I'm looking at self-publishing my first book through Amazon as an ebook and/print (Might start with ebook first and later print), but I was wondering if you self-publish a book would you be able to later go to a publisher with your results after, say, a year and they actually publish it? Or does self-publishing hurt your chances? Also, would publishing in just ebook format help the chances of a publisher taking notice since you're not actually putting your book out in physical copies? Just wondered if anyone has experience on that front.
Self-publishing first
- Thread starter TomMcClaren
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
A self-published book is published, really published, with you as the publisher. I would suggest that if you go that route do so with full commitment and not the idea that you can just reel it back in like it never happened.
The chance that a trade publisher will accept a specific manuscript goes down dramatically, but does not entirely disappear, when you self-publish it.
The chance that a trade publisher will accept a specific manuscript goes down dramatically, but does not entirely disappear, when you self-publish it.
Last edited:
If you want to be trade-published, self-publishing usually isn't a good bet for that. Look at the #500queries and similar tags on Twitter. There are a lot along the lines of "Previously self-published. I can't do anyhing with this. Pass."
Of course, if you put time and effort into publishing your book and it becomes a success along the lines of Hugh Howey or Amanda Hocking's books, then yeah, publishers will probably buy it. So it's not impossible.
Of course, if you put time and effort into publishing your book and it becomes a success along the lines of Hugh Howey or Amanda Hocking's books, then yeah, publishers will probably buy it. So it's not impossible.
The answer to this question has changed significantly over the last couple of years. Keep in mind that even though one of the members of this very forum was just approached by an Amazon imprint to publish his self-published book, that's really not the norm anymore.
When Hugh Howey (and a number of romance authors) entered into their deals, a lot of publishers were thinking that they'd find success by putting in print books that had done well as self-published e-books. From what I heard at a conference last September, the publishers found that wasn't really true. Either those books had already tapped out their market or couldn't transition to the higher prices of trade publishing.
What does seem to still happen is that a self-publisher will do well and then be able to leverage that success into a trade publishing deal on OTHER BOOKS. So, they self-publish a romance series, it does great, and then they sign with a trade publisher for a new romance series.
Honestly, I think as time goes on this will happen less and less, too.
And, as many on here can tell you, self-publishing is not easy and is not a guarantee of success even if you have a good product. Discoverability gets harder and harder by the day and you end up spending a lot of time on things other than writing if you go this route.
When Hugh Howey (and a number of romance authors) entered into their deals, a lot of publishers were thinking that they'd find success by putting in print books that had done well as self-published e-books. From what I heard at a conference last September, the publishers found that wasn't really true. Either those books had already tapped out their market or couldn't transition to the higher prices of trade publishing.
What does seem to still happen is that a self-publisher will do well and then be able to leverage that success into a trade publishing deal on OTHER BOOKS. So, they self-publish a romance series, it does great, and then they sign with a trade publisher for a new romance series.
Honestly, I think as time goes on this will happen less and less, too.
And, as many on here can tell you, self-publishing is not easy and is not a guarantee of success even if you have a good product. Discoverability gets harder and harder by the day and you end up spending a lot of time on things other than writing if you go this route.
Thanks for the advice, everyone (Sorry for the delay. I had to re-find this thread). That's really helpful. I'll have to consider the options. And I've never heard of the Twitter hashtags, so I'll check that out. Thanks!
I'm not sure that logically follows, unless you're proposing that fewer and fewer self-publishers will do well. I can't see publishers going "Author X is selling like hotcakes. But let's not bother with him/her. Let's take a flyer on an unproven author who has faith in trade publishers! They should be rewarded for their virtue!"
That's not what's being said. Let's say an author publishes a book called SparklePonies. A trade publisher sees it's selling well, so offers a trade deal for SparklePonies. The issue is SparklePonies often won't sell as well when it is trade published.
So what might happen instead is a trade publisher sees SparklePonies is doing well, so offer a deal for the author's unpublished book GlitterBunnies. SparklePonies remains self-published and GlitterBunnies will be trade published.
This has nothing to do with how many self-published authors do well or whether trade publishers will be interested in the authors. It's about whether they want the book that did well or if they'd rather publish the author's next book. A book that sold a million copies might have already reached its whole audience, so there'd be more money to be made in the author's next book.
Nope. Not my point at all.
