It’s All About SELF-e

PP_14

SELF-eEarlier this month Porter Anderson guest posted over on Jane Friedman’s website about an opportunity and program for authors to gain access into the library market in the USA. The program was originally launched by BiblioBoard in conjunction with Library Journal. It’s called SELF-e and it offers indie authors the chance to place e-books in front of librarians at state or national level. BiblioBoard is providing the nuts and bolts of the platform and Library Journal will carry out the vetting and evaluation of selected e-book titles. It’s important to note that Library Journal serves the library community, not authors directly. BiblioBoard is a media company that works with leading publishers and cultural institutions around the world to help them find new audiences for books, maps, images, documents, sounds and moving images they digitize, publish and curate.

 

So what exactly is SELF-e?

There are many different reasons people self-publish and every author has different goals for their book(s).  Some of the top indie authors in the business today believe SELF-e is a great way to build a base of readers, but authors can take a look at this helpful SELF-e Explainer to see if SELF-e is right for you.

 

In addition to Library Journal’s curated selections, we have also launched an awards program to recognize and promote the best self-published ebooks in the following genres: Romance, Mystery, Science Fiction, and Fantasy. There is no fee for entry, and all submissions are also eligible for LJ’s curated selection process. Take a look at the Awards Criteria and Prizes more information.

 

Be sure to check out our FAQ to get details on the program. Authors throughout the world with English ebooks in PDF or ePUB files can submit today. If you do not have a PDF or ePUB file for your manuscript, be sure to review our resources to see what options you have, or contact us for more information.

— From the SELF-e Website

Authors who sign up will be automatically included in a state anthology list, which means your e-book will be available to your local library. Authors then have the opportunity to have their work curated by Library Journal and if the e-book is selected, it will be offered to libraries nationwide. Authors also have the opportunity to use the SELF-e curated stamp of approval on their e-book cover. Authors have the freedom to withdraw books from the program.

Critically, authors who wish to submit e-books to the SELF-e program must own the rights to their books, and while the program does not cost anything for submission, it does NOT pay revenue for books loaned at state or national level. Ultimately, the SELF-e program is intended as a channel of curation for the library community to access the best of self-published books and an additional channel of discovery into the library market for authors.

When Porter Anderson wrote his piece on SELF-e at the start of this month, he and the program came in for some criticism. I can appreciate that the SELF-e program is not something for every author. I understand that some authors will take issue with the fact that while the program charges libraries a fee for inclusion, submissions from authors are free, but there is no royalty lending fee paid back to authors. Authors can rightly argue that free submission to a platform like Smashwords gets them access to some library channels with paid royalties. But I think that misses the point of the SELF-e program. SELF-e is not intended as a sales channel with paid revenue, but a curated discovery channel into a statewide and national level of library access for e-books. No one is frogmarching unwilling authors up the aisle for a shotgun wedding. It’s an option; a choice. Some authors will place high value on discoverability in a library market that is difficult to break into due to it being a part of the establishment. For other authors, the dilemma of giving away free content for a wider readership may seem too much of a price to pay.

I’ve been following the debate on SELF-e through Jane Friedman’s website, where the original Porter Anderson article appeared (and a subsequent article today where Anderson gives the SELF-e team a right of reply), and also via social media. Frankly, from following some of the debate, you’d swear the library market contained buckets of gold coins for authors. In reality, it represents a fraction of author earnings unless you are the author of national and international blockbusters. I’ve heard terms like ‘scam’ and ‘suspicious’ bandied around in relation to SELF-e and it leaves me wondering how hard those people using such terms have actually looked at the program. I’m also not quite sure how you can draw comparisons between SELF-e and Overdrive or Oyster. That’s like trying to compare NetGalley with Amazon.

As I’ve indicated, SELF-e isn’t for every author. But when a new program comes along to provide discoverability for self-published books, and it is endorsed by indie poster boys and girls like Hugh Howey and CJ Lyons, I think it is at least worth a second look.

