified this several times. ISince I have had to speak to this a few times now, obviously I wasn't as clear in the post as I should have been.
Thanks,
I understand your point of view. But I am curious about something that seems to be missing in the logic of the equation. Google Publish America – read what publishers themselves have called that publisher. Then compare the AS model to the PA model. The only difference is the huge amount of money one will spend with AS. So if for years PA was the biggest scam in the industry – and toted as such by agents, writers, publishers – how can this be viewed as good? Or evolving? The only thing evolving from the PA model to this one is again – the cash flow involved.
If the same industry that has hurled insults one way for years but now is going to back that model, it makes a lot of things look like hypocrisy.
In addition, if this new model becomes so evolved it takes over the publishing industry – what happens to the good stories that can't afford to see the print? So many of the bestsellers in the last decade would have been hard pressed to see the bookshelf if the author had to incure costs such as these to get them there.
As I hope to eventually hone my craft and evolve that novel into something that someone else enjoys – these are questions that leave the aspiring author some food for thought about where their career may get stone walled.
I am a pastor, and in my fourth chapter of my book. I have had this desire for the last 14 years, to write. Many people have encouraged me fulfill, yet I held off on it. I have started. This blog is very informative. I'm thinking of self publishing my work, as I'm not very sure I will be accepted by a publishing house. I have thought of multiple ways I market it. I know for a fact my book can be a help for many people. It deals with leadership. Thank you Mike
Wow! This is a wonderful piece. I’m in complete agreement. Can’t even think of one point I disagree with. Straight to the point and fearless; not dodging the issues. Agents, wake up! As a writer, I am presently trying to raise funds to use the WestBow OPPORTUNITY. As I told another writer online just last night, you must be ready to put down your money. That just seems to be the stark truth. I repeat, this article about says it all. Wish I were one of those early WestBow prospects.
6. The long existing self-publishing model did mean the writers ended up with hundreds of books in the basement and had to figure out how to sell them. This newer vanity model where the writer gets listed in a catalog of 85,000 other books that no one ever looks at is hardly an improvement for the cost. A client signing books this week said B&N told her they never stock self-published books any more because of the pressure from PUBLISHERS to keep the shelf space for their books. Do you think Walmart will? In the past going from bookstores to help get a book available especially a regional title could work. No longer.
<Sigh.> As hard as it maybe to believe, many authors have built platforms (thanks to the Internet) that don't require the traditional bookselling distribution model. I know many authors who have done VERY well who have ZERO bookstore distribution.
I have no trouble believing that at all. Books have been sold direct to consumers for decades with success. Some e-publishers are doing very well and I have a few clients who have written for them and made a nice living. Harlequin's new Carina will presumably be such an endeavor. The traditional model absolutely isn't for everyone a new modes are emerging. But I know of NO ONE who has had this success with POD in the ASI model– in fact they state clearly that selling 500 books is considered a "best seller"
I should mention this is not just theory on my part. A few years ago to understand this option better I "published" a half dozen books via Lightning source to truly get the process. I still contend it won't work for fiction.
That said, I think your first argument (brand dilution) is a bit disingenuous. Your company is first turning down a manuscript (in essence saying, "We don't think this can be financially successful for us"), then coming back and saying, "But if you give us money, and pay for it yourself, we can help you produce it and it will be great." You're free to do that, and I won't begrudge you the business. I don't care if you want to get into self-pubbing — the industry is changing, and this is one of the changes. But I think the implication that a self-pubbed book is somehow tied to Thomas Nelson isn't really true. And that's the sizzle you're selling. Does it affect my business? Nope. There are a bazillion self-pubbed books, neither B&N nor Amazon will carry them, so it doesn't impact me one bit. But I do think it's fair to point out the incongruence.
Chip, Amazon will sell your high school notebook if you have an account with them. For $12 a year, you can keep your POD book in the Ingram Catalog, which means that every online seller (including B&N) will have it available, and any bookstore can order it. I'm not saying they will stock it, or that anybody will find it if you don't send them to it, but there is no real barrier to online sales for a self-pubbed author.
