Why Agents May Be Opposed to Self-Publishing

So I've been doing some research, and I've found out that Author Solutions bought out their main competitor, xLibris, earlier this year.

Author Solutions is doing your "self-publishing" for you, as I understand it? And they seem to be in the mood to dominate the "self-publishing" side of things. They seem to do a pretty good job of what they do. I would call it a vanity press, you would call it self-publishing.

So what I'd like to know, with both Harlequin and Thomas Nelson, is what precisely do you add to this equation? What value does Harlequin and TN add to Author Solutions service? Just telling your rejects about it?

And where is your profit coming from out of it? Is it coming from "referral fees?" Which in other contexts might be called "kickbacks?" Is it coming from the promise some sort of market penetration? Which you make an excellent case yourself in #2 above won't actually happen for these books?

What service is Thomas Nelson itself providing here, to either the market or the author, that Author Solutions didn't already provide? And why are you being paid anything for it at all?

If someone wants to go publish their book with Author Solutions, great. But let's not call it a fancy forward thinking "self-publishing" model that puts you ahead in the glorious new world of publishing, when basically all that's happening here is that Harlequin and Thomas Nelson decide to take a cut in return for their names and a pretension of "marketing."

Cause if you are adding any other value to this deal, I don't see it.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'd like to know how you define the difference between self publishing and vanity publishing. In concrete terms, what is the difference?

I have written a book (331 pages) of fiction. It is a story of a serial killer who starts out as a young boy beginning with his own sister. The crux of the book is how he cotinues to get away with it throughout the years and how those who do finally realize who the killer is, its too late. I would like to see it published because I believe it has a lot of potential not only for a book but for a series or movie. I DO NOT want to self publish because ill never know then if it has true merit. But I need a literary agent who would take it on consignment as I dont have the money to try it o my own. Can someone give me some guiance here?