Sunday 19 May 2013

Patchett Rallies Author Troops to Get Involved With Health of The Publishing Industry

Every so often authors immersed in the traditional world of publishing pop their heads above the precipice and make grandiose statements about independent publishing, the retail book trade, and, in particular, self-publishing and self-published authors. Garrison Keillor tried it prior to Book Expo 2010 with an article for the New York Times, and last summer Sue Grafton tried her hand at making sweeping statements on a subject she later graciously conceded she knew little about. To her credit, Grafton did spend time following her comments to LouisvilleKY.com taking to self-published authors and learning far more about the subject. Neil Gaiman regularly speaks about the future of publishing and the growth of self-publishing, and while I don't always agree with his opinions, he is always someone I'd cross the street to listen to when he does. Gaiman spoke about these topics recently during the Digital Minds Conference at the London Book Fair.

Orange Prize-winner Ann Patchett is the latest author to share her wisdom on publishing and the use of self-publishing services by authors. Patchett is a globally successful and award-winning novelist and has published books with HarperCollins and Bloomsbury. Patchett has recently published an essay entitled, The Bookshop Strikes Back, detailing her experiences after she opened an independent bookshop in Nashville. This week she spoke to The Bookseller magazine and shared her views on the traditional book industry and self-publishing. Patchett is concerned that self-published authors who pass on traditional publishing deals and use self-publishing services in an effort to “cut out the middle man” are potentially compromising their work by not using professional services. Patchett expressed concerns to The Bookseller that authors are not always taking a responsible role in the industry (believing they can make more money through self-publishing) and readers should not just purchase books from the cheapest retail channel because that threatens the survival of local independent bookshops.

Speaking to The Bookseller, Patchett goes on to say:

“If you had asked me two years ago, I would not have thought it was my responsibility. But I do think authors need to get involved with all sort of aspects of publishing and health of the publishing industry. This is not every man working for themselves, we need to think and work as a business. Authors have been protected for a long time, we are very well cared for, but we need to think about our other partners, from bookshops to publishing and self-publishing.”


I love Ms. Patchett's phrase 'Authors have been protected for a long time, we are well cared for,' while not exactly explaining what publishers are protecting authors from. I'd hazard the only thing publishers are protecting is their business and bottom lines through investment and risk aversion at the end of every year, and the only people in the industry who can lay claim to running a 'protection racket' for authors are agents. Agents would be the first to advise us that their business is protecting the author from the vagaries of the commercial publishing contract!

Directly addressing the subject of self-publishing, she goes on to say:

“There are people who want to put books on Amazon because they cannot get publishing deals and that is understandable. But there are some authors who could get published in the mainstream but because they are trying to make more money, they think the best way is to self publish. They are cutting out the middle man whose services they really need, such as the editor and the publicist.”


There is no doubt that traditional publishing channels can offer expertise and distribution resources that self-publishing channels still find difficult to penetrate, but yet again we have another author speaking from within the traditional industry, albeit with experience of running an independent bookshop, trying to suggest that the woes and challenges facing the industry—at least some of them—lie squarely with authors and readers, the two marginalised protagonists existing at opposite extremes of the traditional industry and also divided by it. While I applaud Patchett's defence of independent local bookshops and her wish to see them prosper and survive by publishing's 2020 mark, she is so utterly off the mark when it comes to responsibilities to the traditional publishing industry.

Certainly any author—whether solely self-published or migrating to some form of independent publishing—should make it his or her business to understand how the industry works, but the very existence and relevance of the traditional publishing industry is not and should not be the author's concern. The only way it will ever become a concern of authors is when the vast majority feel they have a valued place at the grand table of publishing. Authors new and established no longer have one avenue of participation, and are free to engage the professional services of editors, designers and publicist. If an author chooses to contract the services of a poor provider or entirely omits vital services for the professional publication of their book, then this is down to their valued choice or simply sheer ignorance, and not a general characteristic of self-publishing itself.

For readers, they will always migrate to the channel that provides the greatest choice and quality at the cheapest price-point. That's not a transgression aimed deliberately at crushing the independent bookshop (or bringing about the downfall of the big publisher), no more than most authors who choose to migrate to self-publishing are throwing daggers in the direction of traditional publishers. In fact what The Bookseller article does allude to is the migration of established authors to alternative paths of publication, often combining traditional publication with independent e-publication. You can certainly bet this move by established authors working within the traditional publishing machine is motivated by better earnings as a writer, improved contract terms, and these authors are not the ones skimping on vital professional services. The vast majority of self-published authors, who continue to pursue the independent approach, do so not out of financial greed, but an unwillingness to work with an established system they perceive as being elitist, time-consuming, protected and closed to only a select few.
  
Even after all the challenges and changes in the book industry over the past ten years, there is still an inbuilt intransigence within the traditional publishing industry to take responsibility for its own destiny, preferring instead to load blame on new technology giants, opportunistic retail and distribution channels, and in recent years, authors and readers. It is no wonder the relevance of the mainstream industry is becoming more isolated, usurped and dictated to by its commercial partners.
One of the most insightful comments under The Bookseller article on Patchett's opinions is this one from J Kenton Pierce:

"If a gate is slammed in my face, is it my responsibility to come back and paint it when I've found another gate, or built myself a ladder? I'm not a Bitter Rejectee, mind you... I've only recently started submitting, and I've got stuff in submission status I've very high hopes for with an Indie Publisher that I really, really think would make a good home for my main body of work... so I'm no "opponent" of Publishing. I can see the potential benefits of traditional, indie, and self-publishing. It's just that this "rally to the gatekeepers, all for one and one for all, we're all in this together now that we're losing relevance, God save the Queen!" just isn't tickling my giggler."


