OLD POST ALERT! This is an older post and although you might find some useful tips, any technical or publishing information is likely to be out of date. Please click on Start Here on the menu bar above to find links to my most useful articles, videos and podcast. Thanks and happy writing! – Joanna Penn
Book Machine's Publishing Now even had a debate on the motion “Self-publishing is devaluing publishing.” In a heated discussion afterwards, I could see that the definition of ‘indie' as it applies to authors is still misunderstood. Of course, when mainstream publishers like Penguin announce their own self-publishing arms, it can be difficult to know what the hell is going on!
This is further demonstrated in the leaked Hachette internal memo on the relevance of publishing companies where they equate self-publishing with just digital distribution, which we (hopefully) all know is only the final step in the process. Joe Konrath & Barry Eisler respond with their comments here which is worth a read.
Eisler defines self-publishing: ‘it means you keep the rights to your book and publish it yourself using distributor/retailers like Amazon, Apple, B&N, Kobo, Smashwords, and Sony, typically retaining 70% of the cover price instead of the 17.5% offered by legacy publishers (for digital editions). This isn’t what “most people” mean when they say self-publishing; it’s what everybody means when they say self-publishing.
But it's true that to many people self-publishing means bad quality books with no editing published by one of the vanity presses and the main concern is that this crap is flooding the world and readers can't find quality in the mass of rubbish. I know these books do exist but I hope you agree that we can do a lot better than that these days. I also believe that readers are the new gatekeepers so sales online, reviews and rankings will ensure that the cream rises and bad stuff drops out of the picture.
The term ‘indie author' has been increasingly claimed by authors who want a new label, one that does justice to the work involved.
This is my take on the subject but please add your comments and thoughts as it is definitely a moving target and no doubt there will be continued debate on it. I do mean for this to be an inclusive definition and you may sit somewhere on the spectrum of indie or you may be traditionally published. People have different aims for their books and their writing careers and I respect your choices, I just wanted to add to the debate!
Indie author means truly independent
At its most basic, indie means there is no separate publisher involved. Many indies may have setup their own micro-press, so their books still have a publisher name that is not the author's name but the publisher is not one of the author services companies. The indie author most likely owns their own ISBNs. The indie pays the bills and is paid by the distributors e.g. Amazon/Smashwords directly. The only middleman is the distributor.
There has been a blurring of the line between indie author and indie publisher that seems to be mostly related to size and scope of the business. I am an indie publisher of my own books so it's basically the same thing as being an indie author, but there are small & midsize independent publishing houses who don't like the term indie being used for people like me. However, there are increasing numbers of micro-businesses being set up by authors who also publish other author's books so these perhaps count as indie publishers.
Indies are entrepreneurs and business-people
The Creative Penn is a limited company. My books and this site as well as my speaking are a business. I have an accountant and I do monthly accounts. I monitor cash-flow, income and expenses. Indie authors may not all have such a developed business but they treat their writing and publishing in a business-like manner. That means they have to think about financials but also sales & marketing as well as production on top of the creative side. They basically act like a small press and can be defined as micro-entrepreneurs.
This entrepreneurial attitude also spills into why people go indie in the first place. We like speed and we like control. Taking action and seeing what works comes naturally, and jumping into new media, new technologies and opportunities is part of what we do. By the time I had written my first novel, I already had a platform so it was worth the experiment to publish immediately and see what happened. As the great entrepreneurs say, fail fast, fail often and then go with what works.
Indies employ professionals as publishing involves teamwork
I understand how the term self-publishing can be judged as a misnomer because we don't do it all ourselves. We have a team in the same way big publishers do.
One of the biggest criticisms of self-publishing is the poor quality of the finished product which is why it's important to take these extra steps.
As indies, we budget for and employ professional editors, professional designers and formatters for digital and print books. We know the value of our work includes the way it is perceived on the page as well as the work itself. I have always used an editor but I am definitely guilty of doing a lot more myself with my earlier books (which at some point I will re-publish). No more. The charge of bad quality is one we can avoid by investing in a collaborative process.
