Responding to Self Publishing

Last month I talked about self-publishing, and today Mike Hyatt, the President of Thomas Nelson, asked, "Why are agents so opposed to self-publishing?" As an agent, who really isn't opposed at all to self-pubbing, I thought it was worth a revisit to my post. If you want to read Mike's original blog, you can go here:  http://michaelhyatt.com/2009/10/should-you-consider-self-publishing.html and here  www.news.thomasnelson.com  

If you want to read his latest musings, you can go here: www.michaelhyatt.com. And let me point out that I'm a big fan of Mike Hyatt -- a good guy, whom I respect, and who also likes fish tacos. Here's the post from last month:

Some people are angry, thinking Nelson is profiteering... but my feeling is, "They're a business. OF COURSE they're profiteering." I mean, I'm in business to make a profit. That's what a business does! The team at Nelson has simply noticed the abundance of wannabe writers out there, and decided to create an option for them to get into print. Nothing wrong with that. The industry is changing rapidly, and we're all trying to figure out how to make a living in the new economy. If Nelson wants to start a self-pub unit, it's not much different than if they started a "plush toys" unit or a "TV movie" division. That said, I do think there are some issues to think through.

First, there's no getting around the fact that the Thomas Nelson name has huge cache. So there's the potential for offering a bit of a "come on." I think that's what has upset people -- the notion that the team at Nelson is saying, "Self-pubbing with WestBow is sort of like publishing your book with Thomas Nelson." And that's just not true. 

When the president of the company, Michael Hyatt, blogged about it, he alluded to this when he stated self-pubbing "provides us with a kind of 'farm team.'" Um... Mike... please. I respect you very much, and I've publicly sung your praises, but that looks like you're letting the marketing guys create your copy for you. You're already publishing 500 titles per year, and these books weren't good enough to make your list. Sure, if somebody self-publishes and sells 10,000 copies, you might sit up and pay attention to them -- but so will everyone else. A "farm team" implies that your editorial and marketing people will be investing in these authors, shaping them for a brighter publishing future. And, in my humble opinion, that won't be happening. 

(A side note: Mike also mentioned that authors wanted to self-pub "without getting ripped off." Uh... ripped off by who? Haven't the majority of the complaints been aimed at iUniverse and XLibris and Author House? Nelson has announced they're doing this in a partnership with ASI, who, um, owns iUniverse and XLibris and Author House. So if you're concerned authors are getting ripped off, it's by the very company you're partnering with. But I'm not trying to cast aspersions. I don't have any firsthand knowledge of problems with Author House, for example. And I know Michael Hyatt -- he's a good man, who's just trying to make his company successful.)

Second, the Nelson group must understand that some folks are afraid of the huge potential to scam people -- having some editor say, "We're not interested in publishing your book through our regular publishing company... but have you considered self-publishing with us?" No, I don't expect that will happen. But do you know that's exactly why members of the Association of Author Representatives aren't allowed to have their own editing services or publishing companies? There's too much temptation to look at every bad manuscript that passes an agent's desk and say, "This isn't ready... but for $500, I have an editor who could really get this in shape." A successful agent would have a bonanza -- EVERY crappy manuscript would have the potential to earn the agent money. (And there are several literary agents who do this -- running an editorial service or offering "proposal consulting." They'd be drummed out of the AAR for that reason. Stay away from them.) 

Third, the folks at Nelson probably wish they hadn't decided to use the name WestBow. They used it for expediency (Thomas Nelson already owned it; WestBow was the name of their fiction program a few years back), but that creates real issues... Can a WestBow author now say, "I'm published by the same imprint that publishes TED DEKKER"? Yeah, they can. (And yes, the WestBow authors are livid about this.) My guess is that they'll change this. 

Fourth, I have a real problem with the blog stating, "We want to work with agents and affiliates as 'WestBow Press Affiliates.'" That would mean I, as an agent, would supposedly send an author to WestBow, so that I could get a bird-dog fee? Um... no. Sorry. That's a clear ethical violation. 

In retrospect, I was surprised the Nelson folks did this so publicly, since most people in publishing look down on self-pubbing as the low-end, potentially seedy side of the business. Another CBA house, B&H, has a self-pub company -- Cross Books -- but they keep it under wraps. So far as I know, there are no connections between their self-pub side and the actual B&H publishing business. And if this whole enterprise is going to come back and bite Thomas Nelson in the backside, it's because of that. There's at least one publishing house (NOT Thomas Nelson) who has sent out rejection letters stating, "We've decided not to publish your book... but you may want to consider self-publishing with us." That letter doesn't pass the smell test. 

I'm not down on self-publishing. In fact, I've self-pubbed my own books (they were books of card tricks) and done very well. But all of us who work in the industry have seen poor quality, badly written books with no editing and poor production qualities. So, to make sure we leave with a learning tool, let me answer one question: Who should self-publish? 

The answer is simple: Only authors who can sell their books. Period. If you can't sell your book -- either by speaking to a group or pitching them to your organization or offering them to your regular readers, don't self-publish. You'll just lose money. It's extremely rare for a fiction writer to sell any self-published books, no matter what company name is on the spine. So be aware, and do your homework.

Comments

[Timothy Fish]

"If you can't sell your book -- either by speaking to a group or pitching them to your organization or offering them to your regular readers, don't self-publish. You'll just lose money."

That's part of the reason that, even though I am a fan of self-publishing, I have stayed away from these publishing package companies. Money isn't a major concern, since I like my day job, but I don't want to just throw money away. If someone could show me that those packages would help me sell more books, then I might be interested, but if my extra thousand dollars doesn't produce enough book sales to cover it, I see no reason why I shouldn't spend the minimum amount to accomplish my goals.

[Michael Hyatt]

Thanks, Chip.