I was amused to see that the week my first book was listed online, twenty 'used' copies were also listed. Which means that others who downloaded the same catalog were willing to take an even lower profit than Amazon. And I didn't even offer a publisher's discount!
Good points Lauren. Goes back to access. :) The barriers preventing access are coming down.
Chip, I'm sorry but I disagree. It is tied to Thomas Nelson. We are reviewing the sales performance. In fact, we're actually discussing the editorial content with the WestBow editors on a regular basis.
You have no idea whether we will actually publish some of these books at Thomas Nelson. You are speculating that we won't and implying that I am saying that we are, knowing full well we aren't. (I think that's called a lie!) Time will tell. I think you are making some pretty weighty pronouncements about our motives here.
Wait a minute. When I specifically asked TN editors about this very thing, I was told that Westbow was at arms length and they were not looking at anything from that division and had no intention of doing so! Would you mind clearly stating for the record that your FICTION editors are reviewing the manuscripts sent into Westbow with a view to acquiring them? {after previously rejecting them of course} We have this 'bait and switch' view because what Chip has expressed is exactly the information we have been given. No one is concerned about self-publishing if in fact the writer does receive books to sell at a reasonable price and can build a following. There is objection to the production of a "keepsake" your word and calling that the launch of a writing career that can lead to publication on the TN list.
Yes, WestBow is arm’s length. The WestBow team is employed by ASI and assigned to service our joint venture. However, when they find something of particular editorial merit, they bring it to the attention of Pete Nikolai, one of our VPs.
Pete’s job (among other things) is to ascertain whether or not he should bring it to the attention of one of our Thomas Nelson editors. He is also the one who will be watching the WestBow weekly sales report to see what is getting traction and what is not. We will bring those that are to the attention of the appropriate acquisitions editor.
Please understand that this venture is only about a month old. We have a strategic intention, but we are still working through making sure that we have the right processes in place. We don't want to burden our Nelson editors with additional workload, but we also want to make them aware of opportunities as they arise.
Thank you for taking the time to provide this detailed response. This makes sense to me. I hope this works out as you envision it. And all those new writers on the Nelson list will be looking for agents! ;-)
Michael,
I hope this is not a career-transitional blog for you. Your original post is insulting to agents, admits you're in self-publishing for the money, and that you don't respect organizations who advocate for writers with information and advice about their careers. Some of your comments, on others comments, also showed a rather narrow view of the people who have a stake in creating good books and stories for readers. I also felt you don't have much respect for readers since they don't purchase books by the imprint.
As you promote self-publishing as a viable model and a wave for the future, you are also discrediting the value of a traditional publisher like TN, that will not consider an unagented writer, but don't think that same agent should advise a writer not to use your self-pub division so you can make money on an author you won't publish or promote.
You stated your position is for economic concerns – then said that is everyone's position, to make money, which the stats show few authors will do through self-pub channels. Maybe you're still upset The Shack made money that could have boosted the bottom line of your company, if you hadn't passed on the project.
I'm not sure who you intended to benefit from this blog post . There was little respect for; other professionals in your industry, organizations who advocate for writers, or any purpose to publishing other than to get money. Isn't the whole purpose of publishing to connect authors to readers?
Harlequin may even have bought into the ASI marketing plan because TN did, so thought maybe it is a good thing. Otherwise, why would they state their new division is so like your WestBow?
There's a huge difference between non-fiction authors with a platform and passion, making money from their self-pubbed books, and novelists who want to be published. Doing the time is part of the journey to crafting a story that will benefit a reader. The novelist needs to learn dedication to the craft and gain a whole pile of compassion for the reader – who will benefit from a stellar story – while becoming more professional. Whenever that journey is cut short with a quick fix, the story suffers and the benefit to others is lost.
I feel this blog you posted has that same feeling – the message and benefit to others has been lost to economic concerns. This makes me wonder what journey or new venture you may begin – and what your next blog post may be about.
