Posted in Publishing, Self-Publishing

The confusing world of 21st century publishing jargon: A glossary for writers

publishing word cloud

“So what are you writing now?”

This is a question I often hear from friends, relatives and colleagues alike.  They know that I’ve written a dozen or so books – among other things – but I don’t really think they get me as a writer.  I’m a hybrid writer.  Or at least that’s the word I used to use.  Maybe I’m just a promiscuous writer.  You see, I write both fiction and non-fiction, and I publish mostly through traditional publishers (which are…?) and independently (whatever does that mean…?).

So, what am I writing right now?  I have a fiction (sort of lifestyle satire again, but then what does that mean?) piece on the go, but the book I’m supposed to be writing is on writing and publishing in the twenty-first century using both research and my experiences.  This latter piece has me thinking about definitions of the confusing array of terms in the new world of publishing.  Since I’m a strong believer that we need a common understanding of terminology before we can discuss any issue, I thought I’d develop a glossary of terms – and I thought I’d share it with you as a work-in-progress.

So, herewith (great word, isn’t it?) I offer you the working definitions of publishing-related terms that I’ll be using in my upcoming book.

 

Author

An author is someone who has published a book, article, paper, poem, report etc. The act of publication is what differentiates between someone who is engaged in the act of writing and an actual author.  Method of publication does not matter.

 

Traditional Publisher

A so-called traditional book publisher is an organization that takes the financial responsibility for all aspects of publication including acquisition, editing, publishing, distributing and promoting. Consequently, this publisher garners a hugely larger percentage of the book receipts than does the author of said piece.  Traditional publishers often make their publishing decisions from an array of solicited and unsolicited manuscripts based on their prediction about marketability.  Judging from the number of traditionally acquired flops, they are not very good at making these decisions (You probably know that J. K. Rowling’s original Harry Potter manuscript was rejected at least a dozen times.  See “30 famous authors whose works were rejected (repeatedly, and sometimes rudely by publishers”).

 

Trade Publisher

A trade publisher is, in contrast to a scholarly press, for example, a traditional publisher that produces books for what is referred to as a ‘trade audience.’  A trade audience is you and me in our everyday lives.  A trade publisher might specialize in fiction of a certain type or non-fiction – but only non-fiction that has a wide appeal.

 

Literary Publisher

This is a term that I struggle with.  A self-proclaimed literary publisher will be able to tell you, nose in the air, precisely what they do.  However, looking in from the outside, it is not quite so clear.  So, for my purposes, I am defining a literary publisher as a traditional publisher, usually of the independent variety (see below) who refuses to wear the title of trade publisher, believing that his or her works are a cut above in artistic or literary merit.

 

Vanity Publishing

Vanity publishing is when an author pays an organization a large sum of money up front for the following services:  editing (sometimes), formatting (usually), cover design (if you’re lucky), printing and binding (always), distribution (only if you count filling the author’s personal orders) and marketing (not on your life).  Of course, it is self-publishing.  The term may have been used as early as the 1940’s, but self-proclaimed Vanity Publishing expert Jonathan Clifford seems to think he coined it in 1959.[1] The term is never used in a positive way, just as the word itself would suggest.  As I discussed in a previous post where I admitted to vanity publishing one of my earliest books, “Presumably it was vain for an author to pay to have his or her book published.  I’ve never been sure why it isn’t ‘vanity recording’ when a musician pays to have a CD recorded and subsequently distributed…”  The term is often used when making snide remarks about the inferiority of self-published work.  Note: Vanity Publishers always publish(ed) works under their own imprint.

 

Self-Publishing

Self-publishing differentiates itself from vanity publishing in that the term vanity has been dropped.  That’s really all there is to it.  Make no mistake about it: self-publishing is vanity publishing without the moniker.  The twenty-first century has provided self-publishers with a digital world wherein the possibilities are almost endless.  Self-published books can be as bad as most publishing snobs always thought vanity-published books to be, or, equally, may be as good as any book out there.  Self- publishing is differentiated from traditional publishing in that the author takes complete financial responsibility for the editing, publishing, distribution and marketing aspects of authorship and reaps the lion’s share of the benefits.  It need not have the stench of “vanity” about it. But it might. Note: Self-publishing need not be done under the imprint of another entity such as a publisher.

