Why do Big Publishers feel the need to operate/own vanity presses?

Old Hack said:

The problem there isn't with the parent company, but with AuthorSolutions which is the one exploiting this link.

Click to expand...

They may be exploiting the link but the parent company has apparently given their blessing for this. Even by their lack of action of distancing from can be considered approval to the unaided eye.

Old Hack said:

As I said before, there are much better ways in which publishers could provide services to writers who want to self publish. But it would involve a little effort and involvement from them: with AuthorSolutions, Random Penguin bought a ready-made package which they didn't have to get involved with at all.

Click to expand...

I'm probably going to open a wound or two here but this is something on my mind a lot lately.

I don't want to turn this into a 'rahrah SP all the way babeeee and trade publishers are crooks'.

But.

Quite honestly, if vanity publishing is considered crooked, and while not illegal, certainly sketchy and suspect while playing on the dreams and aspirations of authors who don't know better, then how is this exactly going to recommend to me that these trade publishers aren't also looking to take advantage of authors?

Trade publishing is already under the gun from self-publishers who want to sell their way as being the best way because all of Trade Publishing is looking to take away control from you. This could be used as another salient point on SPing's side.

I think the one thing going for them now is that they are not rejecting manuscripts and going to the author saying 'but hey, if you really wanted to publish, take a look at this arm of our company'.

If we agree that an agent doing something similar (saying a rejected manuscript needs work and ohhey, I do freelance editing on the side, hire me and let me help you) is sketchy, then by extension, a publisher doing the same is also sketchy business.

It's really hard for me to continue to have trust when I'm standing on the outside and seeing all the stories coming out that are painting trade publishers in less than complementary light. I agree that it's only certain publishers but when you're faced with an overwhelming amount of information and negative press, it can seem as a much larger and wider spread issue.

I also cop to being in a very less-than-my-usual-positive frame of mind so the cynicism is shining through today. :/

tl;dr those publishers who have these vanity press arms may end up doing more damage than good in eroding the already tenuous trust some writers may have in them.

I think people do tend to forget that publishing is a business - it's not personal. Big publishers are not out to get you (generic you) - they are out to make money. They make money by finding authors who write commercially viable stuff and who, if the publisher doesn't screw them around, will continue to write commercially viable stuff for that same publisher - ie, they'll continue to make money. And because they are a business, they look for ways to ensure they stay in business. I'm quite sure there are other corporations with subsidiaries they aren't particularly enthralled with - but they help ensure survival (ie, bring in money). This is what business is all about.

I think this is one of the problems some SPs have with trade publishing - they take it personally. Publishers are not out to do the authors a favor - they're out to do business with authors. And whether or not an author gets "taken advantage of" depends a lot on business acumen and their ability to negotiate a business contract. Which is why it's good to have an agent.

When people quit seeing publishing as a personal relationship (whether with the publisher, the agent, or the reader) and start seeing it for what it is (a business), then all parties come out better. Or at least, with a lot less unnecessary stress.

Maybe publishers who want to run a vanity press should put this roadmap up on all their public sites:


<-- PATH A We Pay You

PATH B You Pay Us -->


That would about sum it up.

shadowwalker said:

I think people do tend to forget that publishing is a business - it's not personal. Big publishers are not out to get you (generic you) - they are out to make money. They make money by finding authors who write commercially viable stuff and who, if the publisher doesn't screw them around, will continue to write commercially viable stuff for that same publisher - ie, they'll continue to make money. And because they are a business, they look for ways to ensure they stay in business. I'm quite sure there are other corporations with subsidiaries they aren't particularly enthralled with - but they help ensure survival (ie, bring in money). This is what business is all about.

I think this is one of the problems some SPs have with trade publishing - they take it personally. Publishers are not out to do the authors a favor - they're out to do business with authors. And whether or not an author gets "taken advantage of" depends a lot on business acumen and their ability to negotiate a business contract. Which is why it's good to have an agent.