I hardly know where to begin. Let me just re-state what I have said previously: I am not opposed to all agents. In fact, I am not opposed to most agents. We benefit from them. We consider them partners. I personally have an agent.
I also acknowledge that non-fiction authors generally more from self-publishing than novelists. However, if you scroll back through these comments, you'll find at least one novelist who had a very positive experience self-publishing.
I think it all comes down to your goals. I trust writers to make those decisions, after educating themselves. I expect industry associations to educate on the options and not advocate for a specific kind of publishing that simple benefits them more.
Hey Mike, As an author who's written 9 books for Thomas Nelson, I applaud this move. There are books which are both important and well-written, but where the audience is so narrow, there's not enough potential return for a major publishing house to touch it.
That dynamic reminds me of your days at Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishing where you guys decided to publish books which might not have a vast audience but had messages that were worthy to be heard. Unfortunately, as you learned, that model wasn't sustainable. This self-publish option gives those projects a shot at finding an audience, regardless of size.
Hats off!
If only that were true, the endeavor would indeed be wonderful.
Wow – this post and thread is almost worthy of being made into a book. There is a lot of good insight here as well as passion. What a combination!!
Here is the question posed: What do you think about self-publishing? A threat or just another option?
This question can only be interpreted through the point of view of the particular blog reader. Obviously, as author of nine self-published books, I am biased. An unpublished author cannot see self publishing as a threat, but a traditionally published author can since competition might cut book sales. A publisher faces the same liability (though arguably not a major problem, yet). An agent probably has more clients that he or she can handle now so they probably are not concerned so much with future prospects. However, if many of their current clients opted for self publishing as opposed to entrusting their manuscript to the agent for an extended pitch campaign, the agent may suffer the loss of a few sales. However, the reverse may occur if the self published book attains a modicum of success, it might open the door to a traditional publisher for that book or at least a subsequent book by the same author. It is an interesting environment out there — as can be gleaned from reading this thread. The future of many people could be at stake. Personally – I think the return of the Lord is close at hand and long term fears about careers is a moot point. Perhaps God is even using the self publication revolution to help prepare the Earth for the second coming. That to me is even a more fascinating concept than worrying about whose livelihood is being threatened by the advent of easy publication.
In the comments section of your blog you say: “I hardly know where to begin. Let me just re-state what I have said previously: I am not opposed to all agents. In fact, I am not opposed to most agents. We benefit from them. We consider them partners. I personally have an agent.”
You seem surprised that so many agents took umbrage at your blog post. In your comments, you keep repeating that you were only referring to some agents. I think you should re-read your blog. Below I have pulled out every reference or inference you made about agents in your blog. Where did you say “some?” In only one place: “some are speaking out against self-publishing."
You never qualified any of the negative comments about agents. You painted us with a very broad brush.
Here’s what you said:
1. “What I find curious is that much of the backlash has come from agents.”
2. “But why should traditional publishers, agents, and industry trade associations—which I refer to collectively as ‘the guild’—care?”
3. [In your third point, when talking about the agents’ argument against self-publishing you say:] “I find this surprisingly hypocritical.”
4. “The primary thing an agent sells is ‘access.’ I fully realize this isn’t the only thing, but I would argue it is the primary thing, especially for new authors.”
5. “The problem with the self-publishing model is that it takes away the would-be author’s need for access. If they are not going the route of traditional publishing, then they don’t need an agent. Could it be that this poses such a threat to the agent’s business model that some feel a need to speak out against it?”
6. ”Maybe it’s time agents took a hard look at their own business model and asked how they can add value in the new publishing economy.”
Let me answer these points one by one:
1. Backlash? How many agents have publically lashed out against self-publishing compared to writers? What percentage of the “backlash” came from agents?
2. Guild, as used here, implies a closed, self-protective club. Self-protection has nothing to do with it. If we seem like a closed society it is only because we have a limited number of client slots informed by the limited number of publishing spots. We are also a closed society because it is our job to only admit those of journeyman level, so to speak. Would you like us to bring every apprentice to you?
