If you go surfing around Amazon, you’ll notice a lot of the books in the Kindle Store that look self-published and yet have publishers listed. Boom Stick Publishing. Harvest Moon Press. Soft Kitty Productions…
With the proliferation of small presses out there, it’s hard to know, at a glance, which ones are actual publishing houses (with a submissions process an author must go through to have a book accepted) and which ones are simply made up.
Made up, you ask?
Well, yeah. When you’re uploading an ebook into the Kindle Store, there’s a field for publisher, and if you type something in, I doubt Amazon checks whether a press with that name exists or not. In fact, given the number of indie authors with presses listed, I’m sure Amazon doesn’t check. Oh, I imagine some of those authors have actually filled out the paperwork and created a business entity with that name, but I’d guess a lot haven’t.
I was never particularly tempted to do this because I like to embrace being an indie. For me, self-publishing wasn’t a choice of last resort. It was something that appealed to me for a number of reasons, and I haven’t regretted choosing this path. I know there’s a stigma associated with self-published books, but I’m not willing to disguise my books by making up a publisher so people will think I’ve been published by a small press.
That said, someone more experienced (and more successful) than I said that indie authors should create an imprint because a) reviewers who say they won’t take self-published fiction might consider work from small presses and b) there are readers who refuse to try independent authors, so you should make your books look like they’re not self-published.
I’m all for trying to make the packaging of my books professional, but I don’t think it’s in me to make up a press in an attempt to look like something I’m not.
What are your thoughts, authors? Have you conjured up a press for your books?
Readers, are you more likely to try a book with a publisher listed? Or would you be irked if you’d found out an author had made one up?
I’m up and down on this one. For reviewers who don’t take indie works, I don’t even try to pretend. Self-published authors, who thinks they’re a small press because of a label, are silly. I’m not saying it to be mean, but really, lie to others, but don’t lie to yourself. 🙂
As for readers, I’ve considered creating an imprint for my books to look more “official.” In truth, I doubt it’ll change my sales numbers significantly though.
I believe folks do imprints, thinking readers will miraculously buy their works because of it. Authors are fooling themselves though. The thing is, readers have to be able to find your work in order to buy it in the first place. Most indie authors are so obscure, the only ones who know they exist are the people in their household. That issue needs to be address long before authors start hoping an imprint will make a difference.
If writers look at the successful self-published authors (REALLY LOOK), not just go by what they expect a successful author should be doing, they’ll find an imprint isn’t the common denominator.
In fact, I challenge anyone to find the common denominator amongst the greats. From what I’m seeing, each success story is different. True, some methods work better than others in promoting work, but there’s still quite a bit of variety.
Some got big because they managed to latch on to a successful friend. Some because they got in on the ground floor. Some because their story was just freakin’ awesome and caught the eye of someone with umph. Some just know how to promote in all the right places. The list goes on.
To me, an imprint is more of a vanity thing. It’s nice to have, but not a necessity. And I definitely wouldn’t say it’s key to driving sales to the moon.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Reena! I’ve definitely seen plenty of self-published books in the Top 100 lists at Kindle, many without anything listed in the publisher field at all.
I’m seriously considering starting a small press for my own books, but also for others. I have decent editing experience from another small press and know someone who does great covers. Yes, my trilogy will be the first thing I publish, but the door will be open to others who are looking for a small press to pub their books. I’ll probably start with only a few titles a year and see how it goes. It can’t hurt to try, IMO.
I’m so glad you posted this because I have been wondering about this topic for a long time! I often flip through a book’s first pages and have seen quite a few indies labeled with a superficial press. I find it disheartening when I look a press up online and find an abandoned blog or something to that effect. There’s just something not right—criminal, even—about making up a “business entity” for the sake of making one’s book look more professionally appealing. I’m sure real, actual presses out there take great pride in their work and for an indie author to just make one up is a little cheap and inconsiderate, I say. Cheap because, well, the press they’re labeling with is not real, simply not legitimate. Inconsiderate because what if readers/fellow authors want to check the so-called press out and come to find it’s fake… it kind of defeats the purpose of looking “professional” then would it not?
I think the whole concept is nice for the sake of image and author branding but in terms of functionality and practicality, I’m not liking these fake presses one bit. My opinion is, if an indie author wants to make an imprint/press, do it right. Make it professional. Have it function as an actual, real press would. Make a website and inform the public what your press is all about; if the press deals only in eBooks then make sure it’s stated on the site…etc.
I’ve thought about making my own small indie press as well but my location (Japan) and the fact that I am undoubtedly enslaved by my day job, hinders me from doing so. And besides, with what little free time I do have, I’d rather spend it writing. With that reality in place, I will definitely be opting out of inventing a press of my own when I self-publish my book(s). I’d rather just use my name in place of the publisher. For me, it’s just a matter of integrity and a respect for business ethics.
Thanks for chiming in, R.A. Yes, it doesn’t seem right to get ahead (if one even does) by essentially duping the reader.
Adding to my comment, I think what this author did was pretty nifty:
http://www.publetariat.com/imprint/why-i-decided-form-indie-press
Would you believe that link shown above lands on a non-existent page? Too bad; I would like to have seen what that author did that you thought was pretty nifty! Oh, well….another time….
I’m certainly finding the article and the comments equally informative and valuable. Thank you so much!
Sorry about the broken link, Carol-Ann. This is a pretty old article. 🙁
Hi, I just noticed the page is actually available in the Internet Archive.
http://web.archive.org/web/20130217181541/http://www.publetariat.com/imprint/why-i-decided-form-indie-press
It looks like the author closed his imprint and is going through Voyager (HarperCollins), which is probably why the article is gone.