 

Subsidy Publishing

Subsidy publishing is characterized by a financial subsidy that is provided to an author to partially cover the costs of publishing.  The subsequent publishing is usually done through a traditional publisher.  Some people suggest that subsidy publishing is the same as vanity or self-publishing.  However, that ignores the situations where subsidies are offered by non-profit or governmental organization to support the publication of the work of academics in a scholarly publishing world where there is no money to be made, but costs to be covered.  Thus, I think it needs its own category.

 

Independent Publisher

This is a tricky one because there is a difference between being an independent publisher and the act of publishing independently (see below).  For my purposes, an independent publisher is one that uses a traditional publishing model of acquiring work from an author and shouldering the burden of the financial responsibilities while at the same time maintaining independence from the big, corporate publishing houses.

 

Supported Self-Publishing

Supported self-publishing is a business model where a publisher provides services to a self-publishing author at a cost.  Packages are offered and services can be purchased a la carte depending on the size of the company.  There are large, corporate ones who try to sell a variety of expensive services (they make their money from selling services to authors, rather than on selling books.  In fact, this business model does not even require them to sell books – their profit streams accrue from selling unsuspecting authors services, that after the editing is paid for, they don’t actually need).  A whole cottage industry of services to self-publishing authors has spring up – for better or for worse.

 

Publishing Independently (also known as Self-Publishing)

When an author decides to forego the submission-rejection-submission-rejection merry-go-round of the traditional publishing world, he or she steps into the process of publishing independently.  The author takes full financial responsibility and can choose from a variety of types and sizes of self-publishing and supported self-publishing platforms.  The possibilities are endless: from companies who will simply print your book n demand (e.g. Lulu or Createspace), or distribute it electronically (e.g. Smashwords), offering only if you want it other services, to large behemoths like iUniverse who sell a wide variety of expensive packages and individual services and will continue to market to you even after you’ve said ‘no’ if you publish with them.

 

Indie Author

This is a widely used term among ‘indie authors’ themselves and for my purposes refers to anyone who chooses to publish without benefit of a traditional publisher.  It is neither a positive term, nor is it a negative term – it is simply a term.  It does not refer to an author who publishes through an independent publisher as I have defined it.

 

 E-Publishing

E-publishing is digital electronic publishing where both the process and the product are digital.  Traditional publishers, independent traditional publishers, self-publishers etc. can all utilize the concept of publishing for electronic distribution.  When e-publishing first began, it was often a route that was taken after a book was published in hard copy.  Today, more and more books (and journals and magazines etc.) are available only electronically.

 

Cooperative Publishing

Cooperative publishing is a publishing process independent of the traditional model where authors form a cooperative in which each one contributes financially and in writing-editing capacities to publishing works by each member of the cooperative.  As I said in a previous post on cooperative publishing:

“Some people who have written about cooperative publishing consider it to be a publishing model that represents the middle ground between traditional and print-on-demand publishing.  Although this might represent cooperation between an author (who pays) and a “publisher” who is contracted by the author, it still says self-publishing to me.  The model of cooperative publishing I’m suggesting here is based on a business co-op model where, as the CCA says, the business (in this case the publisher) is owned by the members who use its services.  In the case of a publishing co-op that I’m suggesting is worth exploring, the owners both use the services and are the “employees.”

In terms of financial compensation, the members of the co-op all take the same percentage of the royalties from any of the publications.