I also find it a little ironic that some authors snarking about the lack of author revenue from the SELF-e program are the same ones who don’t think twice about selling their books for free or next to nothing on other retail channels.

As I indicated above, Porter Anderson came in for some criticism, notably from David Gaughran, who also drew attention (via Twitter – see screen shots below) to the fact that one of SELF-e’s team (Mitchell Davis, chief business officer of BiblioLabs/BiblioBoard) was a founder of Booksurge and the team also had links to Author Solutions.

Let me get this straight. Biblioboard charges libraries for all the content in the SELF-e program. But Biblioboard doesn’t pay authors for that content. Am I missing something?

 

A for-profit company is charging non-profits for supplying content it doesn’t even own, and not reimbursing the content owners. This is hilarious. It seems like everyone is getting paid except for the authors.

 

(Including you, Porter.)

— David Gaughran (Comment on ‘How self-published authors can distribute their books to libraries’)

DG 2

DG 1

I think David is right to highlight a company connection if it has links or dealings with Author Solutions. I do it myself when I write reviews of service providers if I find founders of a company have worked at a senior level of AS or had partnerships with them. I think the connection with Booksurge (ironically merged into CreateSpace years ago, and now one of the leading DIY service providers in the self-publishing community) is a little long in the tooth now to throw out slights; and many of the issues with Booksurge were about print quality and customer service.

The issue of non-payment for content is an entirely valid point and all authors need to consider if the trade-off of discovery outweighs loss of revenue. But let us also not forget that placing a book in a (e)store or library is also no guarantee of revenue either.

Citing Anderson for being a ‘shill’ and ‘promoter’ of a service in an article where Anderson provided full disclosure that he was a paid media consultant and was assisting them to help market SELF-e to a wider audience was something of a cheap shot at best, and at its worst, unfair and unwarranted. Aside from this, I actually thought Anderson’s piece on SELF-e was presented in a balanced way and went out of its way to expose the positives and negatives of the service.

 

So how does SELF-e make money?

Participating libraries subscribe (for a fee) to the program to get access to curated indie e-books. The program was financed between Library Journal and BiblioBoard during its year-and-a-half development and received no external funds. SELF-e has not excluded the possibility that revenue payments may be introduced for authors at some stage.

 

It’s All About SELF-e

SELF-e is a free service for authors. Its purpose is to expose great self-published books to a wider audience. It’s not a revenue channel for authors and it’s certainly not for every author. But it’s also a choice, not a scam or obligation. My own feeling is that it’s not really ideal for an author with one or two books in select retail channels, but an option to consider for authors with reasonable sales and a willingness to trade-off a little revenue for increased library exposure. For some authors, they may consider that too much of a trade-off.

What this whole episode underlines for me is a growing ‘self-e’ culture in indie publishing — and I’m not referring to the company, but instead to a pervasive attitude of entitlement from authors. The digital publishing landscape now allows authors to use services and distribution platforms to self-publish for free, or what we might call the use of freemium models. That is — for free — some company provides the tools, software and access to distribution channels to take your manuscript from desktop/laptop to the eyes of readers. But all those freemium platforms also cost time, expertise and money from someone to provide and continue to develop. It’s a reality that has created a democratic publishing landscape, a so-called levelling of the playing field whether you are a first-time or big name author. But it’s also creating a culture that publishing should be a free public service and resource and that all the other aspects of publishing should also be free, like skilled help, book exposure or discovery, the attention of others in the wider book trade and readership alike. And that all this and more should come with absolutely no loss of control for the author over their creative output (and at premium royalty for the author).

If being a serious author is like running your own business, then I’d like to know of any functioning and successful business that can operate with the above entitlements and expectations. It seems to me the self-publishing community has done a tremendous job of banding together, offering advice and support to fellow authors. However, we still all need to appreciate that the book world is also a business and when we self-publishing, we enter that world to do business (unless you simply want to self-publish for pleasure, and for family and friends).