I’ve been juggling this around myself lately. I really wanted to start a printing company myself that dealt with eBooks and printed, I have good connections to artists, editors and critiques. If I was only publishing myself, I would have already made up my mind and tossed the idea aside. I’ve been considering helping some other writers who either don’t have the connections and don’t know where to start or those who just don’t want to mess with all that part get published however, and that keeps making me lean towards filing the paperwork to get the company started. It wouldn’t be a vanity thing as much as just removing my personal accounts from the publishing and expenses and using a business account and company, contracting out the editing, art, etc and then creating contracts.
I wonder if that is reason enough to start the company or just create the contracts with those who want me to publish them and leave it like that. I’m still very undecided where to go with this.
It’s definitely a different beast if you’re planning on taking on other authors too. I’m sure there’s a ton of work involved (especially if you open yourself up to unsolicited submissions!), and I can’t imagine doing it, but I can see where some authors/editors would enjoy the process.
Tangentially related: I bought a book published by an actual small press, not a fake one made up by and for one author, off Smashwords once. Considering the pricetag, the proofreading was poor, so I’m unlikely to buy anything published by them in the future. It cured me of the idea that having gone through a publishing house might say anything about quality, too. 😛
On the topic of just entering some made-up publishing house name, I agree with R.A. Watanabe: It’s dishonest.
I’ve often had similar results with small presses. Usually the copy editing is good, but the stories could have used some work. That said, there’s such a wide range of small presses that you never really know until you try. I love the sample feature, heh.
I dislike the idea myself because it is deception. That’s not only morally questionable but it often backfires.
I think an important question is: who are we trying to fool? I believe that many (most?) readers don’t know or care who published a book. They only care about how good it is. These people are the target market for indies, and they’re not even looking at the “publisher” field.
The ones who do check are frequently the ones who don’t want to read self-published books. Those people are also wise to the tricks some authors pull and so they don’t just stop at reading the publisher name – they check up on it. If they find nothing to suggest it’s a legit publisher, they get even more annoyed at the author personally, and at self-publishers generally. So, I don’t think it actually deceives too many of the people it’s actually aimed at. It’s just as likely to cause harm.
Why waste time and energy trying to trick/persuade/win over people who are closed to self-publishing anyway? We’re not going to win at that. There are plenty of people who are open to indie books and it’s much more productive to focus on them.
All of that said, in some parts of the world there are pretty powerful tax reasons for creating a small publishing business and running your books through it. So some authors might be doing it for other reasons. For my part, that’s the only reason why I might consider taking this approach in the future.
Thanks for the great comments, Charlotte!
There are good reasons to create a business when you’re self-employed, but IMO having a business for tax purposes and letting readers/reviewers believe you’re an actual press (the implication to readers being that you submitted your story to a slush pile somewhere and it was selected for publication by a third party) are different beasts.
This is a question I have put some consideration into. One benefit I can see for creating a publishing company is to get an issued block of ISBN numbers. I also think it might make sense from a business standpoint, and maybe even a liability standpoint? I would love to hear an accountant or lawyer’s take on this issue.
For my part, as I’m about to dive in, I decided to not form a publishing company for my first book(s). I have some goals I want to meet (that your blog helped me set!) and then if I meet those goals I will look into setting up a publishing company as I put out more books.
You don’t need to be a publisher [or fake it] to buy a block of ISBNs. I f are an author and know that you will have more than one version of your book or books [audio, eBook, pBook, etc] then buy a block of ISBNs in your author name.
I do put a publisher imprint on my books. I don’t personally perceive it as a deception simply because it’s me paying me what I earn rather than a “legitimate” publisher, and I’m not certain where morals enter into the decision. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
My books are a part of my business as an author, and my publisher name is the public-facing identity of that business.
Well said Bridget. I have my own imprint and publishing house that began in 2001. I had printed 3,000 copies of my non-fiction book and sold it to bookstores through Ingram and Baker& Taylor. There is nothing wrong with creating your own business whether it’s books, dresses, or gift items. A product is a product no matter what it’s form is. And I don’t understand this concept of morality that comes into it. You’re either in business or you’re not.
Well said Bridget. I have my own imprint and publishing house that began in 2001. I had printed 3,000 copies of my non-fiction book and sold it to bookstores through Ingram and Baker&Taylor. There is nothing wrong with creating your own business whether it’s books, dresses, or gift items. A product is a product no matter what it’s form is. And I don’t understand this concept of morality that comes into it. You’re either in business or you’re not.
When I first published my novel, three years ago, I sort of had that inward cringe when I admitted that it was self-published. I did so through Xlibris. I paid for a package and they made it happen. Since then, and a tiny bit of networking later (and I mean tiny), I have come to see that so many people are doing it too, and they aren’t even bothering with Xlibris to do it. I don’t have that inward cringe of shame anymore and I too embrace the idea of putting my writing out there on my own on my own terms.
I think we have the internet, ebooks/ereaders and sites like Lulu and Smashwords to thank for this. We can totally bypass the traditional way of publishing and quite frankly, I prefer it.
I have no plans to create an imprint, to brand myself. I take pleasure in knowing that I am a one woman show, and that this is good enough.
For those using Smashwords, you have to remember this. The “publisher” listed for your book is not you. It’s Smashwords. If you make your own imprint, you can list it as the publisher. Many say they take pleasure in doing everything themselves. You just have to remember that Smashwords lists themselves as the publisher on books you distribute and sell through them. That’s something that a lot of people don’t know.
When I set up my business a few years back, also under paid advice of a lawyer, I did not create a business to deceive people, but rather to separate my business from my personal stuff. I receive pay, etc under my publishing business name. It has made my life so much easier, especially at tax time. It also allows be to funnel many different things into that business name. But never once did I think “Aha, I fooled someone!” I don’t really think that is fair and I’m not sure others do it to fool people either, although I can’t speak for everyone. I was just proud of my business and felt it deserved to be treated as that- a business. I wonder if only individuals who perhaps did think of setting up a publishing name to deceive people would feel that it was dishonest? Or perhaps they have never operated a business before…but I don’t think all people are that way.
