News These charts detailing publishing routes may be of interest to you.

[CarolMS]

Jane Friedman (janefriedman.com) has updated her charts detailing the basic differences between various publishing options. You might want to check them out. (Wish there was a prefix that was just "Publishing.")

 

[PCFrontier]

Hi Carol, thanks for posting these charts, a useful quick summary. Pete has covered these topics as well in the Huddle and podcasts.
Best wishes for New Year. Paul C

 

[CarolMS]

Hi Carol, thanks for posting these charts, a useful quick summary. Pete has covered these topics as well in the Huddle and podcasts.
Best wishes for New Year. Paul C

Right. @AgentPete is a fountain of information, isn't he? I just thought I'd post these charts because it might be useful to have an at-a-glance side-by-side view of a subject that seems to have more and more ins and outs as every day passes. (What a sentence! HaHa!) Such things are especially helpful for those of us who are more visual types with not-so-great memories for all the details.

 

[AgentPete]

Thanks for this, Carol.

Important to note that this is a cross-section in time of how the publishing landscape looks… for the moment. It’s far from a static situation.

Even more important… some of the options on the list are far better than others. “Hybrid” and “paid” are both highly suspicious categories. Jane’s grouping of them together with “self- publishing” incorrectly suggests that they are somehow on par with each other: equal alternatives / options from which the author can choose. Tldr: avoid “hybrid” and “paid”, they will take your money and you won’t see much in return. Mostly a new name for vanity. And yes, some of them do have a page on site with glowing endorsements from customers/authors… Mostly very naive people, unfortunately.

And finally, of ultimate importance… don’t get side-tracked by all these seeming options! The publishing process is actually predicated on one thing and one thing alone – the relationship between you the author and your reader. Concentrate on creating compelling stories and addictive prose, that’s by far and away the most important thing… without which nothing else really matters.

 

[CarolMS]

And finally, of ultimate importance… don’t get side-tracked by all these seeming options! The publishing process is actually predicated on one thing and one thing alone – the relationship between you the author and your reader. Concentrate on creating compelling stories and addictive prose, that’s by far and away the most important thing… without which nothing else really matters.

Oh, yeah, doesnt that make sense! Fortunately, I'm not personally trying to choose one route over the other at the moment, since I'm still focused on getting my MS in final shape (still needing to chip a little off that word count, you know), and also still planning on at least giving the traditional route a gung-ho try. I just like to share resources when I come across something that might be useful to others. Thanks for reviewing and providing feedback on JF's charts. Very helpful!

 

[BrianY]

Thanks for posting this! Some of it is overlaps in a strange way, especially the "No Advances" as a sort of publishing company. Arcadia and Schiffer are both huge companies that don't pay advances (and generate pretty good sales)

The main thing to remember here is that we are watching things morph. I'm seeing the line between smaller presses and university presses blur right now - this includes a university press that hid its affiliation and several others that have imprints that clearly take aim at classic indy publisher turf.

 

[CarolMS]

Thanks for posting this! Some of it is overlaps in a strange way, especially the "No Advances" as a sort of publishing company. Arcadia and Schiffer are both huge companies that don't pay advances (and generate pretty good sales)

The main thing to remember here is that we are watching things morph. I'm seeing the line between smaller presses and university presses blur right now - this includes a university press that hid its affiliation and several others that have imprints that clearly take aim at classic indy publisher turf.

That sure sounds right on, Brian. I think Jane Friedman has said these charts, not the first version she's done over the years, are more like a snapshot in time, a blurry one at that, given the constant shape-shifting going on in the publishing industry. Eee gad, it must be hard to keep up with it all, and I sure wouldn't want to try to organize its fuzzy, mushy, evolving and overlapping manifestations. I thought it interesting that she says some of the "big five" imprints and publishers like Hachette UK use a "no advances" approach. Who knew?

 

[BrianY]

Carol, well ... lots of people knew. The no advance route has been discussed at length in the press. I seem to remember hearing about on one of those business discussion channels they have on really long flights - proof that an idea has gone mainstream. The word on the street is that at least a few big sellers pass up their advances for bigger royalty percentages has been reported pretty widely too. Arcadia and Schiffer produce huge numbers of nonfiction titles without advances. This can be worth it for the right books. (especially guidebooks and references)

What I see are people who have no idea how books get into stores at all. There's a pretty wide gulf between sizing up your chances with mid-sized publishers and not knowing they exist in the first place. Would most of those people even believe Jane's chart? I'm pretty sure 90% of the members of local writer's groups here in Pennsylvania wouldn't.