I said that because I think dealing with self-publishers isn't always a pleasant experience for trade publishers and often isn't enough of a reward to overcome the potential money they could make from publishing that author's works.
I have seen multiple instances in the past six months where an author was offered a trade deal, went on a self-publishing forum or their blog, and disclosed the details of that offer before eventually turning it down. (One instance I believe included a screenshot of the actual terms as the author crowed about how much more they'd made by going the self-publishing route.)
From a pure business perspective, that's not something you want your business partners to do. And so every time a self-publisher does that it makes it less likely that a trade publisher will put themselves out there like that again with the next self-publisher.
Also, the terms that many self-publishers demand in order to work with a trade publisher are just not worth it to the trade publisher. It becomes a situation where the successful self-publishers demand more and more to be trade published to the point where neither side is willing to make a deal because the win-win just isn't there.
I've never understood people that do that. Yes, I turned down a publisher (one that shall never be named) because I didn't agree with what they wanted me to do.
But the details were between them and I. Not something I would put out as public information, especially with their name attached.
Those that choose to trade publish rather than self pub, or self instead of trade, it's a personal decision, with both sides having pro's and cons to them.
But to throw out the information to the world? I just find that stupid. First of all, they all know each other in one way or another, and would probably be loathe to deal with someone who doesn't honor or understand confidentiality in negotiations.
Self-publishing doesn't automatically mean that you won't be able to have it trade published, but it's safer to assume that you won't. Publishers might take an interest in a self-published book that does extremely well, but assuming it doesn't, the fact that you used up your first publication rights can hurt your chances (though it doesn't eliminate them).
I wouldn't self-publish something that you would ideally like to trade-publish unless you exhaust the trade publishing route first. Not only would you not risk being turned down because of the previous publication, but you will likely save costs if your book is accepted by a publisher. If the end goal is trade publication, why not aim for the profits associated with that without the potential costs of editing, cover design, printing, and marketing that can add up when you self-pub?
Unfortunately, it's unlikely for publishers to notice a self-published book unless it sells extremely well or gets a lot of press. And that doesn't happen easily. So I wouldn't count on it as a strategy.
I wouldn't self-publish something that you would ideally like to trade-publish unless you exhaust the trade publishing route first. Not only would you not risk being turned down because of the previous publication, but you will likely save costs if your book is accepted by a publisher. If the end goal is trade publication, why not aim for the profits associated with that without the potential costs of editing, cover design, printing, and marketing that can add up when you self-pub?
Unfortunately, it's unlikely for publishers to notice a self-published book unless it sells extremely well or gets a lot of press. And that doesn't happen easily. So I wouldn't count on it as a strategy.
Yes. But they had better be damned good results with potential for a lot more.
But why? If you got lousy results, no agent or publisher will want to touch it. If you got great results, why would you want to split the income with others that you apparently didn't need?
In other words, feel free to do what you want, but if self-publishing and then getting republished by a trade publisher for the same work is your goal, be sure you have another source of income.
Jeff
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 1,090
- Reaction score
- 102
Oh gosh yes, I was noticing that the folks getting trade pub offers were ones making GOOD money! Someone in this thread (or another?) mentioned SP people quite publically turning down trade pub deals, especially if they came from e-publishers. It's quite the conundrum....
Well, if a major publisher came to you wanting the reprint rights for something you had self-publised, and the price was right, it makes sense to be open to that. It also makes sense to acknowledge that this is not a thing that happens routinely.
You going to them with a previously self-published book is likely to end in "don't let the door hit you..." because there's that perception that if it were successful you wouldn't be shopping it, that it might be like the pile of 99c mediocrity if it didn't rise above, and that you might be difficult to work with since many self-publishers are openly disdainful of trade publishing.
I've heard that a fair number of established authors are doing it in the other order, though, self-pubbing when their rights get reverted, so if you want to do both, that would be one way.
You going to them with a previously self-published book is likely to end in "don't let the door hit you..." because there's that perception that if it were successful you wouldn't be shopping it, that it might be like the pile of 99c mediocrity if it didn't rise above, and that you might be difficult to work with since many self-publishers are openly disdainful of trade publishing.
I've heard that a fair number of established authors are doing it in the other order, though, self-pubbing when their rights get reverted, so if you want to do both, that would be one way.
