Mundania Press / PhazE / New Classics Press

Print-on-demand is a printing technology as is offset press.

Click to expand...

This is not true.

Print-on-demand is a business model.

Digital printing is a printing technology.

The two are not equivalent.

saintnepal said:

I'm sorry, but I have to say it. POD is POD. Right or wrong, both stores and well-known reviewers avoid POD outright. Even if the author has a great book, it's going to have very little shelf life as a POD.

Click to expand...

Your understanding is wrong. POD (or digital printing) is a technology, not a business model. Books that use POD technologies for printing (even big houses use them) can be, and will be reviewed and be on book shelves in book stores if the publishing/business model is "traditional" -- meaning it goes through the whole editorial and production process, it pays author royalties, it offers book stores substantial discounts and return policies, etc.

Print-on-demand is a business model, not a technology.

Print-on-demand is that business model in which a copy is created after an order is received. One could conceivably print-on-demand using any printing technology at all ... letter press, linoleum block, offset, etc. etc.

Digital printing is commonly used for print-on-demand publishing, but that does not make it synonymous with print-on-demand.

Thanks for the clarification, Uncle Jim. I think a lot of people do get the two terms mixed up -- even PUBLISHERS themselves. I certainly use them interchangeably, but would clarify whether I mean the technology or the business model.

The digitial printing technology enables the Print-on-demand model (one book at a time). However, it also allows very small print runs (fewer than 500) that would be too cost-prohibitive for offset. Most publishers (big or small presses) do NOT print one book at a time -- they may have very small press runs like 250 at a time, and they use digital.

Many publishers use digital printing first with an "unproven" book to limit cost (and loss). But if a book is proven to do well, they may go to offset for the next run.

Lightening Source is a DIGITAL printer that is now offering offset printing as well.

Mundania Press, IIRC, uses digital printing, but they're not POD. I'll let Mr. Sanders address that issue, though.

James D. Macdonald said:

This is not true.

Print-on-demand is a business model.

Digital printing is a printing technology.

The two are not equivalent.

Click to expand...

Well, once again there are blanket statements being made that are misleading.

Publishers Weekly has articles on print-on-demand all the time. As publishers, we stay VERY CLOSE to all the sources to try to make sure we understand it all. We do.

According to Publishers Weekly, and the PMA, print-on-demand (also being referred to as publish-on-demand) IS a printing technology, first and foremost. The US Patent for PRINT-ON-DEMAND was granted for this printing technology. (You can't patent a business model!!)

Now, just like everything changes and evolves over the years, some terms get redefined or "enhanced" to reflect different ideas.

So I must grant you that term print-on-demand is ALSO used by some to refer to a business model. It wasn't originally so, as shown by the patent, but it evolved into that as time went on. Likewise, people came up with the newer "digital printing" terminology to try to better explain what it is.

POD isn't evil, however, it has gotten such a bad reputation primarily because of early POD printing. Early on it was only used by vanity and subsidy publishers, who put out poorly written, poorly edited, and poor quality books, which were usually not returnable. This is what caused the big bookstores to shun them.

However, it is a very different story now as many, many good publishers putting out great books, nicely edited, and good quality (and returnable) are using print-on-demand technology (as defined by the patent), or digital print technology (as defined by the state-of-the art, word-of-the-month people. The problem is that old prejudices die slowly.

For the record, as I've stated before, we HAVE had success in getting print-on-demand/digitally printed books PLACED ON SHELVES of B&N and Borders. Several of our books are on nationwide Border shelves, and several of our books are on select B&N shelves (usually done locally with local authors). Yes, we are still working on getting more accepted, but B&N has a policy where you can only submit a few books every so often for them to review and approve (because they get blasted with books from all the thousands of small publishers and they don't want to be too overwhelmed).

So I will grant that you are correct. Print-on-demand could be considered a business model, however, I think that people are using the reference to POD as a business model in the old derogatory term, that is, more like the vanity or subsidy press version. Print-on-demand is still foremost a technology. Renaming it to digital printing is fine. A rose by any other name....

As I've mentioned before, we use print-on-demand/digital-printing/whatever-new-term-dujour technology to print our books, and we also use offset printing to print some of our books, but print-on-demand is NOT a business model for us. It is simply one of the methods we use to print our books--it, in no way--defines who we are or how we operate.

What is the difference if I have 2,000 books printed on offset or printed digitally? Even much of the offset printing technology is now using digital files for originals. The quality will come out the same. With digital, you have the OPTION of not printing vast quantities of books that sit in a warehouse somewhere getting moldy because they never sell. Using print-on-demand technology is good for the publisher (not having to invest huge sums for a large print run), good for the environment (less trees have to die), and good for the industry, because demand is fulfilled as the demand occurs. There is no delay ordering a print-on-demand printed book or an offset printed book from Ingram's. This is because Lightning Source always prints up copies to sit on Ingram's shelves, just like those that a publisher has offset printed.

