Talk:Self-publishing

message: This article needs work and some refactoring.
I am uncomfortable with the use of "Vanity Publishing" as a synonym.  
:We should be careful about the use of this phrase as it is more of an attempt to read the motives of the self-publisher than a neutral description of the phenomenon.  The motives probably range all over the map.  --Daniel C. Boyer 13:54, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: My point entirely Daniel and expressed most succinctly. I'm very happy with kat's editing and refactoring though which positions Vanity publishing as but one manifestation of the motives/manifestations of self-publishing. quercus robur 19:32, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: This is a really bizarre definition of "self-published" that reverses the actual definition.  Whether or not something is "self-published" does not depend on the publishing record of the publisher other than that book, just whether or not that particular book was "self-published."  --Daniel C. Boyer 13:27, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: I'd welcome your inputs Kat, this is a subject I feel strongly about, I've self published stuff but I don't think I'm particularly 'vain', but decided to step back from this for a few days at least to get a better perspective on what needs to be said here. Your inputs may well help to make me feel less embattled over this issue, which is how I'm tending to feel at the moment... quercus robur 16:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kat's View 

message: I have issues with the flag placed in the external links section. I understand the intent (and frustration) behind the flag--I remove way more links than I add--but wikipedia isn't just a link to dmoz. Editors should be able to add external links that provide additional info and that are notable per WP:EL. Figuring out which ones of those to keep is the challenge; removing spam is much easier. Flowanda | Talk 10:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I have just removed two copies of a section regarding the Library of Congress's supposed "dismissal" of self-published items as "not really books."  The section fell somewhere between opinionated argument and borderline vandalism. Aside from being poorly sourced (the Library of Congress effort referred to did not address publishing in general, but was only a guide to a limited range of forthcoming titles intended to be used by libraries in considering new acquisitions. Aside from self-published titles, it also excluded  certain textbooks, reissued books, mass market paperbacks (whether original or reprint), travel guides, electronic books, and other categories.   The presentation of the LOC activity in the article was highly opinionated, if not downright inaccurate, and failed to present the limited information it contained in a manner that met WP:NPOV requirements.  The only relevant information one could infer from the sources is that very few self-published books are acquired by libraries; assuming that inference to be accurate, it should be stated concisely and sourced appropriately, rather than harangued in multiple sections. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library of Congress 

message: I noticed that "Vanity publishing" is mentioned several times before it is defined.  Perhaps "Vanity Publishing" should be moved above "true self-publishing" because all of the types below reference it.
Spandox (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order? 

message: I would love these to be a more neutral tone.  Here some some of my suggestions
Commercial publishers must be confident of sales of several thousand copies to take on a book.  A book may not have this potential for many reasons:
* author wants complete control over the books outcome, database, sales and customers.
fine
* overall low publishing cost (Can be as low as $400 for those on a budget)
fine
* author lacks important literary skills
This one is sort of mean
* topic is obscure 
fine
* author refuses editorial input
How about: Author doesn't agree with editorial changes or censorship
* author is unknown and does not have substantial resume
fine
* author would prefer to publish content independently 
fine
* topic is of interest only in a small geographic area or only to a handful of people, such as a family reading about its own genealogy
fine
* content is controversial or offensive enough that publishers do not wish to be associated with it
fine
Why not separate it into two categories?
* Author cannot get published by traditional publishers
** Author is unknown
** Topic is obscure
** Topic is controversial
** Topic is only of interest to a small geographic are small group of people
** Writing, style, or genré was rejected
* Author desires complete artistic freedom
** Author does not agree with editorial changes a publisher would make
** Author wants complete control over the books outcome, database, sales and customers
** Overall low publishing cost
** Author would prefer to publish content independently
Spandox (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motives for self-publishing 

message: The issue of giving up editorial control has less impact on the writer than signing over economic control. The publishing houses have more experience than the individual author and unless they insert too many clichés or shift the fundamentals this is more of a sideline issue which I don't believe drives many people to self-publishing. What has a lot more influence on a writer's/ a book's success is that the signature on the dotted line means giving up economic control. 
When a book is published by a publisher in one country, normally the country where the author resides, it could well never go further than being sold in that one country. 'Sister' companies of the publisher in other countries are independent entities, despite having the same name, who make their own decisions on what they release in their territory. Giving an Australian example: The print run is normally 2,500 to 3,000 books. Nearly all Australian authors would look to expand their market into the other English speaking countries, but if the catalogues of the overseas sister companies are 'full', then the trad-published Australian author is excluded from approaching other companies and is left with the low figures of the Australian market. Some books have truly international content and could so easily 'get stuck' in a small market in a small country. After several years the rights might fall back to the author, but by then he/she might have undertaken a career change to pay the bills. 
With self-publishing, the author reaches a global audience immediately, although of course the penetration of each market is not as good as it would be as part of a solid publicity campaign from a publishing house. Authors have to weigh up where their priorities lie, but the increasing success of self-publishing in all media plus book shop closures suggest that the balance is shifting. For self-publishers, book shop closures are actually a good thing as they break the market dominance of the publishing industry who has so little room for new writers. 144.136.176.128 (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial control - economic control 