I doubt that. It could sell a lot more. It depends on the book and how the trade publisher promotes it (or not). Fifty Shades is an example. It sold well when first published by a smaller press. It was picked up by a bigger press and became a best seller very quickly. AND a set of blockbuster movies.
That's an urban myth. There are few important advantages for first publication rights. For more on this issue follow this link.
http://www.writing-world.com/rights/rights.shtml
It's not an urban myth. Many publishers won't even consider books which have already been published, for all sorts of reasons.
I imagine this is true. I've come to respect your opinion in most things. However, "many" publishers is not ALL publishers, and the issue is not simple.
Here's my analysis based on my reading. If the issue becomes important to anyone, they should get a more authoritative opinion from an intellectual properties attorney (not just any attorney) or an agent experienced in the field.
If we have published a book or shorter written work in electronic form, we have used up our first ebook publication rights. We still retain our first print format publication rights. Many of us are in this boat. POD books don't sell well, or at least mine don't. And why should they? My ebooks are priced at a third of pbooks, and I believe this is common among self-publishers.
We can then sell first print publication rights. This can be for the entire world. But more often they are restricted. Common is first North American rights, first European rights, and so on. Often they are even more restricted, to specific European markets such as Germany. The Russian, Chinese, and Indian markets are also large ones, becoming ever more important. I've sold a few in each place, as well as in Nigeria where English is a second language. (Plus even more surprising markets: one (ONE!) each in Dubai, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.)
Even the most optimistic measures of ebook penetration of the publication markets are little more than 20%. Any publisher who rejects a book because the book has come out electronically is missing an important opportunity. First print publication is still a valuable right.
So if we've also self-published a book in POD form, are we screwed? I think not. We still have reprint rights, audio rights, and rights to adapt a book into a movie or TV production. A book with promise (with the right agent) can be successful despite the gruesomely horrible stigma of being self-published.
Last edited:
This is probably accurate but I think also incomplete. I'm going to give some fake numbers here, but...
Suppose it takes being better than 90% of the slush pile (I'll refer to this as the 90% level) to get more than a page or two read.
Suppose being at the 99% level is what it takes to be seriously considered by a major publisher (the ones that would be able to exploit movie rights etc.)
Suppose being at the 99.9% level is what it takes to be actually published by a major publisher. (That's one in a thousand; considering how many people think they can write a book, and how many new books there are, this is probably about the right order of magnitude.)
Then, considering that a self-pubbed book has already had a chance to be the cream that rises, one that didn't attract a huge following probably would need to be at the 99.99% level to get picked up. That's one in ten thousand.
And if you think you have a "one in ten thousand" book, and your end goal is to get a trade publisher, why take the side trip into self-publishing and risk giving the trade publishers anything to have doubts about?
All IP lawyers can advise on is IP law, not on what publishers prefer. An agent will know more: but agents don't often give out free advice to writers they don't represent. And if you think that my opinion (based on my three decades working in publishing) isn't authoritative enough here, then I wonder what would be.
You're missing the point.
This isn't about rights. Splitting hairs about which rights have and haven't been used isn't helping.
On the whole, publishers want to publish new books. Not books which have a history to them. So it doesn't matter if you've not yet exploited audio rights, or if you've only published digital formats: there are many publishers who will not consider your book because it has already been published.
Some publishers will consider a republication if they think there's enough commercial potential there. As your book has already been published, they'll see how well it's done and if it has failed to sell well (and this usually means a few thousand copies) they'll say to themselves, it has been proved that readers are not interested in this book. They will reject it in favour of new, untested books which they are sure have potential.
More publishers will not want to publish an edition of a book which has already been published if that first edition was poorly edited or poorly done in other ways--and having reviewed so very many self published books, I have seen a lot of poorly edited, poorly published books. Publishers don't want to become associated with poorly published books.
The rights issue should be considered: but you've misinterpreted it, I'm afraid, Laer.
But that's the thing--just because it's legally possible to publish a work whose first publication rights have been used up (assuming, of course, that the author has the rights to the work as in the case of self-publishing) and because some publishers don't mind it doesn't mean that you aren't potentially hurting your chances. Sure, not all publishers will pass up a self-published book, but even if some do, you've hurt your chances if trade publication is your ultimate goal for that particular book.