I'll raise a glass to you this weekend, J. Kenton Pierce, in the hope and desires of Ms. Patchett, that perhaps we all can work together for better books rather than just one established guest late to the tea-party.





Share/Bookmark

Wednesday 15 May 2013

Guest Post: Appearances Can Be Deceptive - Vincent Flannery

The word appearance has two meanings: one literally means to appear; the other describes what something looks like. Let’s talk about the first meaning, which is the first thing a writer thinks about: how am I going to get this book to readers? Most writers will have gone through the arduous task of sending work out to agents or, in some cases, directly to publishers. (Though very few publishers, nowadays, will accept manuscripts.) Some writers are successful and get published by the mainstream section of the book industry.
 
After the rejections, quite a few opt for vanity publishing, which gets its name from the fact that writers—whom publishers reject—are so vane, they get a printer to print their work and they sell it themselves. The one flaw in the term vanity is one’s perception of the abilities of mainstream editors knowing a good book if they fell over one! When you try and read some of the rubbish that gets published, you wonder if a machine read it, or the editor was drunk or affected  by some other malady. It goes without saying, there are attics, closets, garages and charity shops, with boxes of unsold, though not always unreadable, books.
Up until fairly recently, mainstream and so-called vanity publishing were the only options open to writers, besides the odd nervous breakdown—until the arrival of the internet. E-books have become a growth industry for the vanity publishing sector, and have opened a whole new dimension to publishing. Admittedly, in some spheres of e-publishing the quality of books, both physical and intellectual leaves a lot to be desired. A parallel of e-publishing is the improvement and use of print-on-demand, which until fairly recently was a bit disorganized, but has come on with leaps and bounds, mainly due to the advances in printing technology and its wider use by the publishing industry and author communities. Vanity publishing was the forerunner of print on demand, but due to print technology advances, digital short run printing has reduced the economic tipping point between laser and offset printing. The cost was cheaper the more copies printed until the arrival of what basically were giant colour photocopiers/computer laser printers. These machines are still enormous, as I happen to know someone who sells them in the UK, and he tells me they are being improved all the time. They cost about £250,000 a go, [ED-recent costs of the EBM can be found here and here with standard and more advanced models available for outright purchase or leasing] and are mostly being bought by universities, health authorities, local governments and in-house print companies. At the push of a button, the machine reads a file, and minutes later, out pops a ready-made paperback, printed by laser with a glue-binding. Laser printing is in fact more expensive than normal printing methods, but its ability to do one-off books is its greatest benefit. Up until this kind of print technology appeared, printing involved lithography or letterpress, and was labour intensive to set up.
 
Naturally, the mainstream people are not very happy, and old habits die hard. The clever ones will either have the cash to buy one of these machines, or do a deal with the likes of Amazon, and avoid the complicated arrangements in place for mainstream publishing: printers; transport; holding stock inventory, distributors and whatever: ad infinitum. Before I move on, let’s take a look at what that last sentence involves. Printing: most mass-produced paperbacks and a lot of hardbacks, are printed on very nasty paper, little better than thick newsprint. The cost of printing these pulp books is peanuts, probably 50cents plus (US). Shipping to the publisher’s distribution channels depends on deals with hauliers and distances, before books reach retailers. The publisher has to pay its editors (though in some cases, one wonders why) and then it has to market the book, not forgetting the original typesetting, cover design, proofing etc.
 
To get the book on retail bookshelves usually involves a distributor, and they don’t come cheap. Before that, there is the cost of delivering books to them! Most distributors charge about 50% of the retail price, out of which they pay the book sellers their 30 to 35% for selling it. I can see the calculators, abaci, of your minds doing some sums (math in the US) and coming to the horrifying conclusion that the writer is the one who gets the least out of all of this palaver! There are one or two short cuts in the system, but they aren’t a great help: small publishers can sell their books at book fairs, and some of the ISBN agencies will funnel orders from bookshops, but that then involves the small publisher with a bill for postage. A friend of mine, who is a small publisher, told me the other day that Nielsen BookNet had forwarded some orders to him, but the postage costs are horrendous. The likes of Amazon have negotiated deals with the postal companies. Hence you can get a book sent out for little cost. For example: I ordered a book, which was sent out at a total cost of €3, but it was sent to the wrong address. When my friend took it to the post office, she was told it would cost €6 to post to the right address, but to send it back, would cost nothing. I was refunded the €3 when the book arrived back at the senders. I reordered it, and it was sent out for €3 and duly arrived at the right address. Again, I can see your brains trying to get around that one!
 
The last hurdle in the mainstream system is the displaying of your book in shops, and any of you who browse in bookshops will know how hit and miss that is.
 
