Talk:Print on demand

message: User BadBull keeps adding links to Victor Celorio and his invention of the Book On Demand machine to several print and book related articles. I have searched the web and found only few (and promotional sounding) accounts of Celorio and his machine. In any way, it appears that Celorio is not inventor of this technique. I'm adding the  template here. → Aethralis 23:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me another machine that produces books under the demand which means ,if I need one book I'll be able to find it. I kees linking Victor Celorio because the article needs and I try it , not spaming, only doit to use victor Celorio as a link.  All I write it's true and important to the subject on my think. BadBull 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Book On Demand machine is not really notable enough for this article, especially when added in a way that resembles either advertising or how-to sections or both. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't need thousands of hits, just one or two reliable sources would be sufficient. Please post at least one here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victor Celorio 

message: The article presently says this: "Many of the smallest small presses, often called micro-presses because they have inconsequential profits,[1] have become heavily reliant on POD technology and ebooks. This is either because they serve such a small market that print runs would be unprofitable or because they are too small to absorb much financial risk. There is also a gray area where it can be difficult to distinguish between the smallest micro-presses and those self-publishing POD service providers who do not charge their authors in order to publish."
I would like to claim that this vastly underestimates the extent of the use of print-on-demand within the traditional publishing industry. In consulting with the head of a publishing company that does close to 300 titles a year I learned that they and pretty much all of their competitors are using Lightning Source to print all of their paperbacks.  These are publishers that focus on the academic market, where to be successful a book needs to sell 500 copies.  These are not micropresses but well-known, well-respected presses that, as I said, do hundreds of titles per year.
So, I think this section needs to be changed to take the emphasis off of micropresses.  I think that the statement about a gray area between "the smallest micropresses and those self-publishing POD service providers..." is especially misleading and irrelevant given the fact that POD is used so extensively by small and medium sized presses that are not micropresses.
I will wait for discussion before making the change. Rlitwin 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only a third of that section is about micro-presses. I don't think there is undue emphasis. However, there are a lot of myths about POD technology being used for nearly all books. If you want to add information like that, be careful to source it properly or it will most likely be deleted. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I think you are mostly right.  However, in my view the last sentence of that paragraph is dubious enough that I will delete it rather than just asking for a source.  It is presently unsourced, and I think dubious, but that's just half the problem.  The other part of the problem is that it colors the whole section about the use of print-on-demand by traditional publishers, in a misleading way. I think this would be the case even if there were a source for it; it is misleading in the context of section. If there is a gray area between micropresses and no-fee POD services, I doubt that it is sizeable enough to be notable.  So I'm deleting that sentence until there is a source that not only establishes that this gray area exists but that it is notable. Rlitwin 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent of use in traditional publishing 

message: Are necessary to provide important information regarding the article content. The bottom line is that you don't know what is important in the POD area, hence your edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.189.252 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not important to an encyclopedia article. Try DMOZ. Jefferson Anderson 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are.  As outlined here: Wikipedia:External_links --130.15.224.195 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: I've started a category for pages relevant to "new technology" commercial/industrial printing - major suppliers, hardware, workflow, formats, standards, that sort of thing. Almost anything relevant to POD probably counts. There did seem to be a reasonable number of relevant pages out there, but I thought that they they were too difficult to find without a specific category (quite a few of them were already listed under the "printing" category). 
Hope this helps, ErkDemon 22:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Digital press" Wikipedia category 

message: "Replica Books is the POD arm of the other leading wholesaler, Baker & Taylor, strong in library and academic markets, as well as bookstores in the northeast."
Northeast? Northeast of what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.77.168 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 July 2007‎
: Clarified northeast as Northeastern United States Crskees 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's Not Assume the Reader lives in the same country. 

message: I cannot find a verifiable between Cygnus and self-publishing and vanity presses. Can anyone provide a citation source for "This is why POD is often associated with self-publishing and vanity presses"? Crskees 21:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link between Cygnus and Self Publishing and Vanity Presses? 

message: The "PoD" entry ALREADY quotes (verbatim) from my book with Poynter.  I tried to add the missing citation but it was deleted.  This confuses me because a separate citation to an article I wrote for BookTech Magazine has been included for some time, without problems. I don't understand why there would be a difference between including an attribution to a book, versus an attribution to a magazine.
Next I tried to add some important distinctions between the printing method and the business model (both of which are essential to a full understanding of POD) and they were also deleted.
Finally I tried to correct the first sentence that currently reads "Print on demand with digital technology is used as a way of printing items for a fixed cost per copy, irrespective of the size of the order."  This is no longer accurate, but my correction was removed.
Unfortunately, my work schedule does not leave enough time for extensive paperwork, appeals, forms, debate with moderators, etc.  Jointly, Poynter and I travel more than 5,000 miles per week on average, doing workshops and seminars.
So I will close by repeating that the sections on POD and Self-Publishing appear dated to me, and somewhat narrow in their view.  I'm generally considered an "expert" on these subjects and willing to update them if there is a hassle-free way to do so.  And I will follow objective standards used by most journalists.  My goal isn't just self-promotion; it's getting more current, authoritative information to authors and publishers... which is just as important as selling books.
Please feel free to pass this invitation along to others if appropriate.
Otherwise, I'll simply wish you happy holidays, and best wishes for improvement in 2008.
 