When people quit seeing publishing as a personal relationship (whether with the publisher, the agent, or the reader) and start seeing it for what it is (a business), then all parties come out better. Or at least, with a lot less unnecessary stress.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of this from a personal standpoint. My writing is a business and I make my business decision based on, well, a business point of view. It would be great if everyone I dealt with shared my beliefs, but this is the real world. Even away from writing I have to deal with a lot of other businesses that might be invested in other businesses I don't personally agree with.

The one place I disagree with shadowwalker is don't think everyone needs to see this from my point of view. If other writers want to make this "personal," if they want to feel like they have a "personal relationship," then that's up to them.

(Business and personal are not always extreme ends of the spectrum; you can certainly have both. But for purposes of this discussion I am talking about them separately.)

To clarify, I don't think vanity publishers are a good idea for the vast majority of writers. I'm for educating people of their options and warning them if a publisher/agent/editor/whatever is not exactly what they appear to be. But I think different people have different goals. Some want commercial success, some want to feel like they have a "personal relationship" with whoever/whatever, some just want to hold a copy of their book in their hands.

Publishing isn't a business for everyone.

tl;dr those publishers who have these vanity press arms may end up doing more damage than good in eroding the already tenuous trust some writers may have in them.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, I don't think so. To show my own cynicism, I think people who are very serious about making their writing a business will do their research first. And even if they get burned the first time, they will eventually figure it out. That's why we have AW, P&E, Writer Beware and dozens/hundreds of other websites to educate writers about the publishing industry. I do believe those who want to be commercially successful and are capable from separating personal from business will figure it out. (Not necessarily that they will achieve commercial success, but they will learn more about the industry.)

It's going to be the people who are not serious about making this a business decision who will be keeping the vanities alive. Whether it be from ignorance, or maybe they want to vanity publish.

As for "eroding the already tenuous trust some writers may have in them," that's why we have so many options. It's not just Big 5 or self-publishing. There are also a lot of independent publishers. And it all comes down to making an educated, informed, whatever-is-best-for-you decision.

For me, the ethics of it depend entirely on how it's marketed. I don't know, but assume, that most of a publisher's expenses are fixed overhead costs. That means that anything they can be using their equipment to do when it would otherwise be idle is enormously profitable. Or, in a business with very narrow margins, enormously reduces the cost of overhead for their core business. That gives publishers more flexibility to offer contracts on books and/or pay higher advances on books they've put under contract. So, from a purely economic perspective as a writer myself, the more money they can make off vanity authors, the better.

If they are marketing that improperly or unethically, that presents a completely different set of questions. I'm not saying they do -- or don't, for that matter -- I'm just admitting that I'm uninformed. But the core question of

Why do Big Publishers feel the need to operate/own vanity presses?

Click to expand...

has a super straightforward answer. Because they have all of the facilities to operate those, there is no risk, it significantly decreases their marginal overhead on their own published books, and it would be almost idiotic not to.

MookyMcD said:

For me, the ethics of it depend entirely on how it's marketed. I don't know, but assume, that most of a publisher's expenses are fixed overhead costs. That means that anything they can be using their equipment to do when it would otherwise be idle is enormously profitable.

Click to expand...

What equipment are you referring to here?

If they are marketing that improperly or unethically, that presents a completely different set of questions. I'm not saying they do -- or don't, for that matter -- I'm just admitting that I'm uninformed. But the core question of

Why do Big Publishers feel the need to operate/own vanity presses?

Click to expand...

has a super straightforward answer. Because they have all of the facilities to operate those, there is no risk, it significantly decreases their marginal overhead on their own published books, and it would be almost idiotic not to.

Click to expand...