The one big issue in the first meaning of appearance is how you tell people it has appeared—been published. Publishers use AI’s (Advance Information), ARC’s  (Advanced Review Copies), their trade distributor channel, data and catalogue listings, which all go out to buyers at bookshops and they will put adverts in The Bookseller, Publishers Weekly and so on. Vanity publishers have to do the same, and to some extent, so do the e-book publishing services and self-published writers. One advantage for mainstream publishers are that potential readers will find books on the shelves, which is marginally easier than the task facing  those publishers and authors relying mainly on internet sellers, because the stocks in bookshops are smaller and quicker to browse. When you see the numbers involved in internet sellers (new books), the mind boggles!
 
Now we come to the other meaning of the word appearance: what your book looks like. Most people assume this involves just the cover, but there is much more involved: font types and size; paragraph spacing; quality of paper product; and so on.
 
Let’s start with font type. Printer’s fonts can only be printed, as opposed to what is called “one stroke script”, such as copperplate, straight black letter or cursive: scripts that can be written by hand and were used in the writing of manuscripts, and hand written letters etc.  The most famous of printer’s fonts is Roman, and its origins date back to ancient Rome, where it was used for engraving/letter-cutting of public notices. It has serifs and tails, which cannot be done by handwriting, and when it is used in calligraphy, it is referred to as “built lettering”, meaning several strokes are needed to make even one simple letter. Of all printer fonts, it is the most readable, and has withstood the tests of time: there are variations, which are hardly noticeable to the average reader, such as Times New Roman.
 
What a lot of publishers, mainstream or independent or self-published authors don’t realise is that a significant proportion of the public suffer from poor eyesight and dyslexia, and many read in poor light conditions or other situations, which make reading difficult, such as trains and buses, so it’s important to choose an easy to read font. This brings up the question of italics, which a lot of publishers seem to think is very useful, but unfortunately, over use it. Large blocks of italics are difficult to read for most readers, and I will skip over such large blocks, picking up the odd word here and there, and generally relying on the last few sentences to convey the meaning: if there is any. A lot of italicised script is more often or not an aside or some sort of flashback, and a lot of seasoned readers ignore most of it! So keep the italics short and sweet! The next problem with fonts is using bold typeface in normal text: don’t! I have also come across the bizarre use of italics and a fainter tone of ink. One book had a grey ink, and it was virtually unreadable, unless one got a daylight bulb! Some writers have the annoying habit of capitalising the first word or more of a chapter: don’t, it looks cheesy!
 
Text blocking is another aspect of appearance, and can be very threatening to a lot of readers. The obvious physical problem that occurs, when one is confronted with a page of continuous print, is being able to keep on the right line, and the next is that of concentration. The fragile readers, dyslexics, etc. cannot read such blocks, and seasoned readers instinctively know that the writer is going onto a pet subject and will start to skip through the text, knowing the writer is not going to stop for breath: they forget that the reader has to stop for breath. If the writer was to stand in front of someone and talk to them, they wouldn’t do so in such a manner: they would stop for breath! The simplest way of breaking a text block is to use first line indents combined with changes in the delivery, which means you have to think about the construction of the text. Another is to cut it down and reconsider the boredom aspect! While on the subject of blocks of text, let’s look at text alignment. In normal writing, personal letters etc., the alignment is to the left of the page, if writing in romance languages. This is fine for dissertations, scientific papers etc., but in books, it is traditional to use justified alignment, which is easier to read. I have come across some e-books with left alignment and they look scrappy, untidy and annoying: you don’t want to annoy your readers!
 
Having mentioned first line indent, it is advisable to always use that, as again, it makes reading easier: dialogue should be indented as well as paragraphs. The indent means a change of instance or meaning, and without it, the average reader will think there is a typo, if the next sentence starts at the beginning of the line. It causes confusion, and in some cases, a rereading of a line, before the reader realises a new meaning or situation has occurred.
 
Talking of paragraphs, it is not a good idea to double space between every paragraph: to the seasoned reader, it is annoying. It may be okay for children’s books, but not for general reading. Its main use is when a new event is introduced. For example, if subjects are involved in a journey, it helps to have the double space, if you want to say what happened when they arrived.  In a sense, it lets the reader get out of the car—so to speak. It is also used when two events are taking place at the same time, and the next paragraph might start with: Meanwhile, back at the ranch......! A first line indent usually isn’t the best device to use there: the double space is more effective and less confusing for the reader. Use the speaking to someone rule: stop for a longer breath!
 
Visual appearances aren’t the only aspect of the appearance: there is also the mental aspect. When the reader absorbs the information, the brain needs to know when a change is taking place, so we have inverted commas to indicate speech; we have the simple comma to create lists, and to indicate a contradiction: the most famous is when we use the word but. Question marks, exclamation marks, colons, semi colons, brackets and dashes (hyphens), not forgetting the simple single inverted comma, used to denote the absence of letters or the genitive case (apostrophe), all help to convey meaning to the reader when used correctly.
 
A pair of inverted commas normally indicates speech. They can also be used to emphasise a word, very often getting tangled up with themselves if they cover the last word of a speech sentence: so you have to reconstruct your sentence. [ED-strongly disagrees with this, as more often than not, it is overused or wrongly used] In some instances, single inverted commas are used for this purpose. Another form of single inverted comma is the apostrophe, which is used in place of the word of when referring to ownership (That is the house of Mr Smith= That is Mr Smith’s house). Its other use is to indicate abbreviated words like, didn’t, can’t, let’s (let us) or that’s. (That’s: could have been used in the “Smith” example just shown). The use of the apostrophe reduces the pedantic nature of writing. It helps the glide-flow of the text.
 
