Self-Publishing

[obarz]

I'm Otto Barz. I'm associated with YBK Publishers in New York City producing and publishing books using the print-on-demand (POD) method.

I hope to participate in this forum regularly with the purpose in mind to convey whatever help I can in answering questions about the publishing and book production processes. While I've got lots of years of experience in what is now termed "traditional" publishing, I've also got a lot of time in grade operating a book production company producing books for nationally known publishers. So I should be able to field some of your questions about these areas.

Thanks.

 

[Tobytook]

Hello, obarz.

POD sounds like a good way for small publishers to work. I suppose the process gets done in-house, generally? Prima facie, it seems a more economically sound method than bulk publishing. I suppose big printing firms don't like it for just those reasons.

I've done a bit of reading about the idea of using POD for out-of-print material which is no longer subject to copyright. A small printing press and a website to advertise on are really all you need.

How do you feel about that? I think any idea that allows dead books to be resurrected is worth investigation.

Tobytook

 

[obarz]

Hi Toby (if that's what properly comes from the whole--by the way, are you of that branch of the Tooks of Middle Earth?),

I note that you're in the U.K. where the impact of POD may be not yet felt so strongly as in the U.S., site of its development. It's now quite in place here and working as a true production tool. To wit, at lunch with a publisher client earlier this week (we both publish and supply other publishers) he asked about quality and fulfillment issues and might I provide him a sample copy. When I got back to the office I clicked onto Amazon.com and bought a copy of one of our books to be shipped to him. This amply demonstrated the quickness of the process and the print quality (clearly not a specially chosen copy!). Suffice to say that yesterday I met with his superiors to further discuss the process.

>>a more economically sound method than bulk publishing<<

To the tune of thousands of dollars per book. No inventory. The publisher doesn't need to bank copies of the work in a warehouse. Consider the costs saved: investment for inventory, cost of money over the time the book remains unsold, warehousing costs during that period, and, very importantly, no potential for the book to come back from the bookstore unsold as "give us our money back please," and even more importantly, one doesn't at the end of the line sit there with hundreds or thousands of books that can't be sold.

>>I suppose the process gets done in-house, generally? <<

It can be. Many authors are doing this or investigating the ways in which they might do it. Generally however, most individuals are not going to get involved in the printing and binding. Typesetting too is a specialized craft that borders on an art form given the hundreds of years of tradition that one should be aware of. In YBK's case, we continue as in the past, parceling out to others what others do best. We do the design, editing, artwork, and typesetting in house--the developmental procedures that occur between the manuscript and the book being ready for the printing press. Our printing and binding as well as our fullfilment and distribution is conducted by Ingram, the U.S.' largest distributor thus making our books available throughout the world as well as on all the regular dot.coms.

>>any idea that allows dead books to be resurrected is worth investigation<<

Indeed! One of YBK's strong promotional points is that we do not put books out of print even if there have been zero sales for more than a year. There's no cost in replenishing inventory as there is no inventory. One needn't print and bind a few hundred books in order to sell one or two per year. The cost to keep the book alive in the data base is negligible.

But even more exciting is being able to put books of unproven sales potential into the marketplace--new writers; new genre; limited interest fields. No longer must the publisher be assured of multi-thousand-copy sales in order to agree to publish. Now a few hundred copies is all it takes.

There now, I've rattled on entirely too long.

 

[Tobytook]

Originally posted by obarz
Hi Toby (if that's what properly comes from the whole--by the way, are you of that branch of the Tooks of Middle Earth?)

Yes, bang on. Most people don't spot that at first.

I note that you're in the U.K. where the impact of POD may be not yet felt so strongly as in the U.S., site of its development.

Right again. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many book buyers who yet know what POD means.

No inventory. The publisher doesn't need to bank copies of the work in a warehouse. Consider the costs saved: investment for inventory, cost of money over the time the book remains unsold, warehousing costs during that period, and, very importantly, no potential for the book to come back from the bookstore unsold as "give us our money back please," and even more importantly, one doesn't at the end of the line sit there with hundreds or thousands of books that can't be sold.