The publishers we've been talking about operate their trade and vanity arms as completely separate businesses. They have to: you couldn't ethically have an editor acquiring books for a trade imprint one day, and then signing people to a vanity arm the next: there are far too many conflicts of interest there; and editors and other staff at trade presses are already far too busy with their own jobs. They couldn't also start working on the vanity side, not only would the two jobs not mesh together properly, they wouldn't have the time to do it.

jjdebenedictis said:

I just wanted to say I love how unanimously writers refuse to say "Penguin Random House" when they could say "Random Penguin" instead. **hugs you all**

Click to expand...

Have you seen a random penguin? They usually come in twos.

Old Hack said:

What equipment are you referring to here?

Click to expand...

Whether in facilities they own deeds and equipment in, dedicated factories in China that are technically not owned but produce nothing but their products, or actual arms-length contracts with third party suppliers, I assume they keep a minimum amount of productive capacity available. If not, they would be truly unique compared to any other industry I've been involved in. Well, not counting service companies. Definitely would be the first industry that sold tangible products I've ever heard of that didn't do that (or, normally, a combination of all of the above).

TerryRodgers said:

Have you seen a random penguin? They usually come in twos.

Click to expand...

Random Penguin:

MookyMcD said:

Whether in facilities they own deeds and equipment in, dedicated factories in China that are technically not owned but produce nothing but their products, or actual arms-length contracts with third party suppliers, I assume they keep a minimum amount of productive capacity available. If not, they would be truly unique compared to any other industry I've been involved in. Well, not counting service companies. Definitely would be the first industry that sold tangible products I've ever heard of that didn't do that (or, normally, a combination of all of the above).

Click to expand...

Well, PREPARE TO HAVE YOUR MIND BLOWN!!!!

Publishing companies have, besides their offices, two classes of assets: people and rights. I am one of the former; my MIGHTY SKILLZ are worth retaining. Rights to publish your book are in the latter category.

If we need to actually make a tangible product, like a book, we get a third party to print it and ship it. Huge publishing companies may also own their own distribution networks - like the warehouse I visited a few years back, which really is mind-blowing. Miles of conveyor belts and pickers that work on 2 axes, so you can zoom diagonally upwards through the pallets of books.

But in general we don't get our hands inky. The Chinese printers are independent businesses. A company like Author Solutions may, in fact, own a short-run POD printing company. I don't know; it'd probably make sense. That isn't, however, something trade publishers do.

Where trade publishers and self-service publishing companies might share infrastructure is purely in the back office. Accounting, IT, warehousing - that sort of thing. More generalised. The closer you get to the actual books, the more you'll need to specialise.

Torgo said:

Huge publishing companies may also own their own distribution networks - like the warehouse I visited a few years back, which really is mind-blowing. Miles of conveyor belts and pickers that work on 2 axes, so you can zoom diagonally upwards through the pallets of books.

Click to expand...

Just in case anyone was wondering, the huge publishers which own their own distribution networks provide distribution services to other, smaller publishers. They can't provide these services to vanity publishers, as they require all sorts of things that can't be provided by that business model, such as a good marketing plan and budget, good levels of stock, and a sales team working to sell the books concerned.

Old Hack said:

Just in case anyone was wondering, the huge publishers which own their own distribution networks provide distribution services to other, smaller publishers.

Click to expand...

There are basically just two warehousing/logistics providers in the UK now - TBS and MDL. The former is owned by PRH, the latter Macmillan. As far as sales forces go, the Big Five all have their own teams, but smaller houses strike deals with them from time to time to rep their book.

Oh and just on owning printers: it's cheaper to let the Chinese and the Indians compete to give us the best deal on printing, than to buy a printer yourself and try to compete with them. If you try to own the whole supply chain you'll end up having to own forests, and logging companies, and paper mills, etc etc.

Torgo said:

Well, PREPARE TO HAVE YOUR MIND BLOWN!!!!

Click to expand...