The comma with the most problems is the simple comma, because it can completely alter the meaning of a sentence if it isn’t in the right place: or missing. Its main purposes are, to divide actions, to cause pauses, but not full stops. The best way to decide where pauses should be is to read the piece out loud, as if you had an audience.
 
The comma has set rules: to separate verbs; before the word but; in a listing; after a date; sometimes with the word because and sometimes before the word and, if the and is denoting a change of verb. (I came out of the bedroom, tripped over the carpet, and fell down the stairs.) The and vanishes and is replaced by a comma, if another action follows. (I came out of the bedroom, tripped over the carpet, fell down the stairs, and my sister came out of the kitchen, to see what had happened.) Some writers, who don’t know their grammar, will put a row of ands together, which is really annoying!
 
If you were telling that to a person, face to face, you wouldn’t have a row of ands, and you would make suitable pauses or gestures, where the commas are. Basically, the reader is reading out loud to themselves, and you must provide the right punctuation.
 
Speech of different people should have separate lines and be indented. I have noticed that some e-book writers have speech and replies closely following, even on the same line, and often without any punctuation between the two speakers. (“How are you today, Charlie?” “I’m fine, Fred, how are you?”)
 
One of the most annoying aspects of reading is that of consistency, and the colon and its close relative the semicolon are one of the favourites. The general rule is that if you have addition to a sentence, which can’t stand alone, you use a colon. (Use the speaking to someone rule: stop for a longer breath!) If you wanted to add again to that, you would use a semicolon ( ........rule: stop for a longer breath; wave your arms.) I have come across mainstream books, which switch from colon to semicolon as the first colon mark. Another consistency problem is that of punctuation within speech. (“He will always be like that.” Said the inspector.) That example is the traditional way: a full stop followed by a capital. Some authors use a comma and lowercase: (“He will always be like that,” said the inspector.) This usage is more common in non-standard English, but if you use one or the other, please stick to it. I have come across books with both usages! (This often is the result of splitting a proof text and giving sections to different proof readers!)
 
Besides the punctuation aspect and the reader’s mind, there are a couple of grammar rules that need to be observed: don’t start a sentence with but or and, because they are intended to be used within a sentence to either add a point, or contradict a point. (We love listening to music, but not on a Sunday) If you find you have written a but or an and sentence, go back and fix it. The and can probably be simply removed, and just change the full stop for a comma, and lowercase the ‘b’.
 
One of the main skills of writing is not the story: it is how you tell it. The skill of the writer makes the reader disappear into another world, and glide through without noticing. This is where continuity comes in, and sadly, some books, stories are like a child’s first book: The cat sat on the mat. Dan and Mary sat at the table. The dog wagged his tail. With continuity: The cat sat on the mat, and Dan and Mary sat at the table, while the dog wagged his tale.
 
Adverbial clauses are also another problem, when it comes to making sense and continuity: At the top of the main street behind the post office next to the parish church I saw a vintage car. If you said that face to face, there is no way you would say it all in one go! So: At the top of the main street, behind the post office, next to the church, I saw a vintage car. While saying that, you would probably use hand gestures, or changes of voice tone.
 
Since this is supposed to be an essay on writing, and not a book on the subject, it is time to stop, before the reader loses interest!
 

Vincent Flannery is an author and producer-presenter of the Culture Gap Program, Radio Liberté, France (Every Sunday at 15hrs.(3pm local time) Internet and podcast).
 
I was brought up in The Vale of Avoca, County Wicklow, Eire, made famous the world over by Thomas Moore the 19th century poet, also author of "the last rose of summer".
 
The vale was also made famous by the BBC (UK TV) program "Bally Kissangel" which was made in Avoca, and if you like my book "The Quarreller's Diary" it will be even more famous!
 
I was edumacated (!) by the holy Dominicans, originally made famous by the Cathars and the Inquisition. Fortunately, by the time their attention came round to me, their methods of persuasion had changed for the better.
 
Thinking of how I ended up now, I'm not quite so sure about that! 
 
I suffer from chronic lack of focus, which for some, is an excuse for doing feck all. My problem was that I was doing too many things all at once, so when my writing career could have taken off, I let it be sidelined. I started writing sarcastic stuff for magazines, which took the mickey out of whoever had the nerve to pop their heads over the stockade when I was about to go to press.
 
That was in 1984 and it was great fun. My second burst of such nonsense was in 1995, and that was even more fun. That was when I started to draw cartoons to accompany my articles.
 
In 2002 I decided enough time was lost chasing my tail and I wrote the first complete book: HOTEL DE FRANCE, which related how I ended up in France. Hotel de France is now on Kindle as "A Story of Aubeterre", with over 50 colour pics (best seen on a PC) 
 
In September 2012 I just put up on Kindle, a book of poetry, which has been sitting around for a long time. A limited edition of handmade books was published, but then it was put on the back burner: more lack of focus! 
 
I now also have an English Language program on French radio www.radioliberte.fr where I talk more nonsense and some serious stuff: a section on writing and another on Old French House renovations and care. Sundays at 2pm french time, and on podcast. 
 