I don’t think it is necessarily dishonest to create an imprint…but in the long run, that also depends on the intention when doing so. I am a reader as well as a writer and personally i pay very little attention to who/what published the book. My biggest concern is with the writing, if the story is engaging and well crafted, and if it keeps me hanging on until the end. Then I want to know who the author is, because I will likely become a repeat customer, and also because as a writer, I would like to learn from them.
I don’t think it’s dishonest. My books are co-authored and we needed a single name for the “publisher.” So, we just had a little fun with it and called it “Ion Productions.” We never pretended it was a small press and when we solicit reviews we tell the reviewer it’s self-published.
Margaret Y., Did you need to go through any legalities to publish your novel through Ion Productions? Is your ISBN associated with Ion Productions?
It looks like most commenters are writers, so I’m a here’s one reader’s point of view.
Making up an imprint for yourself may be hypothetically dishonest, but I really don’t care. I usually don’t think to look at the publisher. I categorize books into ones that have professional-looking covers and ones that have non-professional looking ones.
Yes, I judge the books by their covers. *shame*
*But*, I have read excellent books with amateur-hour cover art and total crap that had big marketing campaigns behind it, so I’ve learned not to budget my marketing dollar based on the cover – it just changes what I look at before I buy.
If it’s an author I’ve read before, then I go mostly by my previous experience with them. If I love them, then I order their latest book as soon as I notice the it’s ready. Everything else is immaterial.
If the author has been hit-and-miss for me, then I look at the description and reviews to predict whether a given book will have the issues again that caused me to dislike some of their stuff in the past.
If I haven’t read the author, then I look at the cover art and amazon rating first (below a 4 and I’m going on to the next book). If the cover art looks amateurish, then I’m likely to pay close attention to the reviews.
I also read the description, but only to get an idea of the genre and premise. It’s not a very good indicator of whether I’ll actually like the book.
I also go by price point. If it’s an author I’ve never read, then I’m reluctant to pay full-price unless everything else is overwhelmingly in its favor. If it’s cheap, then I’m more willing to experiment.
If everything looks promising, then I’ll read the beginning of the book to see if I like the writing style and get drawn into the story. If I do, then I buy!
Oh, and I usually buy about 20-30 books a month, so I’m a heavy reader and purchaser of books.
Note, if I like your books and you have a web site or blog that gives me sneak peeks for books before they come out, I appreciate it. I like looking forward to books. 🙂
Interesting topic. I wouldn’t want to deceive the audience. I’m not sure that’s a smart move. We need to be up front about who we are.
People’s prejudices can be overcome, but not if you’re lying to them. Folks can be really unforgiving if they feel duped.
I’m just not understanding why being up front about approaching selling books as a business (separate from the craft of writing them) would be perceived as a lie. Your readers want a good book. If you’re giving them that, how many of them do you suppose are really invested in whether or not you have a publishing identity separate from your name?
There’s nothing wrong with creating a business for selling your books, but when you list a publisher on the sales page, it’s suggesting to the reader that what’s a self-published work was vetted and produced by a small press.
Not *necessarily* dishonest, since so many people are learning to spot a “small press” that only has one title out as an indie author, but pretty sketchy if you’re using it to get around a reviewer’s rules on self-published works. (Not to mention counter-productive: it’s a pretty easy deception to see through, and the reviewer is *not* going to be pleased when they do.) I know several indie authors who do it for tax purposes, though.
I would be very interested on a post about the tax benefits of creating an official imprint versus filing under your personal tax form. If anyone is willing to write it up, keep me in mind. Email me, twitter me, FB me… whatever, cause I’ve been looking for straight forward information on the matter for quite a bit of time.
I’d be interested in this too Reena. This is something I need to decide whether or not to do in 2012.
As a writer, I could never feel comfortable doing something like this. I feel it’s one thing if you are doing it as a fun little thing for friends and family (self publishing a book of your kids work to hand out to them) but to fully market it to everyone and as if you are under a publisher is something else different. Unless you are publishing things other than just your work I can’t see how you can be comfortable with this.
As a reader I do look at who the publisher is and I do take that into account the same way I take into account the cover of the book or the title even. But they don’t fully convince me to buy them. I’ve found many published books with awesome covers and titles and from big name publishing houses and got them only to find that they really, really were awful. While I’ll pick up those books first and flip through them before picking up indie books or self published books, I won’t purchase them unless I really feel they are worth it.
If I found out that an author was untruthful about the publisher would I be upset? Yeah I would and I would begin to question other things such as “how much of their writing is actually theirs?”.
V.E.L. ~ I wouldn’t go so far as to wonder if the author actually wrote the work. Creating an imprint isn’t expensive. And my understanding (though I’ve never gone through the process), doing business as (DBA) isn’t an overly complicated process.
On the other hand, violating copyright laws can be a HUGE issue. And if they didn’t violate copyright laws and instead went with a ghostwriter, they likely paid big money to do so. Ghostwriters don’t come cheap.
Personally, I think those are two separate topics. Take James Patterson, for example. He’s traditionally published but works extensively with ghostwriters. I read the first 4 books of his Angel Experiment, and I got the impression he didn’t even bother to read the books after the ghostwriter(s) finished them.
Traditional imprint, small press, or single author imprint — it doesn’t determine if the writing is the authors or not. In fact, I’d say the chances of the writing being the authors is more likely under a small press or single author imprint. Why? Because most authors don’t make enough to even think about hiring a ghostwriter.
I personally pay no mind to the publisher. I see an author I’ve enjoyed before, I buy until I’m disappointed, then I go back to indepth reviews and excerpts like I do with authors I’m not familiar with.
Here’s what I did – I wrote the book, went through the editing process (with help from a few friends), designed the cover (stark rather than fluffy), got the ISBN, had it printed (POD), distributed it, marketed it personally, and that was pretty much it. One thing I did not hesitate to state on the copyright page was the name of the publisher- me. No fancy press names, just me. If anyone (reviewer, critic, average book buyer) wants to overlook my book because it wasn’t put out by a publishing house/small press, it’s their loss. I’m not in this for fame and fortune – I write because I love to write, and if someone wants to buy my books, that’s a bonus. I’m not lying to anyone.