 

 Hybrid Publishing

I think that it’s safe to say that there is much confusion between the terms hybrid publishing and hybrid author.  Unless we can make a clear differentiation, then we can’t communicate about it as I mentioned at the outset of this glossary.  So, I’m going to go with a clear demarcation between the two.  Hybrid publishing is a situation wherein a publisher has a model that has aspects of both self-publishing and traditional publishing where everyone (from editors to marketers) gets a percentage of the royalties but that the author is not asked to pay for publishing costs.  David Vinjuarmi, who often writes about publishing, did a piece in Forbes on hybrid publishing that I think covers many of the bases.  For his piece see:  “How Hybrid Publishers Innovate To Succeed.

 

 Hybrid Author

A hybrid author is one who has published books and/or other pieces through both the traditional publishing model and via a self-publishing route.

 

That’s me.  I’m a hybrid author.  However, I’m also a promiscuous one: an author who publishes in a number of genres.

Let me know if you think the glossary is helpful – and if you’d like to see other concepts added. P.

 

[1] Neil Nixon.  2011.  How to get a break as a writer: Making money from words and ideas.  Troubador Publishing (U.K.) .  p. 311.  See also the archived web site Vanity Publishing http://www.vanitypublishing.info/.

Posted in Book Reviews

When is a book review not a book review?

It seems simple enough. You write a book, someone reads it, likes it (or not), writes a review, and other potential readers interpret the review for themselves, deciding whether or not to read your book based on their own criteria. One of the most important factors readers might use to interpret a review is the identity – and therefore perceived credibility – of the review writer.

For example, for some readers there might be a big difference between a review written by the New York Times and one penned by Oprah (or at least endorsed by her). Or between the writer’s spouse and someone who doesn’t know that writer personally. That may be the line we cross into territory where a review is not really a review – it is an advertisement. And these are not the only kinds of ‘advertisements’ masquerading as book reviews.

There can hardly be a writer or ‘wanabe’ writer around these days who is unaware of the current book review scams visited upon readers.

In August of 2012 The New York Times published an article titled: “The Best Book Reviews Money Can Buy.” Author David Streitfeld reported on what appeared to be a newly established business model: writing book reviews for cash. He tells the story of Todd Rutherford’s gettingbookreviews.com, a business based on writing online book reviews – paid for by the writer. One of the service packages he offered was for him to write 20 online book reviews for $499. What could be better? Twenty reviews proclaiming a book to be worthy of 5 stars, the work of a literary genius. In my view, what would be better would be some honesty.

And Rutherford was merely one among myriad businesses that have been springing up all over the place to provide exactly the same service to writers desperate for sales. Quite often, the entrepreneurs offering this service are themselves wannabe writers.

But what happens when a reader finds out the truth of the review? Maybe the book is a good one; but maybe it isn’t. Readers searching for new, indie writers will soon become jaded from being burned. Buying book reviews hurts everyone.

So if a book review is not a book review when it is written for money, what about when it’s written by your spouse (or mother, or sister etc.)?

The Amazon review by a certain party whose last name is the same as mine was not penned by a relative.
The Amazon review by a certain party whose last name is the same as mine was not penned by a relative.

I was mortified when I went onto Amazon.com to see that one of the reviews (and a 5-star one at that) of one of my historical novels Grace Note was penned by someone whose last name is PARSONS. I’m quite certain that anyone looking at that would make the reasonable assumption that it was written by one of my relatives. It wasn’t. I’m just glad the reviewer liked it! The bottom line, however, is that a review by one of your nearest and dearest isn’t really a review either.

So…and here is the one where I’m going to get myself into trouble… what if the review is written by a member of your co-dependency group. These are those writing groups, usually virtual, or Twitter communities, wherein everyone gushes about everyone else’s books mostly so that when yours is published everyone will do the same. I have to admit that this really bothers me. It puts me off buying the promoted books, which is a shame for the writers. However, I just don’t trust these reviews.

I follow a number of otherwise interesting indie authors who also review books on Twitter, but I find that the reviews are always 5-star ones, or very close to it. I’m presuming that they only tweet their 5-star ones (surely there are books they dislike?), but I’d like to be directed to one that might be a 4 or even a 3 ½ star review so that I can make up my own mind. When everything is ‘awesome’, then nothing is ‘awesome.’

