Traditional Publishing And Self-Publishing Are Not Mutually Exclusive

View Comments (53)

• Great article. I think you are right that everyone has different needs and should conside their options carefully, if they have options. The backlist is a good reason for some authors to switch to self publishing in eformat. Some traditionally published authors especially series authors have long backlists that are out of print so why shouldn't they earn money from their work?

  I think traditional publishing still has a respectability value which attracts aspiring authors and this is probably due to the fact that television radio and the newspapers still pander to traditionally published authors mostly. Indie authors only seem to get media coverage if they have done exceptionally well and appear to be paraded as freaks. This may be because traditional publishers and agents are better at accessing the media as marketing tools.

  Personally I would have to be offered at least 2 years salary as a non-returnable lump sum to give up my independent status and sell my soul to the devil. It might be interesting to see how much money in terms of years worth of salary anyone else would be prepared to sell themselves for.

  • Those are great points Christopher - I think it also depends on the contract that one can negotiate, for example, getting the rights back if the publisher doesn't sell a certain number so the rights revert more easily than otherwise; and also the option for the next book only relates to the series bought, plus a clause about indie publishing at the same time. That would all have to be there, as well as the income possibilities :)
    Jackie Collins article was also good because she expresses surprise about a book released 10 years ago hitting the bestseller lists again. This reminds us all that digital has no shelf-life so those backlists are gold.
    I just need to create one :)
    Thanks.

  • There's a third alternative and that is to publish with a small independent press. I have previously published four novels with big NY houses, but for my fifth (a mystery this time), titled, Tulip Season: A Mitra Basu Mystery, I've published with a small traditional press. The book is just out in Kindle and Nook formats, with trade paperback to come in a week or so, and so far I am pleased. You don't quite have the resources a big publisher, but you find energy and innovation. If you want to hear more of thei sexperience, just ask.

• I think this is what I was rather cack-handedly trying to say in my comment on the post about happiness.

  No two writers and no two books are the same, and that the real shift over the last couple of years, the thing that has really put the publishing industry on the back foot, is choice. Writers have options. All of us.

  The mistake is to think that that (that that that) means one route or the other, and that once you've chosen you have to stick with it and defend that route to the hilt, no matter what. It's nonsense.

  I'm in the same position as you Joanna. My literary novel is perfect for traditional publishing, but there are other ideas I have, from shorter fiction to Write for Your Life ebook spin-offs, where it would be daft for me to do anything but publish them myself.

  And finally, it's worth saying, if you're canny with your rights negotiations, you might even be able to have the best of both worlds for the same piece of work. Imagine!

  • Thanks Iain - I understand where you're coming from :) We are living in interesting times indeed!

• A balance is usually the best way to go. However, do you think being an indie writer, then going to publishing would be not too different to working for yourself and then going back to a normal 'day job'?

  The freedom for Self-published authors is one of the big draws for many people. I can imagine having that freedom taken away would be very hard to cope with. What do you think? Do you think it has an impact?

  Matt (Turndog Millionaire)

  • I think the 'job' of a indie author and trad pub author is probably the same - mostly writing and marketing - and the publishing part is a small aspect of indie, but not significant compared to the other two. So I don't think that would change. The income aspect would be weird though i.e.. I love the transparency of Amazon payments and how they reconcile with sales every month vs/ the advance & then royalties when the book has earned out etc. The freedom, yes, to a point... but I think many people still want a print book done well in a bookstore. So you've got to allow a choice for those books.

    • true, the dream of appearing in a book store, for most people, is only viable if you get traditionally published. I just feel the pressure some publishers put on authors (from certain stories i hear) would be very strange after having the freedom. Everything from deadlines, to plot changes, and pressure to comply to certain genres etc

      You can't have everything though, so certain sacrifices are needed

      Matt (Turndog Millionaire)

• I agree. From what I have heard, publishers/editors are increasingly sanguine about the indie route now being a legitimate option for *all* writers. In fact, the snootiness about indie publishing seems to have subsided quite dramatically. An added bonus is that you can release an ebook in territories where a book still has no (trad) publisher. I think that will also become common. I'm doing it with a book that is out in paper worldwide, but for which I hold e-rights everywhere except the US, where it is already out as an ebook. No one is losing here; it's a matter of exploiting the work fully.

  Best wishes, JohnB

  • I love this word 'exploited' which I only heard for the first time at the London Book Fair rights workshop. I like that authors can exploit their own rights too, and I agree on the various markets. What I especially liked as well was the idea that lower priced books are selling well in markets that have different economies e.g. Nigeria and India - where a US0.99 book is within range but a $4.99 book may not be. Indie books are selling very well there. I love the thought of someone reading my stories that far away :) Thanks John.