3. In your third point you say, “I find this surprisingly hypocritical.” That’s a broad stroke. You didn’t say some agents are hypocritical. Many of us work very hard to make certain our contracts with publishers are win-win. We know that if we don’t care for the publishers’ well-being as well as our clients' well-being we are being short-sighted.
4. Here’s where you cut deeply. Yes, some agents are nothing more than hacks—focusing on selling, selling, selling. Maybe they do enjoy the power of that access. But every agent in my circle of friends works hard to maintain a servant’s heart toward clients and publishers alike. We take a holistic approach with our clients. Every decision is weighed in charting a long-term career strategy. We often turn away lucrative immediate opportunities because of the potential effect in the long haul.
5. When access is available directly writers don’t need agents? As my colleague, Janet Kobobel Grant said, “Then why would best-selling authors have agents?” I ask the same question. I have one client who has over 100 million books in print. Don’t you think she could have direct access to publishers without an agent? Do you think she has an agent only for access?
6. Suggesting we don’t look to the future and don’t add value is an insult. We are constantly assessing the industry, weighing the changes. That’s what we do as agents. When we get together with our colleagues, that’s what we chew on. And if anyone adds value to the industry—writers and publishers alike—it’s a good agent.
Thomas Nelson, B&H and Harlequin took a bold step when they decided to test this new model. The debate is healthy and always follows something scary and new. Look at the violent debate every time we discuss e-Books. We will continue follow the self-publishing debate with interest.
Maybe you were attempting to deflect attention and criticism away from Thomas Nelson by attacking agents, but it’s akin to making an ad hominem attack instead of addressing the debate head on. We are all in this together.
Thanks for your input, Wendy. I do appreciate it. I probably did paint with too broad a brush. I stand corrected. Hopefully, I will learn and do a better job next time.
I also appreciate healthy debate, which is why I have spent as much time as I have engaging with those who have commented here.
However, I now feel like I am just repeating myself. For those who are interested in my perspective on most of the issues you raise, they can scroll back through the comments.
Thanks again for your input.
Thank you Wendy for writing these comments. It is true that most unpublished writers have a vague idea of what agents do and really think it is just about getting that first sale. I have clients who have been with my agency for 15-20 years and they are obviously getting a great deal more than that! Many writers want to focus on writing and know they have support, counsel and action for everything else like:
whether to write in different genres, or with a pseudonym, or for different publishers, or other avenues of publication, quit the day job, retain certain rights, ask for rights reversions, learn to read a royalty statement, collect funds that have not been paid, look for new opportunities, and dozens of other decisions that must be made and then pursued. There is no reason at all this should be an adverarial process rather than a win-win team process for writer, agent and publisher. And frankly, I have always appreciated the fact that Nelson is a great team player when it comes to including me on everything and my client being thrilled with the result.
Hello, Michael. I purchased a package from WestBow Press less that a week after it opened for business. I want to say from the beginning that I have been impressed with the high quality of the people with whom I have been working. As a novice, professional writer with a nonfiction devotional book, I believe I made the right decision with the right company. I would not change my mind, at this point. However, this book WestBow Press has contracted to publish for me was not a business venture. The next book will have a business component to it so, as a business person, I have a question for you: what are you selling me that is worth 80% of the net profit on a book WestBow Press publishes? If you want me to be a return customer, I need a very good answer to that question. Thank you for your time, Lynnda Ell
Lynnda, this is an important question, I would direct you back to your WestBow contact. They are in the best position to answer that. As the CEO of Thomas Nelson, I just don't get that involved in this level of operational detail. Thanks.
I have spent nearly three years writing my first book and am truly amazed at the difficulty people have endured trying to get an agent and get published through the traditional manner. I would love to have an agent and a get contract from a top publisher and will go that route first. More than that however, I would really love to get my writing in the hands of those that can benefit from it and if that means self-publishing, then thats the route I'll take.
If someone is looking to create an income stream from their books and willing to do whats needed, then a few thousand $$ is not a real large investment.