I'd say mildly surprised that the huge publishers don't have exclusive contracts with the Chinese printers (effectively having a printing operation in China without having to deal with the enormous PITA of trying to run a foreign owned factory in China). Just because I've been involved in all three ways of producing products in China, and once you cross a certain volume, it's easier to just have an "independent company" there that does nothing but manufacture your stuff.

Even then, though, what you're describing isn't unlike what I assumed was the case, just more heavily reliant on true arms-length contracts than I would have guessed.

As I said before, I know absolutely nothing about publishing. I've been involved in manufacturing other things in China, though, and it would surprise me somewhat if someone who required the volume of product the publisher we're talking about in this thread requires (P/R) left the entire thing to piecemeal third party contracts with no guaranteed minimum production capacity. I'm not saying that couldn't be the case, but it would be hard to justify as a business plan.

MookyMcD said:

As I said before, I know absolutely nothing about publishing. I've been involved in manufacturing other things in China, though, and it would surprise me somewhat if someone who required the volume of product the publisher we're talking about in this thread requires (P/R) left the entire thing to piecemeal third party contracts with no guaranteed minimum production capacity. I'm not saying that couldn't be the case, but it would be hard to justify as a business plan.

Click to expand...

That is indeed the case, and the work of a good production controller is to get the best deal among a variety of different suppliers.

We're also talking about things like repro houses as well. I have been in children's books since 2001, trying to shave pennies off production costs to make costings work; I used to say things like 'why don't we just buy a repro house and save ourselves some cash?' Nobody has ever done this. It's possible that it's a brilliant idea that the brightest minds in publishing, who focus every day on increasing our slender margins, have failed to alight on. It's also possible that the economics simply don't work.

EDIT: Just on exclusive contracts: this probably doesn't work for the printers, I think. You want the presses rolling the whole time, and publishing for just one company is going to introduce inefficiencies.

One thing I just realized I wasn't taking into account at all is the enormous lead time in Publishing. (See, told you I know nothing about this business ). I can't think of another industry that decides "Let's manufacture 50,000 of these. A year from now," and then doesn't start production for a year. That would have a huge impact on your ability to schedule.

Geez, though, that process would drive me crazy. I've spent most of my career with products that have a lifespan --from market introduction to obsolescence -- that is often shorter than that.

MookyMcD said:

One thing I just realized I wasn't taking into account at all is the enormous lead time in Publishing. (See, told you I know nothing about this business ). I can't think of another industry that decides "Let's manufacture 50,000 of these. A year from now," and then doesn't start production for a year. That would have a huge impact on your ability to schedule.

Click to expand...

Yep. You're planning to hit a particular publication date, but these things can get rescheduled up to a couple of months before the presses start rolling. They can slip, get brought forward... I ring up the production controller and tell them the art's going to be a week late. She then has to reshuffle all the repro jobs. I tell her there's a correction to an ozalid. The print order goes two days later; everyone has to reconfigure around the new queue. Publishing production controllers and their counterparts on the printing side are kinda wizardly - always saving your bacon.

Torgo said:

I have been in children's books since 2001, trying to shave pennies off production costs to make costings work

Click to expand...

*points trembling finger* YOU! You're the one who said my paperback releases couldn't have embossed foil like the hardcovers!

"It'll make them more collectible!" they said. "Foil is expensive!" they said.

*screams, runs into tree, falls down*

RedWombat said:

*points trembling finger* YOU! You're the one who said my paperback releases couldn't have embossed foil like the hardcovers!

"It'll make them more collectible!" they said. "Foil is expensive!" they said.

*screams, runs into tree, falls down*

Click to expand...

Oh god it's true! It's all true!

There's a meeting called the print and price meeting. Just before the book goes to print, it's your last chance to discuss the print run and the cover finishes. Dark things happen at print and price. Editors go in with foil and embossing and spot UV in the costing, and all too often come out with none of those things. We always fight for the spec, but sometimes...

(Apparently Random managed to deplete the world supply of silver ink reprinting Fifty Shades! The tables turned!)