From the reviews (negative & positive) that I’ve seen for self-published books, it seems that when browsing readers now look at the price to determine if a book is indie.
For example “For 99 cents I should have known this book was self-published.”
But on the subject of false marketing, it really shouldn’t be necessary. Indie publishing should be seen as cool, like an alternative to being in an indie rock band (still my dream), instead of a last ditch effort to get published.
I’m glad that I decided not to even submit my finished manuscript to agents or traditional houses. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to upload it directly onto Kindle now. It’s going through it’s first round of edits then I’ll review it and have it edited again.
Readers are only now more discerning because they’ve been burned by bad book purchases. Their trust has wavered but isn’t completely broken. It can be repaired. If the authors take the effort that was made to create a hallow entity and apply it to perfecting their end product. The issue of indie vs traditional in publishing will fade away. Just as it has in the movie and music industries.
People no longer think Oh Warner Bros! or Oh Sony!
It’s all about the artistic quality.
J*
As a reader, I don’t care if a book is self-published or small press published.
As a blogger who features self-published books, and who had a self-published month (hopefully to be repeated in the new year shortly after the kick-off for my self-published reading challenge), I look for self-published books specifically. If there is a publisher listed, I tend to pass over it, without checking further to see if it’s only for that book or author.
I’m with Erin. I would consider creating a publishing entity as part of the business. Creating an LLC has some business and tax advantages doesn’t it? I look at each of my novels as a product, the publishing entity I create is my company name. No deception there. In the future when I plan anthologies with various authors the fact that it’s created under the LLC will help with taxes for everyone involved. It just makes better business sense. Off to do more research on the business side…
I created Typing Cat Press for my works because…
1) It is far easier to publish my books and Pepper’s books through the same accounts on Amazon, B&N, Createspace, etc.
2) I plan on writing books in different genres using pseudonyms, so again, it saves me the trouble of having multiple accounts.
3) I had considered bring some forgotten gems back into print, though I’ve had to file that away to the someday cabinet.
4) I thought it would be a cool way to establish a brand that would unite my books under multiple names (eventually) and Pepper’s books.
If #1 and #2 don’t apply to you, I think #4 can be an important point even for a single author. It’s another chance to establish a brand.
It’s kind of fun to have your own press name. When did this all have to become about deception and negativity? I’m having a lot of fun publishing my own books and Typing Cat Press is part of my enjoyment. If that puts someone off on me representing myself in such a manner, too bad.
Finally, depending on your state laws and so forth, setting up a press name that’s just another name for your self employment venture isn’t that big a deal.
People may never see eye to eye on this but I believe those who are saying they’re just creating a press for business purposes are choosing to ignore the consequences, intended or not, of putting that business name in the publisher box on the KDP. It implies to the reader that a book was published by a true press with an editor (not the author) who runs a submissions process and serves as a gatekeeper, even if not so stringent a one as one gets with the big presses.
Readers who wouldn’t try self-published authors because they fear low standards may be tricked into trying your book.
Peter Said, “Readers who wouldn’t try self-published authors because they fear low standards may be tricked into trying your book.”
As an indie author, I have to say, I’m not very sympathetic to readers who don’t want to try a self-published book because they are afraid of low standards. If the book is good, the book is good regardless of who published it.
Readers have the option to read samples just like everyone else. If they don’t try the book before they buy or at least read the reviews, it’s their own fault if they don’t get what they expected. Having a traditional published name on the book DOES NOT GUARANTEE a good read. My most disappointing read in 2011 was released by a traditional publisher. Likewise, having an indie author write the book does not guarantee a bad read. Two of my favorite reads in 2010 were by indie authors.
If readers are so intent on avoiding self-published books, THEY need to do their research.
No one is forcing readers to buy indie works. Readers aren’t being duped.
Indie authors ARE publishers. That’s why it’s called self-PUBLISHING. And if a publisher (such as indie authors are) want to do business under an imprint, that’s a choice.
And if readers who don’t want to try a self-published book but end up doing so because they’re too lazy to followup on their to-good-for attitudes, more power to the indie author. Perhaps it’ll turn into a learning experience for the reader–self-publish is not equivalent to bad.
As an Indie writer who is paying for multiple professional editors, I couldn’t have said that any better myself.
There’s one thing everyone forgot, “Look Inside the Book.” This is one sure way to read two chapters and know if you like the writing, whether there are typos, if the story is to your liking, etc.
If it’s Indie or Traditional who cares. It’s only the story that’s important. Did you have fun reading it? Did the book enlighten you? what did you learn in the process? Did it move you? Made cry?
I personally think we’re all wasting time sweating whether an author published their book by CreateSpace, Lulu, or themselves. There are far more important things to worry about than that. Try worrying about Iranian nuclear weapons aimed at Israel where they can vaporize a whole country, women, children and men in an instant! Now that’s what I call a concern. Nevertheless, thank you all for caring.
Lilian Gafni
As an reader and future indie author, I have to say, I’m not very sympathetic to authors who think hiding the fact their book is self-published will give their book some ersatz credibility. Especially since it suggest they themselves consider self-published books are written at a low standard. If the book is good, the book is good regardless of whether the author admits it is self-published or not.
I’m hearing a lot of excuses in this thread from a lot of people as to why using an imprint somehow is not deceptive. But only one REASON not to do so – it is dishonest.
As a reader, for a long time I avoided reading indie books because I worried about the quality level. I’d been burned. Lindsay’s book were the reason I started to read more indie authors. Not that I thought all indie authors were bad, or that all traditionally published ones were great, but I found that yeah, often people aren’t putting in the same amount of editing/copyediting work. Or consistency–one of the more frustrating purchases I made was something with a killer sample, but that fell apart soon after and by the end got really creepy and disturbing to the point that I was upset that I’d bought it.