Clearly many good things for everyone. However, if I look at the proposal sightly differently, I see a few concerns:

1) Isn't it conceivable that POD might inadvertantly thwart the creation of bestsellers - and of new titles by new writers? If stockists and publishers begin to like their dramatically reduced overheads too much, they might become increasingly unwilling to a) take chances on big print runs that pay off beyond expectations, and b) publish a book that doesn't have a pre-ordered, ready-made audience.

2) Following on from that, might not POD - if it really takes off (hypothetically becoming the norm) - theoretically result in the book industry becoming something of a niche market? I mean, if fewer copies are produced, bookshops will shrink and spontaneous purchasing will get rarer and rarer. Fewer books sold = less profit for everyone = less pay for writers, editors, etc = less writing is produced = contraction of the industry = niche market. (I appreciate what you say about the potential benefits to new writers, and the widening of the spectrum, but that could only happen if publishers re-directed the savings. While it might be nice to think that would be the way they'd go, in the short term I suspect that savings might go toward increased pay for executives, etc. That's a dangerous road to start down because, in the long term, when it starts to narrow, there won't be room to turn around and come back.)

Don't get me wrong - I'm not launching an attack. I think POD has a lot to offer, if handled correctly and responsibly, and you've illustrated how in many ways. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate a bit.

By the way: note to other members:
Er, help me out a bit here, folks. I'm a little fish in this pond, and obarz is a Great White Shark. And it's his pond, too.
(Of course, you might disagree with me, too. In which case, I really will make a light snack for everyone.)

Tobytook

 

[obarz]

Hi again Toby,

Let me first attack your questions in their order and leave your attack to the end.

Isn't it conceivable that POD might inadvertantly thwart the creation of bestsellers - and of new titles by new writers?

In the United States publishers have been on the decline in numbers--large publishers, that is. They have been combining and buying up smaller companies for about twenty years. There remain about three "biggies" that control the preponderance of books offered for sale. They also control the interest of booksellers, because these, too, have been combining and buying each other for almost as long--witness Barnes and Noble and Borders. The large publisher and large bookseller seek to remain that way by insuring large sales. In agreeing as to how to do this, much of the market can be controlled by focusing it on known commodities (make no mistake that a book can be described as that). Those "commodities" are best-selling authors who write to formula [repeatedly--and, for some of us, boringly]. Focusing in this manner leaves little room for "experimental" publishing. By experimental I mean any book that does not have the expectation to sell a given (read high) number of copies.

While I've stated that large publishers have been shrinking in number, quite the reverse has occured among small and tiny publishers. Publishers can now be tiny and yield a profit (a tiny profit, yes, but a profit nonetheless). This it can do because of the new technology that doesn't require heavy investment and the concommitant number of sales to "wash" that investment.

unwilling to a) take chances on big print runs that pay off beyond expectations,

The large publisher will happily continue along doing big print runs as there is no risk involved. The books are priced to enable both good payment to the author (to hopefully prevent said author from skipping to another publisher) and lots of money (generated through lots of sales) to make the public aware of the existence of the book through saturation marketing. Analagously, the small publisher must think in terms of there being only enough money to saturate a neighborhood. How many copies can one sell in a neighborhood?

pre-ordered, ready-made audience.

My example is the example that everyone uses to discuss this problem, the fiction bestseller. That's hardly what publishing is about. While there is a pre-ordered, ready-made audience for certain works of fiction, there is a similar audience for many other genre of books. Most easily described and accessed are nonfiction works that deal with things that people talk about. Where people gather to talk about their interest is where the publisher must bring its sales effort and there be able to sell a few books. This is what the small and tiny publisher is doing in having the author more involved in sales, marketing and promotion. (N.B. I did not include advertising because small and tiny publishers cannot afford effective advertising. Not even mid-sized publishers can, as it is they who have most upset the published writer who expects to hear and read about his/her book when it is first published--they're not hearing and their books are not selling.)

benefits to new writers, and the widening of the spectrum, but that could only happen if publishers re-directed the savings

That is happening. You will note that most POD publishers have increased the size of royalties. Because they are not spending fruitless monies on advertising and selling they are returning these monies to the author to enable the author to do that. (Who better than the author knows his/her potential market?)
At YBK Publishers we offer a royalty of 15% of list (the listed sales price often found on cover). The normal royalty for a first-book author at a medium-sized traditional publisher is 8-10% of list.

