Reasons Not to Not Self Publish: A Rebuttal (3 of 8)

Last month, Edan Lepucki posted an article on The Millions called "Reasons Not to Self Publish in 2011-2012: A List." I disagree and would like, over the next several blog postings, to offer my own point-by-point rebuttal.

3.

Edan: "I’d Prefer a Small Press to a Vanity Press"
Elly: "People still say 'Vanity Press'?"

I think the author’s point in this section is that “small presses are great.” I’m not sure what that has to do with a not self-publishing. I agree: small presses ARE great. But they have their own struggles, especially with lack of resources and a mismatch between income and output. I used to work for a small press, and it’s been hanging by a thread for as long as I can remember. Even in Lepucki’s own example, her beloved small press had to shut its doors.

Like internet start-ups, most small presses do not succeed. That’s the dirty little secret. Traditional publishing is expensive and it’s an insider’s game. When handled by a small press, books have about the same chance of success as with strong, informed independent publishing. A small press might be run by one or two people handling a dozen or so new books, and a back catalog of a couple dozen more. These are strapped, frazzled people. Well-intentioned, but overworked. Often, the onus is on the author to drive marketing and publicity on her own. The small press does what it can: secures some reviews in the trades, puts some branding on materials, networks, leverages the back catalog. But the difference between a small press experience and a good independent publishing experience is surprisingly negligible. The major difference, of course, is the bite of profits the author loses to the publisher.

Getting a book into print is only the first step. Lepucki recounts a great stroke of luck with her novella, but I hope she isn’t naïve enough to believe that will happen every time. I hope she also realizes that is the kind of traction you can create for yourself if your product is excellent.