As a writer who writes across several genres, I have considered an imprint as a way to be more honest; not less. I can aggregate all my writings into one imprint; but if you know you don’t like hard-boiled mysteries you won’t read under one name, and if you don’t like fantasy you can read only the other name. If you like my writing and all my genres the publisher name would be a way to find all of the books instead of looking each of my names up individually. That’s the idea I’ve been throwing around. I don’t care about using pseudonyms for hiding–I care so that readers will know they’re getting the book they want to read, not something else. I may like what Barbara Metzger writes under all of her names, but that doesn’t mean someone who loves the Elizabeth Peters mysteries will also like the Barbara Michaels suspense, etc.
And as someone who works in publishing–vo-tech textbooks, and web production even, so I don’t really have an in–I follow the business. From where I sit in my corporate cube, imprints don’t necessarily mean much (my corporate overlords have spent the past five years dumping most of ours). But the future is curation (as opposed to the past, which is distribution)–making your publisher name mean something.
For example: as a reader, you know what you get when you buy a Harlequin; you know what you get when you buy SOHO Crime, you even have a good sense what you get when you buy Farrar, Straus & Giroux. If an imprint exists, it should mean something–even just “this imprint is the books by these two co-authors” like above.
My worry is that for me at least, author branding will be more than enough work. Do I really want to brand something else? Ugh!
*Lindsay’s books. Argh.
I seriously hate typos.
I actually started an imprint myself with my first novella. Initially during my search for a vanity press (iuniverse and all those other guys I forgot) I figured that if their names came up under publisher, then it really wasn’t quite self publishing. So I started Mortified Books. Not only was I turned off by the outrageous prices they charged, I just couldn’t fathom earning 1-2 bucks per book. That is part of the reason I started publishing others, so that I could give my authors 85% of their earnings. In fact I make a pretty good living publishing my own e-books alone. So, I take on all of the headache for those who are budget-conscious and looking for a personalized mentor rather than filling out a form and talking to automated messages.
I’m about to self-publish, and yes, I’m doing an imprint. As others have stated, it has nothing to do with “tricking” readers. I’m doing it to create a business entity. I’ll be filing for a business license, keeping a separate bank account, and performing all the work a press would do (marketing, hiring designers, etc.), so why wouldn’t I have the right to call myself a press?
It’s a one-person press, sure, but a press nonetheless. And frankly, anyone who’s willing to do all the work themselves (often many of us around family and day job obligations) should be proud to call themselves both an indie and a press.
I’m sorry but as a reader this is the kind of thing that irritates me.
When there’s a publisher listed on a book’s page at Amazon, I used to assume that meant the novel had been hand-picked out of hundreds of other stories in a slush pile as something worth publishing. I’ve been burned a number of times now by self-published authors masquerading as “presses” so I just don’t buy books any more that aren’t by a press I recognize. 99% of self-published books are crap, and there’s a reason they didn’t get picked up by agents. Yes there are exceptions, but just because you paid for cover art and hired an editor doesn’t mean you have a story that people will enjoy reading.
Self-publishers pretending they’re presses make a bad name for legitimate small press operations that do have a selection process for choosing titles.
Hi Joshua,
There are a few flaws in your rationalization. First, being published by a small press is not necessarily superior than being self-published. Many small presses have only one editor selecting stories, reading over the stories, and making editorial suggestions/changes.
Other than having an extra person to say your story is great or not, it’s really no different than hiring a freelance editor. Sometimes the owner of the small press is even the editor. So what the author made it through the slush pile of a small press? All it means is one person liked it enough to put their imprint on the book.
Finding a small press to purchase the rights to a book doesn’t necessarily make the book better. I’ve read small press books loaded with enough errors to make me think it’s a first draft. I’ve read small press books with plots bad enough, it makes me want to plant a hand on my hip and say, “Really?”
I’m not saying you don’t have a right to be ticked off about coming across crappy books. I get annoyed myself when I purchase a book only to find it sucks… especially if I paid a significant amount for it. I paid $15 for the hardback copy of Mockingjay when it came out. Worst book I read that year… and by a traditional press. I’ve picked up $7.99 paperback books by authors I’ve loved in the past, only to end up wanting to write hate mail by the time I hit the conclusion.
Crappy books by traditional authors who’ve made a name for themselves is dishonest to me. Publishers are banking on the name to pull in readers, but fail to make the delivery. Those books are VETTED by big name publishers.
As far as readers feeling tricked into reading a book by a self-published author with a imprint… I wonder why not sample the work first… read reviews. I don’t purchase books by authors I don’t know unless something about it really, REALLY pulls me in–the blurb, the reviews, a personal recommendation from someone I trust.
If most of the indie books a reader purchases are crap, I’m going to wonder about the reader’s decision-making abilities. How difficult is it to click on the “Click to look inside” button or sample? Is it really that difficult to read a few of the reviews? check the rating?
What is the obsession over the imprint anyway? If you really think about it, big name publishers aren’t necessarily publishing the best books. They’re publishing what they think will sell the most. Mockingjay is a perfect example. Folks LOVED the first book and the second book almost as much. Then we hit Mockingjay. No advance reader copies sent out, yet people flocked to the store to pick it up. Why? Because the first two books rocked. I’m convinced the publishers knew the last book would piss off fans, which is why they didn’t send out ARCs. If they had, the truth about the crap storyline would have deterred folks from making the purchase.
You can trust the name of an imprint if you want, but if a publisher is trying to run a successful business, they’re going to keep the a bottom line in mind and market a book to maximize profit.
You’re fooling yourself if you think the imprint (self-published, small press, big 6) changes the content of a book. A crappy book is a crappy book regardless of the imprint, just as a great book is great regardless on the name slapped on it.
Take some time… read the samples, and consider using some critical thinking skills in the book selection process.
In other words – self-published authors insist readers become unpaid slush readers. And if they buy a bad book it is their fault for not slush reading well enough.
