Real Publishers

Recently a discussion came up among fellow writers about the legitimacy of self-publishing versus legacy publishers. Some of the comments from my colleagues left me, frankly, startled. One writer commented that he had, ‘a deep-seated distrust of all things that smack of self-publishing,’ while another writer commented that ‘…”real” publishers regard themselves as such, and they regard everything from literary presses with two books a year down through small press, ebooks and self-publishing as being about the same as photocopying a dozen of your poems for a give-away pamphlet.’

Both writers felt it was committing career-suicide to venture into self-publishing.

To those comments I responded:

Just to examine this a little further and follow the logic of the argument; this statement puts forward the concept that in order to be ‘real’ the publisher is required to produce scores, hundreds, perhaps thousands of books. Similar analogy to beer manufacturers versus micro-breweries. What makes a publisher ‘real’ (and let’s do get real about this) is the fact they are publishing books, whether award-winning, innovative, or schlock makes little difference. The fact that Five Rivers (or thousands of other small presses) publishes books doesn’t make us any less real than Random House. Now, if we’re talking scale, yes, there’s an indisputable, obvious difference. Having said that, let’s examine real facts:

1. Five Rivers is able to deliver books in a timely fashion, just like Random House.
2. Five Rivers is able to distribute to major booksellers, globally, just like Random House.
3. Five Rivers’ books are gaining credibility and note, just like Random House.
4. Unlike Random House, Five Rivers never remainders a book and sells off inventoried stock to clearance houses.
5. Unlike Random House, Five Rivers explores and utilizes new publishing strategies to reach maximum readers.
6. Unlike Random House, Five Rivers offers no advance to authors.
7. Unlike Random House, Five Rivers offers guaranteed quarterly payments of royalties, based on 10% of retail price.
8. Unlike Random House, Five Rivers receives less than 1% returns.
9. Unlike Random House, Five Rivers launches and maintains an aggressive marketing campaign for its authors, constantly expanding geographic scope and readership.
10. Unlike Random House, Five Rivers is willing to risk publication of new voices, who are writing new concepts and stories.

I think perhaps what is the difficulty here is our collective unwillingness to recognize the rapidly changing face of publishing. What we’re witnessing here is not a flash in the pan, as the slower-moving, conservative legacy (‘real’) houses would have us think. We’re witnessing the Gutenberg press moving in across the road from the scriptorium – perhaps an extreme analogy, but a propos, nonetheless.

And then of course, from a purely business point of view, I have to ask myself both as an author and a publisher, little say an entrepreneur, why settle for an outdated business model when you can ride the crest of the wave of the future? Why fight the closed doors, the marketing-department driven editorial board-rooms? Why not access the distribution channels the legacy houses have previously monopolized? Why not take creative control of your work, earn the lion’s share, work in harmony with other like-minded, far-seeing people who have stricken the word ‘NO’ and ‘CAN’T’ from their vocabularies? Why not be part of a publishing industry that uses a business model that serves the environment rather than abuses?

The time when we thought of micro-press and print-on-demand as inferior and amateur product is quickly dying. You have no idea the exciting things that are happening at the grass-roots level. The big guys, yeah, they can continue to print their block-buster 10 week wonders. But the real publishing, the stuff that will grow and develop into the real voice of this and future generations will be at this micro-level. I’m taking odds on it. ;-)