Enough to keep you going for the moment.





Share/Bookmark

Thursday 9 May 2013

Publishing Service Index - May 2013

This is the PUBLISHING SERVICE INDEX for MAY 2013. This update reflects some review updates and the review of Llumina Press. TIPM continues to receive a regular feedback on services since the last index at the end of March, both positive and negative, and this is also reflected in the latest index ratings.



CLICK TO ENLARGE



(KEY)

DIY - Do-it-yourself bespoke sevices
ASS - Author Solutions Services (Packages)
PUB - Also offers Mainstream Contracts
PRT - Printer
FULL - Fulfillment Services provided



The most asked question we get at The Independent Publishing Magazine is often along the lines of; 'What self-publishing service should I go with?'; 'Is so and so a good service to go with?'; or 'Is so and so a scam?'

In some cases, that is an easy question to answer, cut and dry, but in other circumstances, the answer is entirely arbitrary. We are not here to review and run down a company's name, nor are we here to endorse a company's services. If we were only to review author solutions services according to every point in our ideal list of what an author should get from a company offering publishing services; we would have very few reviews to share with you. In truth, no company has ever attained a 10/10, and only a few have recorded more than 08/10. In the autumn of 2010 we will be posting all our reviews with a rating, and any new reviews since February 2010 have automatically had a posted rating at the bottom of the review.

The reality is that some author solutions services begin in a blaze of glory and we might rate them favourably at the time; others, frankly, are just poor, and yet, they improve (sometimes in response to our reviews) to offer reasonable services for authors. We are constantly updating our reviews, but this takes considerable time, and so do the initial reviews.

We get a vast amount of information from authors and the companies selling author solutions services every day - good and bad. We get a great deal of information from monitoring services week by week against the experiences of what authors report back to us. Simply put, and truthfully, we cannot reflect all of this information through the reviews. That is why the comments section under each company we review is so important. It is your recording and dealings with that specific company, and a positive or negative flag to subsequent authors considering using the same company.

So, how do we reflect the changing ups and downs with services?

We believe the PUBLISHING SERVICE INDEX will help to guide authors to services on the up, and those, gradually on the down. If you like, what we are proposing is effectively, a kind of stock exchange for author solutions services.

The PUBLISHING SERVICE INDEX was first launched in June 2010.





Share/Bookmark

Class Action Complaint Against Penguin/Author Solutions - Part 2


The  class action complaint lodged with the New York court at the end of April alleges that ASI misrepresent its company and services with the intention of luring authors in with claims that its books can compete with “traditional publishers,” offering “greater speed, higher royalties, and more control for its authors.” The suit also alleges that ASI profit from “fraudulent” practices, fail to pay royalties due, and engage in activities like “delaying publication, publishing manuscripts with errors to generate fees, and selling worthless services, or services that fail to accomplish what they promise.” Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart cite that these practices are violations of the California Business and Professions Code, and also violations of New York General Business Law. 
The full 33 page document detailing the complaint by the three plaintiffs can be viewed in full here via Victoria Strauss of Writer Beware. 
In the first part of this article, previously posted here, I looked at ASI and their dominate position in the paid-publishing service world and the way it was handled by some of the publishing media. ASI operate self-publishing imprints AuthorHouse, iUniverse, Trafford Publishing, Xlibris, Palibrio, and Booktango and also partners and powers a number of self-publishing imprints with traditional book publishers like Simon & Schuster (Archway Publishing), Thomas Nelson (WestBow Press), Hay House (Balboa Press), Guideposts (Inspiring Voices) and Writer's Digest (Abbott Press).  Author Solutions reports publishing 190,000 titles written by 150,000 authors in addition to operating the Author Learning Center, the stated purpose of which is to provide authors with online education resources, access to industry expertise and an online community to connect with other writers. It also offers a suite of “book-to-screen” services intended to provide authors with Hollywood access. 
In the second part of this article I want to look at particularly at this class action complaint, the allegations made, and its chances of success and the potential implications for self-publishing and Penguin in the future. 
Just before we begin, I’ve been asked overnight via email from several parties outside of the above plaintiff parties to clarify TIPM’s position on ASI and/or my own opinions. I’ve written extensively on ASI, as well as many self-publishing services over the years, and TIPM is testament to that. I’m not going to link and rehash every comment or opinion I have formed about ASI over the past five years, simply because it covers an extensive time in the publishing industry before and after ASI expanded their global operation, acquired several other big self-publishing service providers, and began powering paid-publishing imprints for traditional publishers. A quick look at TIPM’s provider review page will provide the direct links to reviews I have carried out on many of ASI’s imprints. You can find other links and articles on ASI featured in TIPM here, here, here, here, here and here, and these are just some of the most recent. 
As part of any review or examination of a self-publishing provider, TIPM uses the measure of these 12 points and principles to evaluate a provider, together with direct feedback from many authors who have contracted the provider’s services for one or more books. Much of this evaluation goes into the regularly updated Publishing Services Index. On a personal basis, while editor of TIPM and a publishing consultant, I try to present a balanced view through the magazine and avoid public recommendations or bad-mouthing companies. To date, only two companies ever reviewed on TIPM are classified as not recommended. My role as editor of TIPM is to deal with as many facts as possible and to help enlighten and educate authors, not to become a cheerleader for some and the voice of destruction for others. There already far too many self-ordained experts in this field who pontificate on services and providers based solely on personal prejudices, political or commercial agendas. 
For the record, privately, during more than 250 one-on-one author consultancy sessions, I’ve yet to recommend an ASI imprint as the best match for an author, because even the most green and unseasoned author looking at self-publishing services—once armed with correct and unbiased information—can usually reach a fair conclusion about ASI imprints and that it is not the option for a self-publishing author. There is no kudos for me as a publishing consultant if an author client remains confused or unsure of the path forward for him or her. Alas, that has not stopped many thousands of authors every year from reaching a different conclusion. That is one stick ASI’s lawyers will beat any opposition to their business and practices with whether we like it or not. 
And that takes us nicely to this class action law suit. 
In truth, the 12 points and principles I referred to above are perfect targets for a publishing services provider, a guide mark and barometer, not a list of must-haves and absolutes. I don’t expect even the best of publishing providers to hit all of these, but what I do know is that ASI imprints fair pretty poorly against many of them, and that is even ignoring the considerable number of negative experiences I hear from authors I speak to week on week who have dealt with an ASI imprint. 
In looking at the class action complaint against Penguin and ASI, before leaping to judgement or assumptions, I’d ask all to consider this suit in light of all paid-publishing, assisted publishing and vanity presses—whatever you want to call them—because that is the first point I would like to make after an initial reading of Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart’s submission to the US court. The plaintiffs’ allegations against the defendants reads to me more like a general test case than a specific case brought by one client. We should remember while reading and analysing the three claimants’ cases that Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart (GSAS from here on in) openly canvassed for other author clients to joint this case and make it a class action suit. My opinion—and it is based on my reading and what I understand of all parties—is that this suit specifically and purposely sets out to carve out a precedence for future suits against publishing service providers, with the added attraction that it includes a major traditional publishing house. 
The three authors involved, named as Kelvin James, Jodi Foster and Terry Hardy [page 1], are claiming damages of $5 million (ahem, don't ask me where this figure was dreamt up!) and the case has been assigned to Judge Denise Cote who is still presiding over the e-book price-fixing case. GSAS will be happy about this, though, you can bet this is because the Southern District Court of New York already expects this to garner a fair degree of coverage. GSAS has also requested that the case be heard before a jury [page33]. 
For the record, any signed contracts I have seen from authors with ASI imprints state that authors must bring a legal action against the company in the state of Indiana. Presumably, this is the first point of legal order Judge Denise Cote will have to rule on. Plaintiffs Kelvin James is from New York, Jodi foster is from California, and Terry Hardy is from Colorado. Penguin, as direct owners of ASI, is based in New York. 