 

Authors

16 Comments

    • Mick Rooney said:

      Thanks, Jane. Calm perspective was certainly needed on this discussion and there are many bubbling issues here, each deserving an article of its own. The challenge of subscription/lending, how much should authors cede free content for discovery and promotion, and how much should an authors invest in their work when choosing the freemium path to publishing?

      And the greater question which led to the post – if x, y or z source or opinion I trust says a service is good or bad, could it still be right or wrong for me as an author and my books?

      Self-publishing is as much about taking control of your decisions, as it is taking control of your book. Writers can be very possessive about the content they create, but careless about how their decision making is influenced.

  1. David Gaughran said:

    Hi Mick, I appreciate where you are coming from – I do – but let me have a stab at saying why I think this stuff is relevant and important. And if I don’t convince you, then fair enough.

    1. Porter Anderson works for The Bookseller. I think that alone makes questions regarding who he accepts money from in his consultancy gigs relevant, particularly given that Porter and some of his colleagues are very quick to throw around accusations of shillery.

    2. Porter Anderson and his colleagues at The Bookseller have actively suppressed the Author Solutions story.

    3. Porter Anderson has been accepting consultancy gigs from at least one company with links to Author Solutions.

    4. That company is Library Journal, one of the two companies behind SELF-e.

    For me, it’s a question of trust. Do I trust Porter Anderson to be objective about a company he’s taking consultancy payments from? Frankly, no. It’s nothing to do with Porter per se. I wouldn’t trust anyone to be objective in that position.

    Do I trust the team at Library Journal, given their links to Author Solutions and their refusal to answer questions about those links? Hell no.

    Finally, while I respect Jane, I think she made a mistake in asking Porter to blog on this topic at all, given his conflict.

  2. Ian Singer said:

    Initially, let me thank you all on behalf of Library Journal and Self-e for your significant attention and inquiries regarding the service. We believe we’re making good progress in bridging local authors/patrons to their library communities and creating national exposure for authors from those local submissions.

    I am not going to reply to David’s commentary relative to Porter beyond this reply: Yes, he’s a consultant to Library Journal. LJ and Porter have worked very hard to be totally transparent about our relationship. LJ is in fact a bedrock in the library community and publisher community, not so much with independent authors and it’s to that end we engaged Porter’s support to help us engage that audience.

    That said, what questions do you have, David, in regard to Library Journal’s “links” to Author Solutions?

    Let me provide some insight before you reply: 1) LJ receives no compensation whatsoever from Author Solutions for title sales; 2) LJ, unlike some of other esteemed review sources, does not offer access to reviews for a fee – in fact, this is exactly the genesis of Self-e; 3) LJ does accept advertising from Author Solutions – that advertising is to help promote specific titles to public libraries, that advertising does not promote Author Solutions services to authors. Have you actually seen any such advertisement? If not, you should not judge or presume what our relationship with Author Solutions, or any LJ advertiser happens to be.

    Respectfully,
    Ian Singer
    Group Publisher – Library Journal, School Library Journal, The Horn Book.

    • David Gaughran said:

      Hi Ian, thanks for responding and giving me the opportunity to ask further about Library Journal’s links to Author Solutions. Your staff haven’t been keen to answer my questions in the past. Anyway…

      You say that Library Journal “does accept advertising from Author Solutions” but it’s a little bit more than that, isn’t it? An example will probably help.

      This is the “Library E-mail Marketing” package which is being sold by iUniverse for $8,399. It includes various Library Journal ads, such as a banner ad and email blast. You can read more about it here: http://www.iuniverse.com/Servicestore/ServiceDetail.aspx?ServiceId=PKG-3404

      That is just one of several Library Journal-themed marketing/promo packages sold by Author Solutions. Similar packages are also sold by Archway and all the other Author Solutions imprints. All equally expensive.

      These are my questions for you, Ian:

      1. How much of that $8,399 goes to Library Journal? Do you receive a royalty payment or commission for each marketing package sold? Do you receive any other compensation from Author Solutions for this partnership?

      2. How do you feel about $8,399 ad packages being sold to wholly unsuitable newbie writers? How do you feel about the hard sell that Author Solutions is infamous for? Is Library Journal comfortable with this kind of mark-up? Does Library Journal have any policies on third-parties re-selling its ads at such mark-ups?