    • After reading your blog yesterday, I mailed the Australian publisher of a book of mine, and asked for e-rights back. They said yes. One more exploitation opportunity for me, then...

• You are so right! Every book is different. It's really worthwhile to spend the time strategizing exactly what you want to achieve through publication (which, of course, is entirely different from what you want to achieve as a writer.) Keep these two tasks separate and you are more likely to succeed.

• Exactly Exactly Exactly! This is my plan. My main goal is traditional publishing, but there may be some projects that would just do better as a self-published, and I think you also reach a new group of people as well. Great post!

  Sarah Allen
  (my creative writing blog)

• Why does one author care about how another author publishes? It seems like just ego to me. We all can choose what is best for us. I personally will go straight to Kindle self-publishing with my first novel. The decision feels fantastic to me and I am excited. But if my best friend (or a stranger) is going to skip self-publishing and look for a publisher for her book, that is fantastic too!

  Another question: Why don't authors like Paul Coelho, who has 8 million fans on Facebook and 2 million followers on Twitter, or Ken Follett (who can put out a book of blank pages and then sit back and watch as it becomes a best seller) self-publish? Their profit would be so much higher, right? Maybe I am missing something.

  • Hi Rich, I think we're seeing more big name authors go indie. Jackie Collins is mentioned, and more are reported every week. JK Rowling obviously springs to mind with her ebooks in a new company Pottermore, rather than with her print publisher.
    The other thing is that those 'older' authors who have been doing it for years perhaps don't need to think about the money plus/ they are, presumably, treated very well by their publishers and don't want the hassle. We shall see...

• Great post, Joanna. Perfect timing too, as this is a topic I've been mulling over lately.

  I love the idea of a hybrid model, but I have another question. What about applying it to an individual book? I know every contract is a little different, but I'm trying to figure out the likelihood of interesting a publisher in print rights only and retaining the e-rights myself.

  If you know anything about this, I'd be grateful to hear it :)

  • Hi Rainy, lovely name by the way, I listen to rain and storms as I am writing...
    on your question, John Locke got a deal for print only and kept his ebook rights so it is possible. However, Locke was the first indie Kindle millionaire so he had a lot of power in that negotiation, whereas many of us don't have quite that clout. You could always ask though :)

• Oddly I just did a guest post on this topic and how I approach the decision for each work. Basically it comes down to how well the book fits what publishers assume is "marketable" and how much editing work it really needs. I still don't trust freelance editors to do a good job with content based revisions. Huge conflict of interest critiquing your boss.

  On the other hand, publishers are pretty risk adverse. If you're not doing something in line with their preconceived notions of 'what's hot' it's sometimes easier to selfpub.

  • On editors, the professionals I work with insist on being paid upfront in case you don't like their comments. I like this as it means they don't have a conflict of interest. These are the pros :)

    • That's a bit shortsighted. Most freelance editors I know get the majority of their business through referrals from author to author. So even paying upfront doesn't remove the conflict.

      It's just something I've noticed through experience, the editors I've hired and paid have always been "Wow this is amazing! I love this so much! Just ... maybe fix these little things..?" Whereas the editors assigned to me by publishers are usually like "Don't argue with me. I know what readers want and this book won't go any further until I'm satisfied with it."

• I really enjoyed reading this post, it's great to obtain insight from someone who has a pulse on these kinds of things. The opener where you mention different author viewpoints on what it means that someone traditionally published versus indie published reminded me of something. There is an age-old idea that a true artist is one that creates from the soul, money be damned. Individuals with this ideal view an artist that sells their art as a "sell-out" or "not a true artist".

  Now, the world is rarely as polarizing as this, but I think this kind of mentality exists to some degree or another and is probably the root of a couple forms of dissension: unpublished vs published (indie or traditional) or indie vs. traditional publishing. Art is meant to be enjoyed: If the author can look out for their own interests by selling it to others, and in turn have people enjoy it, then there is a mutual benefit from creator to audience. That's the true essence of the thing we're trying to do, whether a work is indie published or traditionally published.

  • Thanks Mark - I have been hearing some polarizing comments, so I had to speak out about it. I personally want the hybrid model and I think many authors would be happy with that.
    I think the 'age-old' poor author in a garret is a bad stereotype and not true for many people. I don't think creating popular fiction is 'selling out', it is entertaining people and making them think, which is what art should also be for. There's no reason why it can't sell as well.