spontaneous purchasing will get rarer and rarer

Again, the reverse would seem to be true. With small and tiny publishers now issuing tons and tons of new titles, the potential for spontaneous purchase would seem to be increasing. The wonderful resource that the reader now has to find just about anything on Amazon.com, B&N.com, and others, is stupendous. And, even the tiny publisher has access to listing on the dot.coms. YBK, through its listing in Books in Print, gains access to Amazon and all the others. And, in allying with a major distributor, even publishers such as YBK have full access to bookstore sales through special order. (One assumes that if a bookstore operator gets repeated orders for a given book that they will soon enough shelve it.)

And now to your attack:

obarz is a Great White Shark

May I assume that, while it came off to me as such, you did not truly intend this to be an attack? Still, there is apparently the subconcious belief among non-publishers that publishers are money-grubbing sharks. Well, I can tell you that the seriously taken stance around most publishing offices is the great wonderment we all share about why we're there--it certainly ain't the money!

And it's his pond, too.

Ah, ah, ah, you've got to control that antagonism! While it may be a pond that I'm comfortable to be in, it is hardly my pond. It's a pretty pond with lots of lily pads for others to sit on. And while I could wax long and boringly about its further goodnesses, I'll spare you, my ungentle reader<g>.

 

[Tobytook]

Originally posted by obarz
Let me first attack your questions in their order and leave your attack to the end.

Er, I attacked you? What, you mean the Great White thing? Right, sorry, I was just emphasising the little fish/big fish metaphor. You know – POD is your subject, your area: your pond, as it were. You’re closely involved in publishing, you know a lot more about it than me – especially in terms of technics, details, etc; I just represent the interested consumer: you’re a big fish, I’m a little fish. I just picked the GWS because it’s a big fish; I didn’t consider other connotations.

Still, methinks the publisher doth protest too much. Although I agree with much of what you say, and I genuinely think that POD has great benefits to offer, I’ll chance my luck and swim around you a bit more. I can’t fully credit some of the assertions you make, based on your interpretation of the industry.

In the United States publishers have been on the decline in numbers--large publishers, that is. They have been combining and buying up smaller companies for about twenty years.

Surely, that results in the same thing. Indeed, you go on to say that "three biggies control the preponderance of books offered". In fact, you go further:

The large publisher and large bookseller seek to remain that way by insuring large sales. In agreeing as to how to do this, much of the market can be controlled by focusing it on known commodities…

Okay, agreed. But another way to look at it is that the huge profits made from these commodities (such as bestsellers, the prime example) enable the creation of new imprints for less populist writers, and/or give new works marketing exposure and retail availability that vast corporate platforms provide. The percentage of profits used for this may be small but – though I take your point about smaller publishers using a higher turnaround percentage – even the small % is an immense financial amount compared to the higher % of the (let’s say) POD publisher. Furthermore, it has a trickle-down effect; for example, if a new book (particularly a new kind of book, an unprecedented sub-genre; recently Alternative Health, Popular Science, New Age, etc) is published by a big company, and becomes an unexpected success, the market expands as similar books follow it. Publishers great and small jump on the bandwagon, new writers get the chance to be published, and it’s all because the first book had enough money and commercial savvy behind it to get the all-important media interested. And, taking it back one stage further, one reason why this is possible is because Tom Clancy sells millions.

So, when you say "Focusing in this manner leaves little room for "experimental" publishing", I contest the validity of that point.

Publishers can now be tiny and yield a profit (a tiny profit, yes, but a profit nonetheless). This it can do because of the new technology that doesn't require heavy investment and the concommitant number of sales to "wash" that investment.

However, the numbers in terms of units moved are much lower. That’s what I mean about POD potentially triggering the contraction of the industry.

The large publisher will happily continue along doing big print runs… [which produces] lots of money (generated through lots of sales) to make the public aware of the existence of the book through saturation marketing.

Once again, although it is true, you do not address the fact that this process has worked equally successfully for "non-commodity" books published by those companies.