      3. Do you not think that Library Journal is suffering reputational damage by partnering in this manner with such a scammy and disreputable provider as Author Solutions?

      4. Why the hell should we trust you when you are happy to profit from this kind of misery? It’s really awful stuff.

      Questions aside, I really really hope you rethink your position with regard to Author Solutions. I don’t think you understand the depth of feeling in the writing community on this topic. The days of making this kind of easy money from writers are over.

      • Ian Singer said:

        Hi Ian, thanks for responding and giving me the opportunity to ask further about Library Journal’s links to Author Solutions. Your staff haven’t been keen to answer my questions in the past. Anyway…

        IAN: Sorry for the reply delay. Working my day job. Hello. You are welcome. I’ve never received a direct request (email/phone) from you on any of this, David. I don’t regularly troll blogs so I want to be clear on that – as neither I nor LJ duck issues. I reply to your inquiries below.

        You say that Library Journal “does accept advertising from Author Solutions” but it’s a little bit more than that, isn’t it? An example will probably help.

        This is the “Library E-mail Marketing” package which is being sold by iUniverse for $8,399. It includes various Library Journal ads, such as a banner ad and email blast. You can read more about it here: http://www.iuniverse.com/Servicestore/ServiceDetail.aspx?ServiceId=PKG-3404

        That is just one of several Library Journal-themed marketing/promo packages sold by Author Solutions. Similar packages are also sold by Archway and all the other Author Solutions imprints. All equally expensive.

        IAN: These are one of several total packages offered by a number of library vendors. The one you point out is indeed a package developed around our services.

        These are my questions for you, Ian:

        1. How much of that $8,399 goes to Library Journal? Do you receive a royalty payment or commission for each marketing package sold? Do you receive any other compensation from Author Solutions for this partnership?

        IAN: We charge Author Solutions off of our rate card, which is available at: http://lj.libraryjournal.com/contact-us/media-kit/ We receive no commission or any other form of remuneration from Author Solutions. So when Author Solutions runs an ad, presumably after aggregating enough authors, we get paid our rate. You will notice a number of other packages, including library packages, which we are not part of, importantly, we don’t sell our reviews.

        2. How do you feel about $8,399 ad packages being sold to wholly unsuitable newbie writers? How do you feel about the hard sell that Author Solutions is infamous for? Is Library Journal comfortable with this kind of mark-up? Does Library Journal have any policies on third-parties re-selling its ads at such mark-ups?

        IAN: To be perfectly honest, this is the first time I’ve dug into this issue, so thank you for raising it. I don’t manage any specific accounts, as the publisher. That’s not an excuse, it’s just framing my perspective for you as we have hundreds of customers. I have today spoken with my account executive who manages this account and I have placed a call and sent an email to Author Solutions’s marketing management because I want to understand clearly what is going on before I comment further. But I will comment once I have complete information, of that you can be sure.

        3. Do you not think that Library Journal is suffering reputational damage by partnering in this manner with such a scammy and disreputable provider as Author Solutions?

        IAN: Well, not that LJ is a follower, but I would again point out that a variety of reputable vendors are also part of Author Solutions’s service offerings. And to be clear, that is really the thrust of your issue, correct? That being said, I’ve not heard any complaints from my audience – librarians – about Author Solutions. So no. But as we are now providing what we consider is a superior service to self-publishers to reach the library market, maybe it will and that will be something we need to consider in a rational manner.

        4. Why the hell should we trust you when you are happy to profit from this kind of misery? It’s really awful stuff.

        IAN: Please tone it down, David. Decorum is appropriate, and frankly your accusatory tone is offensive. I’m not going to comment on the business practices of any of my clients, that would be totally inappropriate as publisher of Library Journal, particularly when I don’t have all the necessary information to form a proper reply. Author Solutions has been a client of LJ’s before I joined the company, just for the record. Here’s what I care about: tens of thousands of librarians trust LJ completely . . . and you can’t win the respect of that audience by being untrustworthy. Period.