Let’s get back to some truth in advertising among writers and publishers. Please.

Posted in Social Media

5 ways your social media platform might be turning toxic

Email abstractAt least twice in just the past week I have acquired new Twitter followers who themselves boast over 10,000 followers.  Imagine that!  10,000+ followers!  I always surf over to see the profiles of my new followers and never cease to be astounded by these huge numbers.  But before I click to “follow” back, I always hesitate in these instances.  I always seem to have the same question for myself: “Why in the world would I want to follow someone (or some organization) with that many followers unless I’m looking for their information.  They certainly won’t be interested in anything I have to say.  Dear god, they’ll never be able to find it!”  And I’m left wondering how anyone can possibly be in a balanced give-and-take situation when there are so many hangers-on involved.

In my day job, I’m a university professor.  To be more precise, I teach in a communication studies department with a focus on public relations and corporate communication. Throughout my long career in the real world and in academia, I’ve specialized in two areas, one of which is strategy.  In that capacity, I’ve helped hundreds of students develop successful promotional plans for non-profits and small businesses, and was an early adopter of social media, teaching our first undergraduate course in the new applications some years ago.  It’s funny now that I’m looking at my own promotional work, I’m struck by a number of oddities in the world of social media – and authors.

My last post found me wondering if publishers really care about a writer’s life on Twitter, and thinking about that led me to contemplate the problems of social media ‘platforms’ in general.  So, at the risk of alienating all of those authors and wannabe authors that I might be connected to online, here goes.

A social media platform no doubt supports sales of independently published books.  Okay, I’ll buy that – but with a few caveats, the most important of which is that there needs to be some recognition of the point of diminishing returns.

I submit that a there is a point at which a writer’s online, social media presence morphs from supportive and beneficial to toxic.  So here are some symptoms of toxicity that I’ve observed.  You might be developing social media toxicity…

  1. When you find yourself falling victim to group-think.  It’s so easy to retweet mindlessly, to find yourself nodding in support of ideas that you hadn’t really given enough time to figure out on your own. I’ve noticed that except for the odd outlier, most reply tweets are supportive, and I even find myself falling into this trap, ignoring the tweets that I think are just plain stupid.  And note that on Facebook and even Linkedin there is no “dislike” button.
  2. When you have an over-inflated notion of how many books you should be selling based on your number of followers, friends etc.  I have to hearken back to my last blog post where I began to find research to support the notion that online ‘likes’ don’t translate into behavior.
  3. When you fall victim to that co-dependency problem.  Codependency is known in mental health circles as a relationship addiction, excessive social or emotional reliance on another person who often has a problem.  I’m suggesting that writers who toil in isolation often look for support among other writers who understand them, and this begins the cycle.  Over-dependence can become toxic leading to inertia and the next symptom of toxicity…
  4. When your social media activities become a major time suck.  This can happen so easily.  It’s like several of my students suggested the other day in class: they find themselves spending inordinate amounts of time on assignments as a result of keeping their electronics devices at their elbow and responding to every ‘ping’ as texts and tweets arrive. My advice: just turn them off!
  5. And finally, when your admiration is seriously misplaced.  I’m talking about the odd phenomenon of actual best-selling writers like Sheila O’Flanagan having fewer than 5,000 Twitter followers (and wisely following far fewer yet selling books in millions) while some indie authors who have sold a few thousand books having tens of thousands of followers.  It might be worth the unknown writer’s (like me) time to follow the ones who have been on the real best-seller lists.  Maybe we could learn a thing or two.

So, you might conclude that I’m just sour because I have a very few Twitter followers.  But I’m not.  I might have at one time when I thought that those followers might actually buy and retweet to actual buyers about my work.  But that rarely happens in reality.  It’s a bit like viral video: You can’t plan to use one for promotional and marketing because you have no way of knowing if a video you produce will catch fire or not.

I’m going to spend less time on my social media presence and more time on my writing.  At least for now.