YOU WERE RIGHT TO SELF-PUBLISH
While having a traditional publisher is the goal of many authors, self-publishing is actually better in so many ways.
But authors need traditional publishers to get out to the public. It’s how to have a best-seller, right?
Absolutely not. There are plenty of self-published best-sellers on the market. The fact is that when an author is picked up by a traditional publisher, the only thing that author gets is bragging rights because they had one of the big six publishing houses publish their book. However, other than that, they have so much less than if they published themselves.
For example, unless you are a best-selling author already or a celebrity, the most you will probably get is your book published. It doesn’t mean that your book will be in stores or libraries. It means that these places can purchase your book if they chose to. You can do all that as a self-published author and without having a publishing company take full ownership of your intellectual property, your hard work.
Marketing, though, right?
Not normally. There is no budget for unknown authors. And you have to remember they are a publishing company, not a book marketing company. Sure, they may take a chance on your book, but again without a following or notoriety, you get little to no marketing budget. You have to do it all yourself so why not self-publish.
But it is a traditional publisher; they give advances, don’t they?
Maybe, but sorry again. Normally only big names get an advance. Plus, the problem with an advance, if you get one, is that you don’t get royalties from any sales until after the advance has been paid back. Since you’re probably not getting an advance, and they aren’t that great anyway, just publish the book yourself.
Speaking of—what about royalties?
So many traditional publishers pay only 5-10% of the royalties to their authors. They may have a scale based on how many books are sold, but it’s rarely more than 25% of the sales. This is fine for those best-selling authors, but for new authors, this means you may get royalty checks for only pennies, or royalty checks that are held until you reach a specific amount. Compare this to the up to 70% that you can get from some self-publishing companies, and there is no reason you shouldn’t self-publish.
Sure the prestige is good when you publish with a traditional publisher, but the majority of your books should be self-published or published through an independent publisher for some very basic reasons. Let’s review:
First, you have more say in creative content and design. You decide your cover and accept or reject editor recommendations.
Second, with self-published books, you have control of the marketing just like you would if you were with a big traditional publisher. But here, you get to decide how you want to market yourself and your book.
Since you have to do it anyway and put out money up front, you might as well make better royalties. That’s right. Remember, when you self-publish, your royalties are higher from the beginning; some publishers give you as much as 70% of the sales from your book.
Big publishers take care of paying for so much that you probably don’t think about, but again, you lose creative control. Their cover designer decides what is best. Their editor makes changes you may not really agree with, yet you have to go with it. So, this is where the big drawback is. You pay for everything before you ever publish.
Between the loss of creative control and the lack of budget and royalties, is it really worth it? YES!
I know it sounds like I’m contradicting myself. Allow me to explain.
If you get picked up by a big traditional publisher, that is awesome! Get those bragging rights. Put them on your website. There is nothing wrong with using a traditional publisher. Having them accept a manuscript is not an easy feat and deserves kudos. However, use the best of both worlds. Give some books to the big leagues, but put your bread and butter in self-publishing. You don’t have to do one or the other, so have your cake and eat it, too.