message: is listed first as a "not to be confused with [self publishing]" and then as a "type of self publishing".  I don't have an opinion as to which of these it is but am pretty sure that it can't be both.Originalname37 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm visiting the talk page to make the exact same comment.  My impression is that someone in the "self-publishing" industry is engaging in a bit of PR.  The distinction from a vanity press eludes me. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 07:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Although I know nothing of the inner workings of "true" self publishing or "vanity press," they definitely have different meanings to me that I think the article comes reasonably close to explaining.  I know several people who have self published business books.  They act like a publisher - they may hire an editor or at least an editorial assistant, they may hire a book designer or graphic artist, they find a printer, they handle the marketing, etc...  They typical vanity press, on the other hand, is essentially a turnkey operation which provides most or all of the services, for a fee, that a commercial publisher provides when it is publishing a book for its own list. I do agree that the notation at the top of the page is itself confusing.  All of the articles listed at the top of the page seem to fall under the broad category of self publishing and are better handled by dropping them to the "See also" section.  I will do that and see if anyone objects. -- DS1953 talk 15:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity Press 

message: How about publishing directly to Kindle for example? Hcobb (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hcobb, Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronic publishing? 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/young-writers-find-a-devoted-publisher-thanks-mom-and-dad.html on kids self-publishing books might be interesting to add to thus article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kids 

message: I agree that all this needs decent sources, but that's a lot of blanking, and I suspect that at least the basic information about who is responsible for marketing (e.g., that if a self-published book is going to get marketed, then the authors are the ones who have to do it, since there is no publisher) and the general advantages and disadvantages is not only easily WP:Verifiable, but some of it might even be WP:BLUE.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking 

message: Please, add some informations about music self-publishing. --167.57.7.158 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: This article has a number of unnecessary images, especially in the latter section. In fact, some of them are used only symbolically! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey if you can find better images please swap them in to keep the article from becoming one long swath of text.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary images 

message: This article is obviously not written like an encyclopedia article. Any suggestions on how to improve it? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributors are free to rewrite articles as they see fit; changes which keep the information and the references will be fine with me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: As of end of last year 2018, Createspace ceased to exist and was absorbed into Amazon's KDP (Kindle Direct Publishing) I will remove segment https://writersweekly.com/angela-desk/createspace-vs-kdp-print-merger-lots-of-complaints
Veryscarymary (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for updating.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: CreateSpace

message: The article presents publishing through amazon as self publishing, but wouldn't amazon be the publisher here? What am I missing?--TZubiri (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's self-publishing. Amazon is the printing press, the distributor, the royalty collector, but you (are you thinking about self-publishing a book?) would be the real publisher. You've chosen to put your ideas out there, not Amazon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Additionally, I'd just like to mention that your question is a good one, and maybe something should be added to the text to possibly address it? The way I've been thinking about it is this: to publish means to make a literary work public, to "put it out there", it's as if there's a crowd, and somebody gets on a box and shouts out, "hey everybody look at this". That, for me, is the essence of publishing. Now the traditional model, with an author and a traditional publisher, was that the author created the work, and the publisher was like the person on the box telling everybody to check out this work. These traditional publishers were both marketers and printing presses (two separate functions) that is, a typical publisher was a book marketer as well as a physical producer of printed books; but the traditional publishing house could still market the book while outsourcing the printing to a private facility, and the traditional publisher would still be the 'publisher'. Now, when self-publishing has come along, the author is both the creator of the literary work and the marketer, in effect the publisher, since the author is telling the public to pay attention to this new work. And Amazon, in the new model, is the printing press and distributor -- but not the 'publisher' per se. Does this explanation ring right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is publishing through amazon kindle really self publishing? 

message: There is a need to add some discussion of web fiction here. Rwood128 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web fiction