No thank you.
The difference between a press and a self-published writer is that at least ONE person other than the writer agrees the book is worth printing to the point where they will put their credibility on the line for the book. That is one whole other person – twice as many as just the writer. Is it a guarantee of quality? No. But the odds are a damn sight better than “just the writer”.
As for when the small press and the writer are the same – well we are back to the same argument re imprint and writer, aren’t we? It is dishonest. How does the dishonesty of a particular press somehow diminish the dishonesty of a self-published writer’s imprint? How can you disparage the press and writer being the same but somehow fail to see what is wrong with a self-published writer’s imprint? It is exactly the same situation – passing off one thing as something else. It is dishonest, or it is not. Either way, it doesn’t suddenly become honest when convenient and dishonest when inconvenient.
As for the “it’s a business argument” – rubbish. There are plenty of self-published writers who create a business to write under who don’t feel compelled to create an imprint. If – for example – Lindsay Buroker wanted to run her writing as a business, she could call that business “Lindsay Buroker Self-Publishing” and it would be every bit as valid tax-wise as “Impressive Name Publishing”. The imprint part is totally irrelevant to the business side – you can drop it entirely and it makes no difference to the functioning of the business.
As for “I need an imprint for all my pseudonyms” – well, Barbara Mertz didn’t need an imprint to let people know she wrote as Elizabeth Peters and Barbara Michaels, did she? She has a web page that makes it perfectly clear – no imprint required.
I don’t think self-published writers who create a fake publisher for their books are deliberately trying to hoodwink readers into thinking an independent third party vetted their books before printing. Some are just so wrapped up in wishful thinking that they blur the lines and convince themselves it is okay – the way people do when they are rationalising lying on the accident form so the accident is not their fault.
But all the wishful thinking in the world doesn’t make it honest, and readers are perfectly entitled to expect honesty from a writer in certain areas – biography (especially if it is used to bolster credibility), whether it made it through a slush pile or is self-published (especially when used to bolster credibility).
Nobody ever put an imprint on their book thinking it would hurt sales. Plenty avoid putting “self-published” on their work because they think it WILL hurt sales. All the stuff about “it is not fair the won’t give self-publishing a chance” is an excuse – and whose fault is it when even self-publishers won’t back up their own rhetoric with their actions?
If self-published writers want everybody else to believe in self-publishing they are going to have to behave as if THEY believe in self-publishing. Why should anybody else believe what you say when your actions say otherwise?
No hiding behind imprints, no calling yourself a publisher as if you are an independent third party, no excuses. Say “I am a self-publisher, proud to be one and I write good books”- and this time mean it. Back up your claims with your actions. Because if you won’t, why the hell should anybody else?
While I agree there’s a lot of crap out there thanks to the belief by many authors that a “30-day start to finish process” is a good thing, I disagree that the big names are the best at determining what people enjoy.
Fortunately, JK Rowling disagreed, as well, and didn’t assume because she’d been rejected that Harry Potter was not worth reading. Although she wound up with a small press initially (and not self-pub), all of the majors didn’t feel her books would sell until after she disproved the validity of their rejections with sales.
Christopher Paolini self-pubbed first. He only landed a big name publisher after a NY Times bestselling author’s kid read one of his books while on vacation.
Amanda Hocking, one of the biggest sellers on Amazon last year, also self-pubbed, only spawning a bidding war from publishers after she proved her books would be interesting to readers. Her sales, of course, speak for her value as an author.
Although I’ve read a lot of truly terrible self-pubbed books, I’ve also discovered some horrendous big name published books. Likewise for small presses whose criteria proved to be no more than accepting anyone who submitted.
In this day and age, the true test of a good book is not a press name, but ratings. I recommend to anyone who is looking for a book to press the buy button based on three things: 1) Reviews, and not just star average ratings, but careful dissection of the verbiage used for the reviews. This will help filter out the “planted” reviews. 2) Samples. All books should provide some form of excerpt. This will help a reader determine if the style and pace meet his/her expectations and preferences. Often, if a sample isn’t available through Amazon, B&N, etc., it can be found through blogs or other interview vehicles. And 3) Word of Mouth. Friends, family, and other readers (such as through sites like Good Reads), will often point you toward good books, no matter who publishes them.
As a final recommendation to those who are still uncertain after going through steps 1 – 3, wait until a book hits the best seller lists on the various sites before opting to try it. Letting others vote for it with their money first will help weed out the slush pile.
Of course, even that won’t create a guarantee. I hated both the Outlander and Twilight series and wished I’d never wasted my money, and both of those authors are huge bestsellers. Sometimes, it’s just a matter of taste.
Agree with all three methods suggested to find a good book – with a couple of additions.
4. Check reviews on sites such as Kirkus Reviews.
5. Look for a review blog or other site where their
reviews of books you have read are similar to your own opinion of those books.
I, personally, rely on the reviews on “Historical Novel Society” and “Smart Bitches, Trashy Books”.
Sorry, but I left the word “you” in my writing. Is that a typo? I need to buy a “keyboard keyboard” at Apple. This way your fingers will not miss any keys.
There’s another thing we forgot. We read a book because we’ve been conditioned to think in terms of formulas that apply to a successful book; hook, fast-pace, lots of blood, chases, graphic sex and violence, need I say more.
Well there’s more to a book than a hook. As opposed to the American, short attention span reading public, the European book readers prefers a story to start slow and develop in depth before there’s five bodies in the first three pages. There’s a lot more to a good book. It’s the message it conveys about our societies, the way we live and the way we process our lives.
If a book tells a good story through a slow and methodical process, it opens likes a flower under the morning sun. We see a natural progression in an orderly and logical fashion. Now, those are the books you will always remember. By that time you wouldn’t care who published it and how it came about.