My example is the example that everyone uses to discuss this problem, the fiction bestseller. That's hardly what publishing is about.

A lot of people would probably take issue with you there. Most of them would be bookbuyers, general consumers. It’s not for you or me or anyone – even Barnes & Noble! – to dictate what publishing is or isn’t about.

With small and tiny publishers now issuing tons and tons of new titles, the potential for spontaneous purchase would seem to be increasing. The wonderful resource that the reader now has to find just about anything on Amazon.com, B&N.com, and others, is stupendous.

I buy books online, as do most people I know. It is not something that’s going to go away – certainly not until Amazon folds (ha!) anyway. Nevertheless, most spontaneous purchases – of anything, not just books – still occur in shops, when a consumer walks in and (crucially) picks something tangible up to have a look. That can’t happen online, and not even the best Special Order service can make a book appear instantly.

(One assumes that if a bookstore operator gets repeated orders for a given book that they will soon enough shelve it.)

Or they might think that all the people who were going to buy it have now done so, and move on to the next thing. Depends what it is, really. And that goes back to not dictating what publishing is/should or isn’t/shouldn’t be about.

…

So, obarz, I am not an ungentle reader; just a thinking one. I hold the same affection for This World of Books as you do, so clearly. There are just some potential dangers attached to this new form of publishing. They may never be actualised. But talking them over – perhaps laying them to rest – doesn’t do any harm.

Tobytook

 

[obarz]

It's my turn, but this conversation seemingly has no end. It's turn and turn again. You've identified, and I've addressed, some of our differences and some of your concerns. I respect your having differences, and, certainly, concerns need to be addressed.

However, you begin your latest correspondence with another attack--"the publisher doth protest too much." I can only speak about where I have been, what I claim as experience, and can reckon numbers only based on how often I've been there. You seem to want to promote antagonistic discussion about issues certainly having interest for many, but in my experience ones not generally the concern of individual writers seeking to be published.

I don't know else how to respond except that I feel I am better suited to answer questions about what I know best--the how-to of getting published. Can we move in that direction?

Thanks.

Otto

YBK Publishers, Inc.
425 Broome St.
New York, NY 10013
212 219 0135
http://www.yourbookpublisher.com

You may wish to look at our sister company, Publishing Sythesis, Ltd. at http://www.pubsyn.com to find out more about YBK's methods.

 

[Ell]

I've been following this discussion with some interest. I have a few comments/questions pertaining to the authors.

Posted by Obarz:
Because they are not spending fruitless monies on advertising and selling they are returning these monies to the author to enable the author to do that. (Who better than the author knows his/her potential market?)

Therefore, you are asking the author to do his own advertising and promotion with the increased royalties. However, in order to obtain the royalties to begin with, the author has to make a sale first. What I'm getting at is that you're asking the author to write, promote and sell his book before he gets anything in return. Or did I miss something in your previous explanation?

In my limited experience, writers are not great at the business of promotion and advertising - that's why they have publishers. Of course there is always the problem of convincing publishers and editors that their work is worth publishing. But I wonder if POD unrealistically encourages authors of dubious talent? (Has anyone read "Foucault's Pendulum" where a publication house does precisely that?)

On another note, I've personally experienced some of these authors' attempts at self-advertising. I have a very small book review page on my 2 year old website. In that time, I have received countless offers from unknown authors to read/review their books. I suppose they do a web "search" for book review sites and send these requests out in hopes of a good review and free advertising. I've also had authors sign my guestbook solely for the purpose of book promotion - which is useless because I usually delete them.

In two years, I've only accepted ONE book because it looked like something I would read had I picked it up in a bookstore.

The point I'm trying to make is that these writers must be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to drum up sales. Wouldn't their time be better spent doing what they do best - i.e. write?

 

[Darren]

I'm re-organising some of the forums and thought this would be better here

 

[obarz]

Hi Ell,

Love your tag line! Being new to the forum, what does a moderator do?

Okay, on to your points--difficult, so multipronged, as they are to respond to.