“11. Venue is proper in this district inasmuch as Defendant Penguin maintains its offices and conducts business in this District.”
[page 3] 

The second page of the suit [page 2] sets out the preliminary statement by describing the nature of ASI’s business, from revenues through to what it claims to do for contracted authors. GSAS make the first challenge that ASI fail to fulfil basic ‘task of publisher; paying its authors their earned royalties and providing its authors with accurate sales statements.’ GSAS go on to allege that ASI do not take diligent care of authors’ work by making ‘egregious publisher errors’ on covers and internal book files and attempts to profit from the author by correcting these errors for a fee. On page three [page 3] of the suit, GSAS allege that ASI wrongly describe itself as “[t]he leading indie publishing company in the world” when it is nothing more than “a printing service that fails to maintain even the most rudimentary standards of book publishing, profiting not for its authors but from them.” 
I don’t know of any publisher, no matter how reputable, that doesn’t profit in some way from its authors. I take the point GSAS is trying to argue, but it doesn’t it work that way for most publishing services—whether printer, packager, assisted publisher or outright vanity press. Most publishing services make their profits from authors rather than the sale of books. GSAS seem to be arguing the point of what a publishing provider calls itself—publisher or service provider. The irony here is that the industry as a whole is moving from publisher to content service provider. The self-publishing and writing communities might rejoice for a brief moment if any court curried favour with this notion. For me, this is a dangerous case of be careful what you wish for. Right now we also have literary agents, authors and retailers claiming to be publishers! 
The class action complaint then moves onto outlining a brief summation of each plaintiff’s individual case. Kelvin James used ASI’s iUniverse in 2009 for his first book, and then used the self-publishing imprint again for a second book. Jodi Foster also used iUniverse for a book in 2010. Terry Hardy purchased three packages from AuthorHouse for three books between 2010 and 2012. 
Under IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS on [page 4] the suit reads:

“17. In 2011, Author Solutions reports to have sold 27,500 publishing packages…”
“18. In the same year, Author Solutions estimated that over the course of its relationship with an author, a single author will generate approximately $5,000.00 in revenue, on average, for the company." 
Jim Milliot of Publishers Weekly is cited from an article for this information. It concerns me when a team of New York lawyers is using media articles to back up statements of fact in a legal deposition. And the suit goes on to state: 

“20. Author Solutions employs several tactics to lure authors into publishing with one of their imprints. Author Solutions maintains a dizzying number of its own self-publishing imprints, or trade names, including AuthorHouse…”
[page 5] 

What kind of formal language is ‘a dizzying number’ for a legal document submitted to a court? At this point of reading this document, I was starting to wonder if I was reading a blog post or a proper legal document and much of the 33 page suit continues in this vein describing terminology and practices at ASI imprints without so much as providing any factual reference for the claim. We also have reference made to fake social media accounts and deception ‘not condoned by Author Solutions’ none of which is properly cited or referenced. 
Again, on this page of the Class Action, we get this statement to the court: 

“The sales team has a quota for how many Publishing Packages they must sell on a daily basis.” 

