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.

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.

1. You assert that traditional publishing spots are artificially scarce (by whatever means). This should mean, authors are willing to settle for a great deal less than they would otherwise get, due to the scarcity. Supply & demand, right?

2. And yet from your original post, publishers are the ones getting ripped off.

Since publishing spots are scarce, you should be able to leverage that power. If you think you are getting ripped off by authors who don't earn out their advances, who have slots for which there is a great deal of competition, and you continue to overpay them…

Doesn't that mean that y'all are basically patsies?

These things just don't make economic sense. If traditional publishing spots are scarce and you are still overpaying most of your authors, you are doing something wrong. And it's clearly not the agents–or the authors–fault. That just sounds like someone (you) failing to leverage an economic fact.

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’m not quite sure how you think you know that I know something different than this.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.