        Questions aside, I really really hope you rethink your position with regard to Author Solutions. I don’t think you understand the depth of feeling in the writing community on this topic. The days of making this kind of easy money from writers are over.

        IAN: I’ve already replied above as to my next steps. But if what you say happens, Author Solutions will be out of business and will no longer advertise with LJ. And the marketplace will have spoken, and I believe we’re all good with that, or we should be. And I will tell you that I agree that a number of such similar services provided to authors is exactly why we came up with Self-e . . . if you step back and think about it, you’ve made a solid business case / justification for our model.

        Respectfully,
        Ian

        • David Gaughran said:

          Ian,

          Author Solutions may well be inhabiting a shrinking piece of ice, but that doesn’t mean we should stand idly by while they exploit writers and it certainly doesn’t mean we should stick our noses in the trough and try and grab some of that sweet, sweet lucre for ourselves.

          The numbers using Author Solutions are falling dramatically – from ~50,000 to ~40,000 a year in the last yearly figures, if memory serves – and, yes, the market will solve this problem eventually. But I’m not happy with seeing tens of thousands more writers getting exploited over the next few years before the invisible hand fixes everything for those too cowardly to act now.

          If Library Journal thinks it is acceptable for Author Solutions to re-sell its email blasts and banner ads and magazine slots in crazily over-priced marketing packages to newbies, then that is the trust question most firmly answered.

          Sorry if that’s too accusatory for you. I place slightly more importance in integrity than decorum. I’ve been campaigning on this issue for a few years now, and I’ve heard every excuse in the book from companies grabbing all the Author Solutions cash they can lay their hands on. And I’m tired of it.

          I haven’t given you the benefit of the doubt here because Library Journal has failed to address my concerns before. You can ask Guy Gonzalez. I raised all these issues with him in May 2014 and he refused to answer my questions. And he knows all about Author Solutions – he worked very closely with them when Writers Digest was setting up its own Author Solutions-powered vanity imprint. I’ve read some of the stuff Guy has written on Author Solutions. He has referred to them as scammy and called their revenue breakdowns disturbing. He appears to know what they are like.

          So, yeah, it’s a bit hard to swallow the notion that Library Journal is somehow unaware of this giant rolling scandal that has been going on for years now.

          All that said, I genuinely hope that it’s only inertia that has prevented Library Journal from doing the right thing up to now. And you can still do the right thing. It’s your decision. You can join with The Bookseller and ban ads from Author Solutions. You can join companies like Writers Digest, Bowker, and Bloomsbury who have cut ties with Author Solutions.

          Or you can keep taking their dirty money.

          Dave

  3. Mick Rooney said:

    Hi David, Thanks for your input on this. Just my thoughts on your comment points…

    1. I’m not sure why Porter working and writing for The Bookseller would affect his ability to be objective. His consultancy – as far as I know – is his own media business. Just as I run a consultancy, it doesn’t sway or impose on my editorial opinion on TIPM. If anything it adds to my knowledge base and working with many, many authors. If you run your own business, then you accept money for work carried out. I’m not aware of the accusations of shillery you are referring to. In regards to Porter’s piece, he was open from the outset about his connection with SELF-e, that doesn’t seem like tricking, swindling or being disingenuous with readers. That actually allowed readers to if they wanted to accept what was written in the article.

    2. As I understand it, Porter has been working for The Bookseller for less than a year, after he departed Publishing Perspectives. When he joined The Bookseller Phillip I believe had already acted and dropped the ads for Author Solutions. But I agree with you, there was a time when The Bookseller buried its head in the sand over Author Solutions, like many other trade publications. So, I think its unfair to tar Porter with what The Bookseller’s practice was before his arrival. I actually recall Porter being one of the first industry journalist to highlight the situation with Author Solutions, and the impact of self-publishing in the industry.