While this document—already lodged with the court—is by no means anywhere close to a foundation for a book of evidence, I’m staggered GSAS would include this kind of claim and information without proper citation and references. While I appreciate GSAS do not want to show their full hand to the defendants at this stage, the certainty of a trial before a jury is no slam-dunk and the book of evidence has yet to be prepared. I certainly hope this is not a rehearsal of how GSAS will prepare this case for its plaintiffs because some of the claims made in the Class Action Complaint, like the above ones, will require more than just the statements of the plaintiffs experience in dealing with ASI. It will require the back up of employee testimony, internal memos, email correspondence and ASI procedural manuals to prove such claims. 

“27. Authors also begin to experience significant delays in pushing their manuscript forward. While the delay tactic hurts authors and runs contrary to the benefit self-publishing, [sic] which Author Solutions repeatedly touts on its website and in sales calls, it benefits Author Solutions.”
[page 6/7] 

In light of the above, and the fact that two of the authors together have used ASI’s imprints for multiple books (5 if the suit is correct), one of these two plaintiffs published a book two months after submission to ASI?! All of this runs contrary to the core of the case the plaintiffs are trying to present to Judge Denise Cote, certainly at least, that ASI deliberately delays publication as a means of gaining additional profits. 

“28. Check-in coordinators and PSA’s are instructed not to correct errors in manuscripts, even the most glaring errors.”
[page 7] 

Again, none of these claims are backed up or substantiated in the document with references to how or why the allegation was made. 
The document goes on to outline misrepresentations by ASI in its contract and anomalies authors have experienced in receiving royalties and what appears on royalty statements. Point 35 on page 8 alone makes anyone wonder just how many authors ASI could have onboard if the below statement is taken at face value. 

“35. As soon as the author purchases a Publishing Package, she begins receiving aggressive sales and marketing calls from Author Solutions. This alone causes some authors to terminate their relationship with Author Solutions.”
[page 8] 

I can certainly believe this and it is borne out by what I have heard from many authors I have spoken with during consultations. These authors disclose that while they did investigate an ASI imprint and had initial ‘relations’ with them, they were quickly turned off by continuous emails and phone calls in a push by the company to offer discounts to get a contract signature. 
The document goes on to underline the ineffectiveness of ASI’s editing and marketing packages, stating that ‘authors discover that their final book contains errors that either already had been or should have been corrected’ and marketing packages authors receive as ‘nothing more than a handful of contacts for a bookstore, or a press kit with typographical errors that market Author Solutions more than the author’s book.’ 
The document then begins to outline the allegations made by each of the three authors, beginning with Kelvin James. James purchased his first package in April 2009 and had to request iUniverse send him a contract. The author was assigned numerous personal assistants and ‘[T]his caused unnecessary delays.’ But what is bizarre is that the very next line of the document states that the book was published in June 2009, two months later! It’s detail like this that can really blow a plaintiff’s allegations and legal arguments. How much quicker did James expect his book to be published? James’ book was full of formatting errors which were not in the final delivered manuscript. When James expressed his displeasure at these errors, he was informed that he would have to pay for any amendments. He chose to leave his book at it was. The following summer, with some reassurance from iUniverse, James decided to publish a second book with iUniverse (don’t ask!) since ‘he was unaware of any other self-publishing options’ and also decided to include an evaluation service. James ultimately felt that the evaluation service was nothing more than a tool for iUniverse to up-sell him more ASI services. Further delays ensued and James suspected that this was down to his reluctance to purchase any further iUniverse services. His second book was finally published in April 2011. It was also filled with errors not in the original manuscript. James also began to experience difficulties getting royalty payments from iUniverse for his first book despite knowing he had had sales. He terminated his contract with the company in March 2012. 
Jodi Foster has already recounted her experience publicly with iUniverse on Emily Suess’s blog in 2012. According to page 13 of the Class Action Complaint document: 

“Foster researched self-publishing her book with either Xlibris or iUniverse.”
[page 13] 