The discussion about terminology could go on ad nauseum with people agreeing to disagree or whatever, but the facts are still the facts. Print-on-demand was patented as a TECHNOLOGY, not a business model. That right there invalidates the argument. Redefining the term, and adding new terminology is fine too, especially if it is repeated enough so that everyone starts to say it. Regardless, it is always important for authors to really understand what it all means. Sometimes redefining the terms and adding new terminology only advances the confusion that most people have. Other times it can help clarify understanding.

We do this for a living so we understand it. We're usually privvy to a lot more "insider" information than an author. We belong to large publisher groups, who discuss things like this all the time. Just because someone somewhere writes an article, or a blog, with their redefinitions or opinions, doesn't make it the universally accepted truth in the industry. Anyone can write an article or blog and make up anything they want.

And yes *sigh*, AW is too addictive I'm going to publish some books now.

Dan

MundaniaPress said:

We do this for a living so we understand it. We're usually privvy to a lot more "insider" information than an author.
Dan

Click to expand...

Now this I doubt. Some authors maybe, but certainly not all. I don't know any publishers that keep secrets, or anything a writer can't learn just by asking. I guarantee some writers know more than some publlishers.

James D. Macdonald said:

Print-on-demand is a business model, not a technology.

Print-on-demand is that business model in which a copy is created after an order is received. One could conceivably print-on-demand using any printing technology at all ... letter press, linoleum block, offset, etc. etc.

Digital printing is commonly used for print-on-demand publishing, but that does not make it synonymous with print-on-demand.

Click to expand...

Not entirely correct.

Print-on-demand (POD) IS A US PATENTED PRINTING TECHOLOGY using specifically designed computers and copying machines, and specific processes to accomplish the creation of a book. Print-on-demand cannot be applied to any other printing technology such as offset printing. Look up the recent lawsuits because Lightning Source and Amazon (through their BookSurge company) uses the print-on-demand printing technology machines. It identifies the method of how the machine creates the book.

The patent for print-on-demand has nothing whatsoever to do with a business model.

There are some that are now bastardizing the term to indicate a business model so as to enforce and attempt to define the negative stereotypes of some vanity and subsidy publishers. Granted, when enough people use the term that way, it becomes standard terminology. That's how words like "ain't" get added to dictionaries. That's fine, but the basis of the term POD is still a techonology.

Back when the patent was applied for, print-on-demand was seen as something where you could place a POD machine into a bookstore, and once a customer picked out a book, it could be printed immediately for them right on the spot. Interesting concept, but probably won't happen. More likely society will eventually move to electronic editions (way far in the future) to conserve resources, etc. The new eBook readers with the "paper LCD" screens are amazing.

I have several devices to read an eBook. I like eBooks. I publish eBooks. But I still publish print books and love the feel and smell of holding one in your hands.

Vinyl record people hated cassettes and eight tracks. Cassette people hated CDs. VHS and laserdisc people hated DVDs. Technology marches on until it becomes the standard.

But I digress...

Dan

Jamesaritchie said:

Now this I doubt. Some authors maybe, but certainly not all. I don't know any publishers that keep secrets, or anything a writer can't learn just by asking. I guarantee some writers know more than some publlishers.

Click to expand...

You are correct, however I did not say "all authors." Some authors are very well versed--because they have done research. We have lots of authors that have been around the block in publishing for many years, so understand it all intimately. However, I was referring to the general population of authors, especially new ones.

There is nothing wrong with being new to publishing, or not understanding everything. That's why places like AW are here!! To inform, educate, and instruct. That's why I'm even bothering to post here, to try to correct some of the misunderstandings that people have. We love it when we take an author and they already understand the business. It's a LOT less work for us if we don't have to educate them on how they can promote and market their book. Many new ones are simply scared of walking into a book store and asking to do a book signing. We have some that are afraid to do a signing, afraid to meet their public.

For those we try to remind them that they are a star! Just like any movie or TV star, they provide entertainment for a living (part-time or full time). When fans read your book they WANT to meet you. They look upon authors with awe and admiration. Published authors really do attain celebrity status. If they don't, then it's because they aren't working at it. All the movie and TV stars work at it very hard. A movie comes out and do the stars sit back and collect fat checks? No, they are traveling and making appearances to hawk their movies (and then they collect fat checks). Authors travel the country doing book signings all the time. Recording artists travel to do concerts. Why? Well it makes them more money, it gets their name out to the public, and it gives them the star status.