These blogs are great for people like me that are really just starting to navigate these treacherous waters…
James, please keep navigating.
Vanity publishing is NOT the standard, normal way professional authors break into this business. Lots of authors blog or have some kind of online presence these days–research the ones you like, who write in the genre in which you want to publish. Do not trust the "paid" listings that come up in your first Google search that make it seem it's SOP to pay to play in this business. Because it just isn't.
You’re right, Mike. I was making an assumption. I should have restated that. My apologies. As you know, I hold you in high esteem, and did not mean to impugn your motives. You’re right — my comments could be read as suggesting you knew something was not true. That was wrong of me, and I’m sorry.
In my opinion, TRUE self publishing is a viable option. Especially if one's book is quirky or would appeal to niche markets more than the masses.
If one's dream is to see their book in print, have it on hand for friends or for local events, yes it can work and it can work well.
But, IMO, the deal Westbow and ASI have isn't true self publishing. It's vanity pub.
In self publishing the writer fronts the money and assumes the risks… thus, the writer keeps the profits. 100%
In vanity pub? the writer fronts the money, assumes the risk and has to SPLIT the profits.
Vanity presses go after those who are so desperate to make it big, they are willing to shell out thousands in that hope. Now if a person wants to do that, it's their money, their call. Personally, I still see it as exploiting that writer's dreams, but there ya go.
But I'm kind of surprised that Thomas Nelson would want to be in on any sort of exploitative deal and to me, that's how this looks. Exploiting the writers who weren't good enough or weren't ready, or the ones who story just didn't fit in with what TN publishing. It's disheartening.
For the love of Pete–this venture is NOT self-publishing! It is Vanity Publishing, In Self Publishing, you keep all your royalties. In this venture, you only keep 50%. So basically, they make you pay and they keep half the money.
I really don’t believe agents are speaking out against this due to an access isssue. They see far more decent writing coming through their inbox than they could ever represent.. If half of them went to self-publishing, it wouldn’t hurt their business one bit, and would likely help, since the amount of queries they have to deal with these days has gone up hugely over the past year. There are so many more people writing today than can be supported by the market, they can afford to be choosy. Unfortunate for many writers, because lots of good stuff gets passed on. This gets unfairly turned on agents I think, whom end up getting seen as the bad guys who don’t know good writing when they see it. They see and know all kinds of good writing. They also have to attempt to acquire to the current marketplace and what readers and publishers are going after. It’s something of a guessing game. Readers are fickle. You know all of this of course, and so do many with some familiarity with the industry. I do wish the info would get past along to all of the writers who think agents are just a bunch of elitiist gatekeepers who don’t know good writing. There’s too much of it. Also, a lot more poor writing to go along with it. Sifting through it all is a really difficult task. Self-publishing is certainly an alternative, not a very viable one for the vast majority of writers, assuming they wish to make any money at all from their writing. Van/sub publishers though are manipulating this state of affiairs however to make writers think it is viable, when the fact is, 99% will invest far to much time, effort, and money for no return on their investment.
One thing that troubles me in your post is that writers choose a vanity press because they're making an "informed decision." Many vanity presses rely on people NOT being informed.
The publishing business works generally like other businesses, but there are some aspects that are different. Suppose you need a plumber. You would pay for his services. So it seems like a logical jump–you want a book published, you pay for it. Run a search, and the top ten hits are vanity presses.
The writer will find a marketing spiel designed to get them to buy into self-publishing. All that person sees is that it's publishing, and that the assumption is that their book will be in bookstores. The words on the sites are carefully phrased to suggest this is possible, and it's only after the writer has paid the money that they find out this wasn't true.
Sure, the writer should have done his homework. But how do they sort through all the misinformation to make that informed decision? I've even seen national newspapers print misinformation about vanity publishing. The crux of the problem is that vanity publishing is all about selling to the writer, not the readers.
I'd like to know how you define the difference between self publishing and vanity publishing. In concrete terms, what is the difference?
Thanks for the comments. I think just about every possible opinion has been shared on this, so I am closing this comment thread.
Me, too!