She decided against Xlibris as she wanted to avoid publishing with an ASI imprint, and decided to go with iUniverse. While I don’t want to be overly critical of an author carrying out research on self-publishing imprints, and I strongly advise authors to do thorough research, I do wonder just how much research Foster really did carry out. However, that is not a grounds for a publishing service not delivering on what it is contracted to do. Like James, Foster agreed to purchase a publishing package over the phone from iUniverse. Her contract was emailed to her and she accepted the terms in July 2010. She also purchased an editorial evaluation and, like author James, received an identical word-for-word result, recommending additional services, with the proviso that her book would then be awarded the Editor’s Choice and be submitted for inclusion in iUniverse’s Rising Star program. Foster went ahead with the additional editing services on the condition that her book would be already on sale before Halloween 2011. Foster then discovered that inclusion in the Rising Star program would mean she would have to purchase additional marketing services to retain this status. In August 2011 Foster was informed that while her book would be sent to print on September 1st, it would not be available for sale for eight weeks. Foster noticed grammar and formatting errors in her book which her editing services should have eliminated. 
What the document and account of Foster’s experience at this stage in the process does not explain is if the author was sent final proofs for sign off. Foster concluded soon after a six-week period that the marketing services she had purchased were worthless, ‘such as radio interviews and media coverage.’ She received a refund for the additional marketing services in March 2012. Foster also noticed anomalies in her royalty statements and questioned them. She was refunded $20 for these anomalies. Foster’s book created ‘significant local media attention’ and garnered interest from The SciFi Channel with the view to making a docudrama. She maintains this was as a result of her own marketing efforts and when she informed iUniverse of TV interest, ‘they did not act on it.’ She later demanded a full refund but this was declined. She terminated her contract in June 2012. 
The final named plaintiff is Terry Hardy. He published three books through AuthorHouse between 2010 and 2012. Unlike the other two plaintiffs, Hardy provided his books as PDF’s intending them not to be altered. He states he never received a copy of his publishing agreement for his third book, but one is available on his AuthorHouse account. Hardy also states that he ‘did not experience any major difficulties with his first two books.’ He did experience problems with collecting royalties on his third published book. His book achieved Amazon bestseller list status in 2012 and by March 2013 AuthorHouse had still not accounted correctly for sales and paid Hardy royalties. 
On page 22 of the document, listed (a-m), the allegations made against the defendants and the considerations for the court are detailed, from misleading or deceiving plaintiffs and customers through its services; how the defendants represent, sponsor and affiliate services; cause injury through deceptive conduct; whether defendants can retain money paid for those services; whether the plaintiffs have suffered damages; whether actions of defendants prevented plaintiffs benefiting; whether breach of contract has occurred if defendants failed to pay royalties; and whether defendants violated California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code and New York General Business Law. 
Much of the rest of the Class Action Complaint covers the parameters of the class action and the counts of the action under breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and the possible infringements under California and New York laws [pages 24-32]. 
The document finally requests the court to uphold the action as a class action, order the defendants to release the publication rights to the plaintiffs and class action members, that the court award ‘compensatory damages’ in excess of $5,000,000 to plaintiffs and class action members, and that the plaintiffs recover fees for services and the costs and expenses of the suit pre- and post judgements, further relief as determined by the court, as well as attorney fees.  
While this is a substantive document, I would have actually expected it to include a lot more detail, and my early concern for the three plaintiffs is whether GSAS can provide the considerable evidence and testimony needed to prove many of the allegations. I’m also unconvinced from reading the document that GSAS has the substantial experience to deliver a case in this specific area when I look at the language used and several contradictions in statements. It also remains to be seen if Judge Cote will uphold it as a class action suit and whether the case will actually be heard in New York. The biggest challenge might actually be convincing a court that ASI and its many imprints do actually operate as a publisher. 
Significantly, but perhaps understandably, Penguin may be named as a joint defendant, but beyond the introductory notes get little mention in this suit and I suspect their real role will be bankrolling a team of lawyers whatever the outcome. This really is all about ASI and its two primary self-publishing imprints, AuthorHouse and iUniverse. 
The suit is certainly audacious and provided it does have its time and is aired fully in court, it could have implications for self-publishing providers and how they market services, certainly in the USA, whatever the outcome. I’ve long championed the need for some kind of independent body to both police, recommend and arbitrate specifically for the self-publishing service sector—authors and providers. Right now, if an author falls foul of a service provider, he/she is caught between stools. Many national and global author guilds and associations are unwilling to acknowledge service providers as ’publishers’ or books published via a self-publishing as a proper credit. The organisations prepared to advise and be supportive of self-published authors experiencing difficulties simply don’t have the resources to deal with every case. This case looks like throwing up the same arguments that have afflicted disputes between service providers and authors for years—is it an issue under publishing rights, or is it a quality of service issue under consumer rights law? On balance, I’d suggest it is the latter, simply because I believe the industry as a whole is becoming service-driven. 
While I think the cost of damages at $5,000,000 is excessive, Penguin may be ruing the real cost of $116 million when it parent Pearson took a punt on ASI as a way of moving into the author service sector and raise revenue. Many observers hoped that Pearson/Penguin would improve the practices at ASI and it might in the long term prove to be an asset. That was an opportunity missed a year ago and it might just be one of Andrew Philips’ biggest tasks over the coming months, before, and if a date is set for this case. What those same observers won’t want to hear in the coming months is Penguin stand on the sideline and decry, ‘but guv’nah, we knew nothing of all this.’ 
I’m also interested as to how much latitude will be given to all parties in this case. On more than one occasion, reading this suit, I wondered why there wasn’t more of a once bitten, twice shy view taken by the authors. But when you are up again the slick marketing machinery of ASI, out to sell dreams to authors at any cost, it is easier said than done. 
Someone in the publishing industry once remarked to me that ‘most authors are dumb about publishing.’ And he was taking about authors with traditional publishers! ‘Remember, if you hire a plumber to fix a leak, that plumber already knows you probably know shit about plumbing.’





Share/Bookmark