Well! Now I feel a bit self-conscious about my efforts toward putting up a little webspace to self-publish my indie *visual novels under the name of such-and-such Studios. I haven’t got a studio; there is just me with occasional advice and proofreading from my dear mother. But as far as I know, there are scarcely any publishers in the West who would accept something as unconventional as a visual novel. Who out there might be in a position to choose my work out of the slush? Yet I’d rather call myself a studio because…well, I really do prefer to hide. I hate personal attention, and the thought of “building an author platform” or “engaging the fans” all but makes me hyperventilate from social anxiety. I want people to buy things I create, but I don’t want them to take much notice of the individual creating it…
“I’m nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there’s a pair of us — don’t tell!
They’d banish us, you know.
How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!”
–Emily Dickinson
*”Visual novel” isn’t a completely literal term–rather, it’s a double-loan-word back from Japan for the text-and-pictures-etc. format often used in tacky dating sim games. Regardless of anyone’s thoughts on dating sim games, I like the format itself because of the way the illustrations can be harnessed for low-resource immersion. I might need a better term if I am going to communicate with the English-speaking mainstream…
Lindsay, I know this is an old post, but I stumbled across it today, and I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed it. (As well as your post today about life in sales beyond Amazon, which is what brought me here.)
My thinking on the imprint thing is much like yours. I’m an indie by choice and not really interested in hiding that or pretending to be something else. People who like my work just don’t care. I don’t think ill of those who do it, because I understand it comes from a desire to appear as professional as possible rather than an actual intent to deceive, but it’s not for me.
Where’s the Like button when you need it. These Blog sites need to get that added. I would like this comment. I’m right there with you Susan.
I don’t understand how ANYONE would think that starting one’s own imprint is deceitful. A business is a business and if one intends on a writing career it can be a smart decision to start one’s own imprint.
Of course, that being said, a person should find an editor and their book/s should be put through the wringer for quality. Strangely, HUGE best-sellers from publishing GIANTS are often not well edited and are rife with grammatical errors. Too much legitimacy is given to these supposed pillars of publishing when we’ve all seen the lack of quality they many times represent.
Lastly, I think it all depends on what route you’re trying to take. For many readers, the tag “self-published” creates an unneeded prejudice. I’m all about removing reasons to say no – not adding to them. However, if resisting the benefits (tax and otherwise) to creating your own imprint makes you feel you have integrity, more power to you! To each their own.
Hmm. Lots of unwarrented angst on this one. Some facts to consider: if you don’t use your own imprint, typically the company that supplied your ISBN will slap their own imprint on your work. Do you really want Smashwords to be listed as your publisher? NO! Having no publisher listed is a red flag. You might as well say “Buy my blog”. You can form your own imprint simply by obtaining a business license from your State.
You will be a sole proprietor. You can then buy your own ISBN’s from Bowker. If you buy in batches, those ISBN’S will be listed sequentially in many search engines, so all of your books will be in one searchable list on Amazon. A lot of authors think that far ahead. Some enterprising folks buy ISBN batches so they can sell the numbers to others. Imagine your surprise to find out your book was published by Tubesock Publishing. Imagine the prestige of the publisher who can say to clients or at job interviews that they have published 50 books, never mind that 48 of them were by other authors. If that is the route you choose, then you’ll need to form an LLC or Limited Liability Corporation with your State. Lawyers and fees await, but it’s not too onerous I hope.
I would advise all authors to form their own imprint. It’s just impressive! “I own a publishing house” has a certain cachet to it whereas anybody at all can publish through Smashwords or Bookbaby. Booooring! What’s that? You don’t have the $25 or the time to file a business license with your State? Then by all means, do a search on your business name (you don’t want to pick someone’s trademarked name), and just insert it into the publishing field for now; you’ll get legit later, right? I’ve owned several businesses, as far as I know there is no searchable database of all business names in America or the world. Nobody is going to pay a private eye to find out whether your unofficial imprint is legit. Who gives a krud if it seems “dishonest” to some? Do you think having Smashwords or any number of POD publishers listed in that field makes people think you are “honest”? It’s not like Smashwords does anything special for you. Every word can be mispelled and they’ll still slap their imprint on your work.
My advice is to start your own publishing imprint. If you aren’t legit yet, then BLUFF until you are. Trademark your name if it’s super cool. And don’t sweat the small stuff.
One more thing. If you are forming your own imprint, try to form one per niche. If you have 8 manuscripts in the Home and Gardening genre, then consider forming an imprint just for those books, and forming another for other genre’s. You can still use your business license, so if this is your path try to choose a name for your House (yes, you will be a Publishing “House”) that will fit all of the imprinty rooms in that house.
Why would I suggest this? Because…. with very few exceptions, major publishing houses will buy entire imprints to obtain the line of books published under that label. So say that Penguin or Harper decide that Quantum Physics is a ragey-fad, those books are selling well for other Houses, but they themselves have a weak offering. What they do is research genre-specific imprints and try to acquire the entire line to repackage under their own aegis.
Think ahead. No really, do it. You can make money off of your “legacy” work by multi-publishing it as a Blog, an Ezine, a Magazine (SubHub or Magcloud perhaps), article briefs in other peoples Ezines or Magazines, as Ebooks, Paperbacks, Hardbacks and talking about the work in Seminars. What more is there? Well…. some clever authors can make hundreds of thousands off of their legacy works which they have been carefully marketing under the package of a single genre-specific imprint. WHICH THEY THEN SELL TO A BPH (Big Publishing House) FOR UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNTS OF MONEY. Always have your eye on your chosen end-game. If you don’t aim your arrow at a particular bullseye you’ll just be shooting them off in the air.
In addendum, if you seperate your genres into different imprints, by selling one imprint you haven’t sold your entire corpus and your overall House is still intact. Cheers!
Having your own imprint is no different than one author having more than one pen name.
Do readers consider pen names deceitful? No.
Think of it like this. How many times have you seen a movie trailer that looked interesting to you, only to lose all interest once you saw the production company was one you didn’t recognize? Did you say to yourself, “Oh, I wanted to see that. But, since I don’t recognize the production company, I’m gonna pass.”