It's definitely possible to have a previously self-pubbed book republished later, and that can work well. It just seems like a risky path to choose intentionally, based on the hope that self-publishing will be so successful that it will make your book more appealing to publishers than if you'd just submitted it to them from the start. I think the concern is that while an unusually popular or successful self-published book may get picked up by a publisher even if the used-up first rights would otherwise be an issue for them, if a publisher is at all unsure about whether they want to accept a book, the book having been self-published might tip the scales in the wrong direction or give them an excuse to say no.
Several of the past few posts have been about TRACK RECORD. I was talking about RIGHTS. My point is that used first pub rights are not a barrier to an agent or editor choosing to support a book which has already been published (by whatever path).
If its track record is poor that may dampen their enthusiasm for it. I certainly agree on that. But even if it's bad the publisher may decide that they've discovered an overlooked gem.
Then the issue of rights becomes important. A self-publisher has obviously exercised first-pub rights. But which ones? First ELECTRONIC BOOK WORLD? First PRINT BOOK WORLD? Or one of the geographically restricted ones? And so on.
That MIGHT represent a thorny thicket for a publisher. But it might not. The bigger publishers likely have already found standard ways to hack through the thicket. And if the reward is promising enough they will do so. Certainly that was true of Fifty Shades. It was true of John Scalzi's first two sci-fi books, which he published in full on his web site.
And as to whether self-publishing is a good way to go for a writer working to be a pro? As usual, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. For me, self-pubbing my first six books was right. It taught me I could at least FINISH books, however good or bad they were. My writing style improved with each book, partly due to practice and partly due to the suggestions of their readers. And it got me a (tiny!) fan base.
My seventh book, however, I've chosen to try the trade route to publication and it's going the rounds of agents. So far mostly rejections, both standard and one "not for me but I'd be happy to see more subs." It's not an easy path. But I never expected it to be.
If its track record is poor that may dampen their enthusiasm for it. I certainly agree on that. But even if it's bad the publisher may decide that they've discovered an overlooked gem.
Then the issue of rights becomes important. A self-publisher has obviously exercised first-pub rights. But which ones? First ELECTRONIC BOOK WORLD? First PRINT BOOK WORLD? Or one of the geographically restricted ones? And so on.
That MIGHT represent a thorny thicket for a publisher. But it might not. The bigger publishers likely have already found standard ways to hack through the thicket. And if the reward is promising enough they will do so. Certainly that was true of Fifty Shades. It was true of John Scalzi's first two sci-fi books, which he published in full on his web site.
And as to whether self-publishing is a good way to go for a writer working to be a pro? As usual, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. For me, self-pubbing my first six books was right. It taught me I could at least FINISH books, however good or bad they were. My writing style improved with each book, partly due to practice and partly due to the suggestions of their readers. And it got me a (tiny!) fan base.
My seventh book, however, I've chosen to try the trade route to publication and it's going the rounds of agents. So far mostly rejections, both standard and one "not for me but I'd be happy to see more subs." It's not an easy path. But I never expected it to be.
You think that the first rights not being available is what puts publishers off previously-published books. It can be, but it usually isn't.
When a book is published by one publisher, then published by another, those two editions are going to differ: but so long as those differences concern things like layout and cover design, that's not usually a problem. If the book was well-edited prior to its first publication then there shouldn't be significant differences between the texts of the two editions. But if it wasn't edited well, then the second edition will be significantly different to the first.
This leads to all sorts of problems for the second publisher. The first book will have a history of reviews which might mention the poor editing; it will have put off a good proportion of its readers, too. And those negative points will move on and affect the new, better-edited edition.
Publisher are not keen to get involved in such confusions. And so they tend to avoid republishing books which have already been published elsewhere, because it's difficult to publish a re-edited text, and it's not always possible to publish an unedited text.
So this bias that publishers have against republishing books isn't anything to do with rights or track records: it's to do with avoiding confusion and their professional integrity.
Fifty Shades of Grey wasn't self published, remember, so it's a red herring in this context.
Just so you know, the quote you give is probably a form rejection. Sorry.
Good point - if the quote I gave was verbatim from the rejection. Happily, in the above fragment I was trying to summarize several paragraphs of comments from the agent. The last paragraph was this:
"Clearly I like the universe you've constructed and the kinds of problems your protagonists are trying to solve. However, I've seen entirely too many revenge plots lately. Do you have more books with this setting? With these characters? If so, I'd like to see submissions for them."
- Status