    3 & 4. Again, much depends on the nature of the consultancy work Porter carried out for a company with links to Author Solutions. I don’t know what that work was, but there is a danger here that we tar everyone with the same brush if they have so much as shared a cab with someone from AS. [EDITED: Ian Singer has now clarified in a comment after mine the nature of Porter’s work for LJ and their link with AS.] I know several people who worked for Author Solutions (and their imprints) over the years and they are now carrying out credible work and holding positions with entirely reputable companies. I get where you are coming from David, but don’t you also think there is a danger in tarnishing anyone and everyone who has had any link whatsoever to AS in the past?

    I get the trust issue. Trust is important and if you don’t trust someone it is obviously going to colour your views on whatever they do and say. One of the most important parts of journalism is to be objective, and I accept we don’t see that a lot at times. But on this occasion I think you are ignoring a great deal of Porter’s objective work. He didn’t have to divulge that he was working on a consultancy basis for SELF-e, but he did, and as I indicated in my article above, I think his piece on Jane Friedman’s website was fair and objective. I arrived at that viewpoint not just by reading his piece, but also examining SELF-e.

    Was it wise for Jane to accept the guest post on SELF-e? That’s not my judgement call. I don’t even know if Porter approached Jane with a prospective on SELF-e, or she asked him to write it. I accept you have a valid argument for believing it wasn’t wise, but I still think the article was objective in the end.

  4. David Gaughran said:

    Hi Mick, thanks for responding. I’ll answer you first and then get back to Ian above.

    1. It’s not that working for The Bookseller could affect Porter’s objectivity, but having the consultancy business – accepting money from all sorts of businesses that he routinely covers – could affect his objectivity in writing for The Bookseller or elsewhere. Yes, he identified the conflict when writing on Jane’s blog (in the fifth paragraph or something, not up top, by the way). But I’ve seen him talking about SELF-e and Library Journal and Biblioboard plenty of times without noting that conflict. His Twitter feed, as another example, is filled with what I presume are paid-for links and tweets, without any conflict noted there. So here’s my problem: when I see Porter fighting a campaign to get indies to use ISBNs on the pages of The Bookseller, is he being paid by Bowker to do that? When he defended Writers’ Digest’s inclusion of Keith Ogorek as a speaker, was that because he was being paid by Writers Digest to do social media outreach? I don’t know the answers, but you can see the problem. How can he objectively cover the companies he’s getting paid by? How can anyone do that?

    2. Porter stopped talking about Author Solutions the second he joined The Bookseller. I can’t say more about The Bookseller suppressing this story in public – Philip Jones spoke to me off the record. But if Philip would allow me to share that story, I would be *more* than happy to. Philip Jones knows exactly what I am talking about. You can email me if you want more – privately only, I’m afraid. Not my restriction. I would have it all out in the open if I could. It’s pretty shameful stuff.

    3 & 4. I probably could have explained myself better here. It’s about trust. Library Journal takes ads from Author Solutions. AS then re-sells those ads to unsuspecting newbies for thousands of dollars. AS reps make all sorts of overblown claims about the performance of those ads and newbies fall for it, wasting thousands of dollars on these ad packs and getting little in return.

    It’s absolutely indefensible. So, no, I don’t trust Library Journal one bit. And the fact they have to pay someone to say nice things about them and SELF-e really says a lot.

    There are several different solutions circulating to the library distro problem. None of them are perfect, but this is the only one that doesn’t pay authors, so forgive me if I don’t cheer it on to victory.

    • Mick Rooney said:

      Hi David, just on your additional points…

      1. I can’t speak for other peoples objectivity, other than how their critiques come across, or if they perceive a personal conflict. The fact Porter noted his working association with SELF-e clearly means he was aware of it. And for that reason my perspective on this is limited to my own judgement and the articles presented by Porter, specifically on SELF-e. I found them balanced, a fair critique and objective while still noting his involvement. Other folks may – in light of your observations and points – reach a different conclusion.

      I have noted the tweets on Porter’s feed, and yes, at times I’ve wondered if they are sponsored/paid tweets or not, but I’m not going to presume or assume without actually knowing this for a fact.