>>Therefore, you are asking the author to do his own advertising and promotion with the increased royalties. However, in order to obtain the royalties to begin with, the author has to make a sale first.<<

Let's first establish two routes by which one may be published (three, if you want to count the old vanity method that continues to exist--pay high production costs and have hundreds of copies of your book delivered to your garage). The routes are: send your mansucript to a traditional publisher, let it be published, sit back, collect royalties or; send your manuscript to a POD publisher, pay some money (not always) to get it published, do the drumbeating you'd have to do with the traditional publisher anyway, sit back, collect royalties.

Okay, what's wrong with that picture? I dunno. Well, yes I do. Lots of things CAN be wrong with it. But, so, too, can things be right with it. Who in their right mind wouldn't be chary of those who would have your money and do little to obtain it? But, let's continue the path. From that first step the divergence and number of scenarios can be infinite. Please further set the scene and I will try to respond to what I think could happen. But, let me try to address the issue of the author having first to make a sale.

Let's think about the publisher for a moment. Does the publisher want the book to sell? A real publisher. One who isn't in it just to collect the upfront fee, produce a book and, thus done, end it having fulfilled the promised role. A publisher doing this makes small amounts of money, but does so over and over. Parlaying, I think, is the term.

Of course the publisher wants the book to sell! For the same reasons the author does. A real publisher expects that the choice made by publishing is one that the world will beat a path to get to. Well now, does that describe a POD publisher? Why not? Ah, well, you say, how much choice is involved when you're being paid to do something? None. This being so, the wise buyer will choose the best provider of the service offered. What is the service offered? What is the service expected?

I know. I do know! To sit back and collect royalties. Both parties! Publisher and author alike. Nirvana. That's what they both seek. How to get there and not get stung--both sides--that's the issue.

How is the publisher stung? GIGO--a computing term--garbage in, garbage out. One simply cannot sell an unsaleable book. How can it be made to be saleable? Some publishers know how to do this and will add value. That's why they became publishers. If they were good originators they'd be writing books.

Sheesh, talk about rambling! I'll close. Publishers do what they do. Writers do what they do. Some of each are good; some are not.

Dare I carry on? That addressed the first line in your note. How many gigs does the server have?

Here are the remaining issues, as I see them:

>>I wonder if POD unrealistically encourages authors of dubious talent?<<

>>writers must be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to drum up sales. Wouldn't their time be better spent doing what they do best - i.e. write<<

These are sort of tied together, so let me see if I can contain myself.

Yes.

Yes.

Summing up, POD publishers need not publish everything that crosses their transom, wide as it is. I believe that in doing so they harm their image. If they don't care about image then, hey, why not? The definition of that was proscribed years ago--vanity publishing. POD has [can have] a different twist. It CAN provide an avenue by which a writer having something to say and having crafted it well can get those words onto a wider avenue. One need only put aside the idealised belief that the better mousetrap, with no added effort, will provide the destination for the beaten path. The better mousetrap must first be a better mousetrap and then, and only then, putting it where folks might see it offers some potential. Doesn't matter--traditional publisher, POD publisher. If it's not out there, it's nowhere.

Otto

 

[Tobytook]

Fascinating stuff, obarz.

(And good question, too, Ell.)

It's a shame you were reluctant to pursue the discussion into the wider themes of the book industry in general - I was having fun. But I respect your desire to keep the thread focused.

As for these percieved "attacks", though, it seems as if you regard anything other than complete sycophantic agreement as a declaration of war.

(Now, yes, that was an attack.)


Tobytook

 

[obarz]

a servile self-seeking flatterer

The above is the definition of sycophant[ic]. I'm not clear who you're describing, but you're right, it's definitely an attack--whether on yourself or me, three stirkes and you're out!

 

[Ell]

Otto,

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been away for 2 weeks on vacation and stayed away from computers and the internet.

Being new to the forum, what does a moderator do?

Supposedly, make sure people play nicely (watch the cuss words, flaming, etc). So, not much on this forum . I'm not big on censorship, so it would have to be pretty bad before I'd jump in and delete anything.

As for POD publishing, I DO see the need for an altenative means of getting unknown authors published. I wasn't trying to attack POD, just question the process. In my own mind, I was linking POD and the vanity press as being more similar than they really are?

Without going into a long debate; I think it's healthy to have different ways in which authors can get published, despite the flaws inherent in any system.

Ell