No! It’s not the production company name that sells movie tickets. It’s the trailer.
So, for those that think authors with their own imprint are “tricking” you, they aren’t. You have the opportunity to read the first 10% of any book you’re thinking of buying.
Authors have the right to build their brand. It’s the same with ANY business.
If traditional publishing companies are what’s important to a reader, (in my opinion, they are SEVERELY limiting themselves if so), then I would assume that reader would know the traditional publishing companies names that they like. If readers buys a book with a publishing name on it that they don’t recognize, and they were too lazy to do the research and look up the companies web site, then they only have themselves to blame, right?
I thought I would add my two cents to this conversation. The world of publishing is changing. First, I don’t think readers care who published a book. Do you look to see? I rarely do. I look at other things, but not often the publisher. Second, the imprint has come to be a brand, the author’s brand. It is wise to sell one’s books like that.
And Jason, I like your comparing an imprint to a pen name. Great analogy!
I’m coming in rather late to this discussion, but since deciding this spring to self-publish, I’ve been learning what I can about the publishing world. While others have addressed branding and the analogy of a pseudonym, I decided to simply use the title of my web site. This way, someone looking it up will find it’s associated with my work and can learn more about me as an author, poet, and artist. It also opens them up to people in my network who have inspired me, and thus promotes them as well. It’s not deceitful then, and I don’t add any additional words, such as, “press” or “imprint.”
After reading most of the comments on this post it seems to me that the people who have problems with books published under an imprint are mostly those who have a negative opinion of self-published books. They don’t want to mistakenly buy a self-published book because they associate self-published books with being crap.
I will admit there are some really rough self-published books out there, but there are some amazing gems as well.
Personally I’m all for imprint companies if the author is creating one for the right reason. A company name should stand for quality. It should be a way for an author to separate themselves from the group and say “hey, this is a business and I produce a quality product.” Publishing companies should employ professional editors and have well made cover-art. They don’t have to be big, but they should have a standard for quality. I think having an imprint is a good way to tell your readers that you have these things unlike some self-published authors who skip valuable steps in the process of finishing their books.
Will there be people out there who just stick a name in and do nothing else with it, yes, but we as readers are capable of looking into these things.
If you see a book that’s listed as having a publisher and the cover looks armature and there’s spelling mistakes on the front page, well then that says something about that publisher whether it’s listed as self-published or not. And if it’s listed as being published by a company then you know not to buy any other books from that company in the future.
Someone who sets up their own LLC press should have their own website where they talk about their business. They should look to put out a product comparable to those being produced by larger publishing houses. For me, seeing an indie press listed under publisher is a good thing.
Currently I have two books out that I’ve self-published and are listed as self-published. But, I plan to start my own publishing company in the future where I hope to not only publish my own books but those of other authors as well.
People who don’t like imprints are people who believe the choice to read self-published books is THEIR choice. Not the writer’s.
I read self-published books. I also read published books. It is my choice. I decide – not some person I have never met who is desperate to sell some more of their books.
Anybody who tries to make their self-published book look like a published book has decided that their desire to sell books is more important than my right to choose what I read. More important than any person’s right to decide what they read. Arrogant and self-involved much?
Strike one.
I am going to pay attention to what the writer is showing me – not what they are telling me. They are showing me that THEY think their book is not worth buying and reading, so they need to misrepresent it in the hope the book will LOOK like it is worth buying and reading. Thanks for the inadvertent warning, self-published writer.
Strike two.
There are thousands of books out there I have not read. Plenty of those books are written by people who are happy to call a self-published book a self-published book. And plenty of those books are a great read.
Go ahead. Give me one more excuse to toss your book back and look at the next book, and the one after that, and the one after that.
Do you honestly think I am the only one doing that?
Any person – writer or otherwise – who insists on behaving in a manner others find deceitful forfeits the trust of others. Why would self-publishers be some special case?
There is no expectance that an author name be the writers birth name – and therefor no breach of trust.
There is no expectance that a magician genuinely be capable of magic – therefor tricks and sleight of hand are not a breach of trust.
There IS an expectance on the part of the public that an imprint or publisher listed on a book is a third party independent of the writer – therefor anything else is a breach of trust.
Shouting won’t make this go away. Neither will excuses, prevarications, or creative definitions of existing terminology.
Currently the biggest hurdles to widespread acceptance of self-publishing are:
1. Really badly written self-published books and no convenient way to wade through the neck-high chaff to separate out the wheat;
2. Self-published writers who abuse the trust of the public by pretending to be something they are not, thus making the public even more distrustful of self-published books.
It isn’t about lying or pretending to be something you’re not. It’s about branding, marketing, and creating an image that others can relate to. Feel free to swim against the current if you want, but don’t label those who are in tune with the culture and use proven marketing tools as liars. Branding is important in this day and age. Creating an imprint is a marketing tool, just like a book trailer, an endorsement, and advertisement or any other method of promoting the book.
I’ve had books published via the traditional route ie the publisher taking the financial risk, paying advance and then royalties. I’ve also published my own stuff on a website that I had created (e-books). My self-published books are all part of a project which I named and registered in the same way you would register a small business. I wrote all the stuff for my project myself as it was my idea, my creation and my passion if you like! (In the same way that someone might create their own paintings or handmade items for a particular purpose). My e-books and online resources were always free and now, some years later, my project is an officially registered charity which now produces print versions too. The print versions are also free to the charities beneficiaries – who are schools wishing to use the project.
I agree it’s about wanting to use a more business approach.
Places like Etsy enable creative and talented (and maybe some less talented) people to market and sell their creations. Many of them set up their own small businesses to do this (often as sole traders).
Independent authors who set up their own imprints are doing the same with their creations (which happen to be books). Unfortunately, the world of publishing hasn’t yet got rid of its dreadful snobbery and restrictive views.