Two things in publishing people don't realize:

• It's all about the slots in terms of scheduling print runs; you book the slots. Then you schedule books. Then you jigger books/schedules/numbers based on production and demand/advance orders.
  
• It's all about the boxes. And how many books of what trim size and spine height will fit. This is less important now with the demise of the spinner rack, but it's still there.

Bonus point: The definitions of signature.

I've been present for print & price meetings in commercial art, and those were eye-opening, soul-sucking occasions.

One thing to remember about smaller vanity/subsidy publishers (not necessarily the ones referred to in this thread): they may claim to offer competitively priced offset print runs, but the bulk of their subsidy publishing may be done POD through places like LightningSource. It's more expensive per copy, but these pubs already know they may not be selling thousands of copies per title. So just because a vanity publisher has offset printing capabilities, doesn't mean all their authors will get it. An important contract point to nail down, if anyone's going that route with any 'author services' company.

MookyMcD said:

Whether in facilities they own deeds and equipment in, dedicated factories in China that are technically not owned but produce nothing but their products, or actual arms-length contracts with third party suppliers, I assume they keep a minimum amount of productive capacity available. If not, they would be truly unique compared to any other industry I've been involved in. Well, not counting service companies. Definitely would be the first industry that sold tangible products I've ever heard of that didn't do that (or, normally, a combination of all of the above).

Click to expand...

The chain of production is:

Author (w/ Agent) => Publisher => Printer => Distributor => Bookstore => Reader

AW Admin said:

Bonus point: The definitions of signature.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the squiggly thing at the bottom of the royalty cheque?

Xelebes said:

The chain of production is:

Author (w/ Agent) => Publisher => Printer => Distributor => Bookstore => Reader

Click to expand...

With all the hatred of VP here, I do have a question.

Is there really something disastrously wrong with a writer wanting to take the much shorter route of:

Author =>Distributor =>Reader [eBooks]

or

Author => Distributor =>Bookstore => Reader [Print books]

..presuming that the author is sensible enough to not overpay (or pay at all) for the usually subpar and overpriced add-on ["publishing"] services that VPs offer? I mean honestly, VPs do provide a needed service as basically a distributor, if nothing else, for self-published authors who just want their stuff out there and don't have the time or resources (or aren't really trying to make a living as a writer) to handle getting their stuff out on multiple mediums? The basic concept of a VP isn't really that evil; it's only evil if people fall for all the extra stuff or if the parent company abuses the resources of the VP.

Mostly because this doesn't exist:

MatthewDBrammer said:

Author => Distributor =>Bookstore => Reader [Print books]

Click to expand...

You can't take a path that doesn't exist.

It breaks down between the distributor and the bookstore. Books don't just flow from the distributor to the bookstore. The bookstore/chain has to order the books it wants from the distributor. If bookstores don't want it, they don't order it. How do they find out about a book, or come to want to order a book? In almost all cases, from a large publisher's marketing department or the distributor's marketing department (contracted by smaller publishers who meet the distributor's requirements for quality, quantity, solvency and track record). The books stocked on the bookstore's shelves and browsed by customers fall into this category.

Distributors will list most books with an ISBN as available to order. That's how people special-order copies of books the store doesn't stock. However, those go directly to the customer and don't go onto the shelves so they are basically special cases.

Okay fair enough, I didn't think about that, and I should have. Let me rephrase.

My question about the eBook path still stands.

As far as print books go, what about the author who simply needs the "print on demand" and wants to sell or market their own stuff on their own terms?

I can't fault the VP company for filling a need that exists.

Aren't the VPs that help people usually called self-publishing services?

I think I might be defining things differently from you, because to me vanity press indicates that the press is acting as the publisher in exclusively using certain rights and paying authors a percentage of the money earned. If the author is putting the books out themself and only needs paper copies to be printed when they're ordered, they can always use lulu or createspace.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you said, it's been a long day.