Warm regards,
Dan
mailto://co-author@u-publish.com
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.234.150 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with talking about POD as a business model in the same article that talks about the technology is that it is common for traditional publishers, especially university presses, to use POD technology. They are using POD technology but are not using a new business model. In my view, for the article that describes POD technology to mix that description with a discussion of a business model that has nothing to do many of the publishers using POD technology them is confusing and perhaps even misleading. I would have no objection to an article titled POD (business model), which Poynter would be the right person to write, unquestionably. That would be a relief to the many traditional publishers using POD technology who do not want to be put in the same category as the new types of ventures that POD technology has made possible. Both articles could start with a See reference to the other article. That would be good. Rlitwin (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors and Omissions in PoD Entry 

message: Several of the external references mentions "traditional publishing" as a meaningless term used by author mills in an attempt at distinguishing themselves from Print On Demand print shops.
Its pervasive use here, especially to someone who has just read the external links, gives the whole entry a feel that it's biased in favor of these vanity presses.
Should something be done about this? HenrikOlsen 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the words "Traditional Publishing" 

message: Is the term "copy" still appropriate to describe products since it is possible to generate/update/modify the document to be printed. Contrary to printing technologies such as offset printing, POD doesn't use a matrix, and therefor I think the term copy is misleading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.44.210 (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: On the term "copy"

message: I believe that the passages in this article that discuss POD in terms of new business models that it has helped move forward are misleading and should be removed. Print on Demand is a printing model, and I think this article should be clearer about that. We can have a couple of sentences talking about how it has enabled author services publishing, with a link to another article (i.e. author mills. One thing I generally like about Wikipedia is the way I can usually rely on articles to clarify matters like this where there are popular misconceptions. Rlitwin (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose removing paragraphs about POD as a business model

message: I would like to know why you keep on erasing a link to the InstaBook page, which is a US Manufacturing company referenced in at least 2 of the most important printing encyclopedias, such as the The Handbook of Digital Publishing” of the Rochester Institute of Technology;  it holds some crucial patents in the process known as Book on Demand, and has been reviewed by dozens of articles in the most important and relevant media,  including the Seybold Report, The New York Times, Forbes, etc. Historically, it was the first company in the world to place print on demand equipment in bookstores, both here in the US and in other countries. Several companies that are mentioned in this article have licensed InstaBook's technology.
So...what is going on? Why do you erase that link?
Llambert (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess everone has a Link to one or two Print on Demand Company - i would like to link on this site to illustrate - Print on Demand. Guess its hopeless, to get yours or my Link in the Main article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.202.41.148 (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  InstaBook

message: What machines are they using? --Pizzamancer (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What machines are they using? 

message: I think a portion of this article should mention that Print on Demand technology is currently being used/abused by a significant number of bogus publishers to commit fraud and deception on the public. The way this confidence trick is played on the unwary goes like this: A student of a particular topic may innocently trawl any online book dealer's website and come across a book which appears to be on the topic of interest. The book is duly ordered in the belief that you are buying a book. Well your are not buying a book. What you have bought is a bound selection of random and usually totally unrelated Wikipedia pages with only the cover actually relating to the topic of interest. I got ripped-off in one of these scams and complained to Amazon and Abebooks both of which showed no interest whatsoever in the fact that their websites were being used for this con. As long as these book selling websites make money there is no interest whatsoever in the fact that they have participated in fraud. I also complained to Wikipedia who were sympathetic and said they were aware of the problem and had their lawyers pursue these crooks. Unfortunately Wikpedia told me that it is their policy to allow Wikipedia content to be used for commecial purposes and no matter how fraudulent these POD books are they technically constitute legitimate commercial business practice. These crooked publishers abusing POD technology exploit a loophole in the law that states that as long as somewhere on the cover it states the content has been compiled from Wikipedia then it is legal. It may be legal but it is still an act of deception. The information on the cover claiming the content has been compiled from Wikipedia is extremly easy to overlook. It is deliberately so. Forgive the non encyclopedic long-winded explanation but I wanted to explain why I believe that the increasing abuse of POD technology needs a mention in the main article. In good faith. AM           — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.46.91 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: FRAUDULENT ABUSE OF POD TECHNOLOGY

message: Somebody seems to be pretty interested here in promoting this Print-on-Demand thing.  I admit it is a solution for those who look for old or out of print stuff, or want to publish their own thing, but you gotta admit, too, the many problems it has raised.  My main complain about it?  The atrocious quality of the books they spawn from these machines: it's awful.  I know they've been improving over the years, but you know it will never be as with an original edition (i.e., a good edition).  You might try to argue that the times we live in set the pace for this kind of thing (bla, bla, bla), but that doesn't mean they are not second-rate, cheap, inferior... Unwishful Thinker (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Critiques for this Print-on-Demand Entry at Wikipedia? 

message: With  I have made the use of "print-on-demand" and "on-demand" consistent throughout the article, instead of "print on-demand" or "print on demand". I have chosen to use hyphens as that was the majority style. However, the title is without hyphens.
There is a redirect at  and I suggest the article is moved over the redirect, or that "print on demand" and "on demand" are spelled without hyphens throughout the article. 85.238.91.99 (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenation of "print-on-demand" and "on-demand" 

message: There is no mention of Print On Demand for printing artwork into apparel, mobile phone covers, fridge magnets, clocks, watches, and household goods.   Companies that perform these services include: RedBubble, Printify, TeeSpring, TeePublic, and Printful.  RedBubble alone received ten million visits a month in 2017, with 450,000 artists 'publishing' on their platform, so this part of the PoD industry is not insignificant.   There ought to be a section on art printed on demand onto consumer goods. FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is heavily skewed to Print on Demand as used in book publishing 

message: Over the last 5 years print on demand has developed and grown so much so that it can be used to print designs on many products, not just books. Large print on demand companies like Printful, Printify and Gelato print designs on to products when an order is received, often via an integration with an ecommerce platform or online marketplace. 213.18.148.8 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition of print on demand is out of date.