      Again, as you suggest, this is an issue of trust and how much you value someone’s comments, insight and strength of objectivity. It’s why evaluation of a company or service is best done from reviewing multiple sources and opinion, not just one, but it also requires engaging all parties involved if possible.

      Like you, I don’t know all the answers to the valid questions you posed, but I try to be careful not to present an assumption or suspicion – off the bat – as a fully rounded stance without knowing all the answers to these questions. Yes, at some point, equipped with information and some answers (and if there are those who value your thoughts and objectivity), you ultimately offer a considered opinion or analysis.

      2. I’ll stand corrected, but I believe Porter has spoken about Author Solutions since he started working with The Bookseller (perhaps not on The Bookseller itself – though he writes more for FutureBook. He also writes for several other media channels (outside of The Bookseller) – ThoughtCatalogue, Porter Anderson Media, Writer Unboxed, Jane Friedman’s website, and his Friday Twitter Chat.

      Personally, as a journalist, I don’t do ‘off-the-record’ because that’s taking a hand in preventing important facts reaching the public domain. I support anonymity from a source in some limited circumstances, if that means getting the facts on the table. But I always remain suspicious of a source on the one hand eager to share info while still trying to defend their position for business or legal reasons. Philip has his own reasons for needing to go off-the-record. I don’t know what they are.

      3 & 4. The cost of those AS ads to authors and LJ facilitating them is of upmost concern, and I’m totally with you on that, and I also hope Ian S. addresses this rather than speaking about title sales and reviews. That wasn’t the original question from David. However, LJ’s facilitation of AS ads for their authors’ books is somewhat of a distraction by association when we were originally examining SELF-e as a free discovery option for authors.

  5. Pingback: Changes To ALLi Team: Watchdog | Self-Publishing Advice for Writers

  6. SpringfieldMH said:

    “But it’s also creating a culture that publishing should be a free public service and resource and that all the other aspects of publishing should also be free, like skilled help, book exposure or discovery, the attention of others in the wider book trade and readership alike. And that all this and more should come with absolutely no loss of control for the author over their creative output (and at premium royalty for the author).”

    Um… no. No idea where you came up with this from. That’s certainly not what I get from following several self-publishing sites/forums/etc. Please substantiate.

  7. T. M. Bilderback said:

    I can’t believe that you would reduce a popular magazine to accepting advertising from such a scammy ripoff business as Author Solutions! Do you CARE that these people have several lawsuits against them for basically stealing money from people?

    You should be ashamed.

  8. Orna Ross said:

    HI Mick, thanks for your (as always) thoughtful contribution to this debate — I have nothing to add to the self-e question here but would like to raise your point on the “pervasive attitude of entitlement from authors” which you see as creating a culture “that publishing should be a free public service and resource and that all the other aspects of publishing should also be free…..” I don’t see this culture you describe. Authors always pay for services — the only question is whether they pay up front, as in hiring editors and designers and marketing, individually or in assisted self-publishing packages; and/or pay a commission/royalty on the point of sale, as with going direct to Amazon KDP, Kobo etc (relatively small commission, smaller investment) or using a trade publisher (relatively large commission, varying degrees of investment). An indie author must, as you say, assess their outgoings and return on investment, as must any business. Likewise, when doing their figures, author services should surely see payment to the content provider and copyright holder as a given, and factor it in? I cannot think of any other sector that does business evaluations or profit estimates based on not paying its suppliers.

  9. James Sterngram said:

    One question I haven’t seen raised is: what might Amazon’s KDP do regarding price-matching? Not KDP Select specifically, but for anyone selling ebooks through Amazon. By signing up with Self-e, wouldn’t we be, in effect, ‘selling’ copies of our book for free to any of thousands of libraries in the U.S.? In the event that KDP or any other distributor takes exception to the freebies, I see in the Self-e terms that the freebie rights are perpetual, and that authors wishing to back out may have to wait up to 180 days after sending certified snail mail to LJ’s legal department.

Leave a Reply to Ian Singer Cancel reply

*

Top