Write the best book you can. Do your homework and learn what the industry is all about so that you aren't disappointed or disillusioned. Know what to expect. Find the right publisher. Once published, do everything you can to achieve that star status. If you are fightened to do appearances, you need to dig deep and maybe come up with a public personna, just like many movie stars do. How many times have you heard that a particular personality is dreadfully shy in their real life. As an actor, they are able to play the part of being a star.

As an author, your fans will give you that status too. When you meet them be personable, be friendly, smile, talk to them and listen closely, pay attention. There is nothing that will help elevate you higher in your fans' eyes then being approachable.

And I digress again...

Anyway, my statement is not a blanket statement for all authors. However, in general, publishers will understand the business they are in better than most authors. That is proven to us every month as we are reaching the 500 submission mark. We can tell just from the queries and cover letters which authors understand the industry and which have very little clues (or all the ones in between). It is to our advantage to have knowledgable authors, because that always translates into more book sales.

Dan

OneTeam OneDream said:

Jeez, no wonder it takes so long to review submissions, he's spending all his time here. *kidding.....kidding*

Click to expand...

You got that right!

BTW, you mentioned Raymond K. Wong's book THE PACIFIC BETWEEN as great. FYI, Mundania Press is pleased to announce that we just signed Raymond as one of our catalog of authors.

Dan

triceretops said:

Ha, ha, Chris you're funny. Looks like he's truly an AWer, now. Perhaps if we shut our mouths, he'll get back to reading our scripts.

Actually, I've held Mundania a little higher on the roster than the other smaller publishers. I even suggested my agent give them a buzz/query. With the current glut in the industry I'd be damn lucky to land with them.

I'm only distressed to see Mundania (along with many others) doing so MANY friggin reprints on old titles. But that's business, and that's the number one priority of any house. I only hope in the future that the cash cow that might be derived from selling all these reprints might let more than a few new authors into the fold.

Tri

Click to expand...

Hi. I'm Dan and I'm an AW-aholic.

Don't be distressed that we take a lot of reprints. As you surmised, reprints come with a built in fan base so the sales are much easier. And usually the author will write new works for us too. However, we do publish more (granted, by a slim margin) new books than reprints. And a large majority of those new books are from first time authors. A quick look at our list shows published and soon to-be-published books at about 107 reprints and 118 brand-new books. We have several more that have recently been signed which are all new, so it pushes the new ones up closer to 150.

I haven't counted them up but I think we've got well over 2 dozen brand new authors in our catalog. We do take into account if the author has been published before, and if their older books could still sell, but we aren't afraid to invest in new authors with brilliant stories too.

Our best selling book over the last six months is from a new author, and we just reissued his book into hardcover too. Wait...I guess that makes it a reprint too.

Dan

MundaniaPress said:

POD isn't evil, however, it has gotten such a bad reputation primarily because of early POD printing. Early on it was only used by vanity and subsidy publishers, who put out poorly written, poorly edited, and poor quality books, which were usually not returnable. This is what caused the big bookstores to shun them.

However, it is a very different story now as many, many good publishers putting out great books, nicely edited, and good quality (and returnable) are using print-on-demand technology (as defined by the patent), or digital print technology (as defined by the state-of-the art, word-of-the-month people. The problem is that old prejudices die slowly.

Click to expand...

I agree with your analysis of how POD (the technology) acquired a bad rep among booksellers. And absolutely, there are some exellent publishers using POD to produce at least some of their books. The problem is that the stuff that gave POD the bad rep is still overwhelmingly going on. Substandard books still flood forth from POD publishing services like iUniverse, from POD-based stealth vanities like PublishAmerica, and from the many, many amateur publishers that are started up by people with abundant good will but no clue about how to select, edit, market, or distribute books. Booksellers and reviewers are beseiged by publicity-hungry authors who've chosen these routes.

So the problem is as bad as it ever was--and although I think that people are much more aware these days than they used to be that not every publisher that uses POD technology is a vanity or hobby publisher, POD still has a bad rap and many people are wary of it just on principle. This is an issue that any small publisher that uses POD, and any author who signs a contract with such a publisher, has to confront.

What is the difference if I have 2,000 books printed on offset or printed digitally?

Click to expand...

But I don't think you would print 2,000 books via POD, because offset would be so much cheaper. Even if a publisher starts out using POD, if it becomes successful it'll move more and more toward offset.

Print-on-demand was patented as a TECHNOLOGY, not a business model. That right there invalidates the argument.

Click to expand...

That's like saying that because Kleenex was trademarked as a brand name, it's invalid to call all facial tissue Kleenex. Technically it is, but people do it anyway, and everyone understands what they mean. Whatever the proper and original meaning of print on demand, it has come also to refer to a business model--which is demonstrated by the fact that most people know what you mean when you say "POD publisher."

Basically, I'm agreeing with you. POD prejudices do exist, but ultimately what counts is a publisher's business practices, not the printing technology it uses.