I have responded to all these issues and more on my own blog post about the topic. The most recent one is here: http://bit.ly/7T1Az3

I have also responded to most of the comments on that post. As a result, I don't think there is much more I can add to the conversation.

[Daniel Decker]

Great insight here Chip. I think you always do a great job at being fair and giving perspective that is balanced. I think there are certainly differences in fiction versus non-fiction and how the self-pub model plays into each. Certainly could be perception issues of traditional publishers having self pub imprints but we all know the business is changing. Time will tell the impact of these decisions. Speaking to your "if you can't sell your book" thought, I posted a version of a thought below on Hyatt's blog and will post here too. I think it's relevant to the discussion overall...

“I think a keyword here is 'Access.' Authors want / need access. Publishers traditionally have provided access. Agents connect authors with publishers and negotiate the best scenarios for access (in many more capacities than just book contract alone). Access is… ultimately to distribution channels that enable the author to reach a larger audience. That’s what traditional publishing has provided but barriers to access have greatly diminished, in part due to techbology and the way consumers interact with content, and that end result is impacting everyone. Demand and where demand originates is driving distribution in different ways. There is tremendous value in traditional forms of publishing for MANY reason but for those who are denied that opportunity, they should have the choice to go self publishing if they realize and agree with assuming the risks. Because of that, I think it’s great that a publisher like Thomas Nelson offers a solution like this. At minimum, it’s an option that hopefully can be trusted with TN oversight and not a scam deal like so many eager authors get sucked into and burned on. There will always be a need for agents but the role of the agent may be changing as well… it all goes back to access.”

Last note… I’m not necessarily a proponent of self publishing in a vague sense. I think it’s on a case by case scenario based on a number of factors. As I noted initially, it's also a very different situation for a fiction versus non-fiction author. I also don’t think Hyatt was taking a swipe at the value of an agent as much as perhaps voicing some discontent at how some agents have responded to TN’s decision with certain assumptions. To each his own. :)

[Janice Thompson]

Chip, I'm glad you're "not trying to cast aspersions." That was my favorite part of the article. Well, that and the part about fish tacos, which I (personally) love. Seriously, I love that you presented a balanced look at the whole issue. This was a sensible approach. As I read your words, it became obvious (to me, anyway) that you really WEREN'T trying to cast aspersions or hurt anyone with your comments. Intelligent conversation is just that. . .intelligent. So much of what we've heard over the past few weeks (re: self-publishing/traditional houses kicking off new self-pub lines) has been driven by emotion and fear, so it's good to see something solid on the subject. Dance on!

[Derek]

I could do with learning some new card tricks. :-)

[Nicole]

I totally agree with your points (even though I'm self-published) except for this one in referring to self-pubbed books:
"But all of us who work in the industry have seen poor quality, badly written books with no editing and poor production qualities."

I've seen some of those same books in most of the high-end branches of CBA publishing and no doubt in ABA publishing. Not without editing but with copy-editing errors, poor writing, and questionable stories with mediocre or unattractive production quality. Not as many of course as in some self-published titles, but they're there nevertheless. To the shame of the "big guns" I might add.

[Linda M Au]

Wow, Chip MacGregor reruns. Who knew?

Then again, as long as you don't wait as long as "Lost" or "Battlestar Galactica" for new material, I'm cool with that.

Good, valid points all, even the second time around. Meanwhile, I am trying to determine if I am, indeed, the kind of author who can sell her own books....

[serena miller]

Hyatt hints in his blog that agents are against Thomas Nelson's self-publishing venture because they fear becoming obsolete in the manuscript reviewing process. This seems unfair since agents have become the doorkeepers only because most publishing houses refuse to accept unsolicited manuscripts.

With Thomas Nelson, that has now changed. When one goes to Thomas Nelson's website and clicks on "FAQ's" and then "Manuscript Submissions"--the ONLY POSSIBLE access to Thomas Nelson mentioned is through WestBow--"The titles published by WestBow Press are actively monitored to identify those books that show promise and strength in the marketplace." etc.

From the "Manuscript Submission" guidelines, a wannabe is led to believe that the only way to submit to Thomas Nelson is to first pay a minimum of $999.00 (the cheapest package) and THEN their manuscript MIGHT be considered.

We have been taught to hold agents suspect who charge a fee to read manuscripts. Why not a publishing house?

[kyle watson]

I like you Chip. But I disagree. I'm too exhausted to defend Mr. Hyatt and POD anymore. Not the band POD. LOL

Maybe we all can agree on one thing. Lets all try to plant a seed of hope in a readers heart for God. Even Ted Dekker and Steeple Hill can agree on that cause. At least I hope so.

[Emily Osburne]

It's refreshing to hear an agent's honest opinion about self-publishing. Thank you for your candor.

I agree with every point, except one. I don't think it's necessary to wait until you can sell your book to self-publish. Self-publishing ends the Catch-22 of, "I can't speak because I don't have a book. I can't get a book deal because I don't have speaking engagements."

Your book, whether published through traditional methods or self-publishing, gives you credibility to book speaking engagements. Then, once you have a steady stream of speaking engagements, it is easier to find a traditional publisher. It's hard to know if you CAN sell your book until you try.

Plus, even if you fail in selling your book, you will learn about the difficulties of marketing a book, and you will be more likely to write a more marketable manuscript next time.

I think the education is worth the price.

[Lenore Buth]

Chip, you articulate the reasons why this option makes me uneasy. Somehow it smacks of conflict of interest, whether offered by an agent or a publisher. Logic says it's a business deal and nothing more. Yet perception carries great weight, in this field as in all the others.

Somehow when a publisher invests real money, or when an agent works hard to place a ms. because he or she believes in it, that feels like a stamp of approval.