- Victoria

Didn't Groucho speak of Mundania Press in A night at the Opera?

I agree with Victoria and Dan. I think the prejudices against POD have gotten totally out of hand and have been linked too closely with the true vanity outfits, and we all know who they are. The problem is the entire "middle class" publisher has vanished in the last 15-20 years, which leaves the huge press-run houses, and the small startup print on demand companies. This seems to be a gaping chasm that is defining the rich/prestiqious, with the tiny and the poor. An unfair division if ever there was one. I'm pleasantly surprized at the production qualities of many, many small press, print on demand companies. My agent certainly has nothing against them. The better ones are truly stepping stones to larger houses, and many of them get legitimate reviews and bookshelf placement. Many have great editing staffs, and work hard to produce a quality product.

The day will never come when I find myself ashamed to admit that I have been picked up by Black Death Books, Mundania, Reagent, Madallion, or any other small press that busts their keester to put a new author in print. With such a horrendous glut in the industry, with over the transom and general submissions clogging the publishing scape, I'm damn hard-pressed to see any relief or solution to this current system. POD just might be the wave of the future, along with the expansion of e-publishing. The problem with this is, our advances just might go the way of the Moa--extinct, except for "name" authors and breakout books.

Nineteen years ago my first non-fiction book landed at every B. Dalton and Waldons in the U.S. and 80% of all the libraries. This publisher only produced 12 books a year, but did produce catalogues, get tons of T.V. and radio reviews, and do small offset print runs. At that time they were my definition of a true small press. Such operations are nearly non-existent today, especially in the commercial fiction sense.

Perhaps Jim Baen was really on to something afterall.

Tri

Digital printing is just another form of short-run printing. Digital printing shouldn't be confused with POD -- POD is a business model. The fact that many of the newer vanity presses use the POD model shouldn't confuse the issue.

Perhaps Jim Baen was really on to something afterall.

From Baen Books?

He did pass from the stroke, I was researching publishers and came upon the site.

Gosh, there is SO much to learn. Thanks to you all for teaching me.

I sent my novel "Jeffrey" to Mundania over 2 months ago. I Know it may take a few more months to hear from them but I was wondering if they received it or not? I sent it in Word, but it had been in Word Perfect and when I changed it over to Word, it didn't place the pages the same with the page numbers and title at the top of the pages. I didn't know how to fix that so I just sent it along that way.
I know I was wanting to get this book out quickly, but some things have changed for me since then and now I'm not worried about when it comes out as much as I'm concerned about who publishes it. I keep sending it out to every press I can find that looks like they are legit.

Jennifer Robins

That's why there is Headers, you can post Titles, Names, Page #'s and so on.

I use them at the moment for such things as that. It may be easier for you to go through and do it like that, it automatically numbers it so pages are not repeated or skipped by an authors overlook.

Jo Scott said:

That's why there is Headers, you can post Titles, Names, Page #'s and so on.

Click to expand...

Actually, that may be the problem. I use an older version of WordPerfect, and when I save a doc in Word, Word doesn't recognize the page numbering commands. A newer version of WordPerfect from work doesn't have this problem when converting to Word.

I have a conversion software program that converts my word processor (actual word processor lol) to word processor on the computer, it is wonderful, I no longer have to carry my computer back and forth all the time for my writing.

Folks, tech stuff belongs in the tech forum, please. Let's keep these threads on-topic.

An on-topic comment: Manuscripts sent out to publishers or agents should be as close to perfect as the author can make them. Never send out a manuscript with known flaws. Do whatever you have to do to fix them before you send out the manuscript. No excuses.

excuse me! I thought this thread was about Mundania Press. Yes I have a question about my submittal, but I guess this is not the right place for it. Again, EXCUSE ME!!!!! I'll ask the publisher direct.

Jennifer

[ Yes I have a question about my submittal, but I guess this is not the right place for it. Jennifer[/quote]

If they received it? I submitted to them and received an email stating they have it and it would take up to 120 days for them to get back to me.

Jennifer Robins said:

I keep sending it out to every press I can find that looks like they are legit.

Click to expand...

You can save yourself a lot of aggravation and postage by making certain they're legit.

Sassenach said:

You can save yourself a lot of aggravation and postage by making certain they're legit.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have done that, but I still wonder what will be in the contract. That is where I think you really get the facts. I check with several places who list companies and either recomend or not.

So far I have two publishers who are interested. I am also waiting to hear back from an agent who wanted to see the full manuscript.

I hope this post is allowed????

jennifer Robins

Jennifer, ease up.

Aconite did not address you or anyone directly when suggesting that some posts were veering off-topic. In fact, she specifically responded to you indicating that was "on-topic."

She was not chastising anyone with her comment, but providing a gentle reminder that there was an under-utilized forum for such indepth discussions about the technical intricacies of different word processing software.