Indies are still interested in ‘traditional' book deals
There is a vocal camp that have now sworn off traditional publishing forever but I think most indies are still interested in a publishing deal, if it offers something they can't do or don't want to do themselves.
Most indies don't hate mainstream publishing either, despite the noisy few who make it look like we do.
In actual fact, we are all book lovers and advocates of reading in whatever form people want to consume. We all want the publishing industry to thrive and for readers to continue to buy lots of books and in fact, most authors are also huge consumers of books. Many of the big earning indie authors have been picked up by traditional publishing in some form. Amanda Hocking is the most famous with her St Martin's Press deal of over $2 million. John Locke took a print distribution deal with Simon & Schuster. Joe Konrath & Barry Eisler signed with Amazon Encore for some of their books which isn't one of the Big 6 right now, but may soon be. Their secret contracts are rumored to be much better for authors than other publishers but it's still not purely indie anymore, although many of these authors still continue to do their own work for other books. The hybrid model where some books are traditionally published and others are indie published seem to be growing and is perhaps the sweet spot for the most successful authors. It's certainly where I would like to get to myself.
What does indie mean to you? Do you identify as an indie?
Top Image: istockphoto.com & other one is my own edits on Prophecy
View Comments (95)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 2 3 … 7 Next »This is a good post and I agree with your definitions. It frustrates me to keep hearing the stock statement that indie means poor quality. If a book is poor quality, you can tell in the first few pages. Most indie published books will give you the first few chapters for free so what is the big deal? I am not losing anything by trying. How do you discover the quality from all the rubbish? The same way I always have with traditional books - I follow recommendations, reviews and popular authors.
Thanks Andrew. I agree with you re the customer being the filter. You know as a reader what's crap and you don't download the sample if the cover sucks, if the sample is crap, you delete it!
Excellent article, Joanna, and I am in the same place you are with my books and publishing intentions, having come 'round slowly from my doubts about indie publishing. My children's books were published by one of the Big 6 and it was a great experience, no animosity or regrets there, and I'd love to experience that again someday. But the options now! The feeling of empowerment and all the wonderful knowledge about publishing that can be ours now. Contrast that to the old days when we sat by our mailboxes waiting for letters to arrive with reviews or news about reprinting. Now we can actually see our sales and take some direct cause-and-effect actions with platform and distribution.
I welcome this the same way I welcomed the beginnings of the movement toward being health consumers, when people realized it was okay to participate in discussions with their doctors, to explore treatment options, to research medicines they were being given so that they could make informed choices. Knowing that we can actively direct our creative careers is an insanely good feeling!
Hi Toby, I agree with you about the feeling of empowerment and the positive energy that comes with taking control of your own publishing life. I think that only expands creativity, whereas the negativity of rejection was detrimental to being creative. I am also not anti big publishing but it's great to have so many options now!
Well said, Joanna! One other major reason for self-publishing is to retain full creative control of the final product. I, too, and getting tired of the assumption that I care less about the quality of my book than a publisher would. It's my name on the cover and with it my reputation as an author, of course I care!
Exactly, in fact, we care more than anyone else!
Caring, Rosemary, is a feeling of the heart - not an action. Of course if that caring leads a writer to reread his material over and over and maybe flies it by friends and family before submitting, that would show he cares even more. The rewriting is the ticket to a better manuscript, according to E.B. White: "The best writing is rewriting."
Sometimes it's true we can't see the forest for the trees. Our own work is wonderful and what we have to say or share. But is it so great? It's good to have another pair of eyes to look it over. It should be our best writings that we send out. It must give the reader something they can take away or take home with them. Cheers, Don
P.S. Joanna said: "I have always used an editor but I AM DEFINITELY GUILTY of doing a lot more myself with my earlier books (which at some point I will re-publish). No more. The charge of bad quality is one we can avoid by investing in a collaborative process.
Well done overview, Joanna, and I am in full agreement. I've been "published" by two different publishers (20 years apart) and have learned and benefited from both experiences. However, the new options are leading me to consider becoming a micro-publisher as well as a writer. Even with editors provided by the publisher I always get a second look by an editor I trust before submitting a final manuscript.
It's an exciting time.
Thanks Lynn, and I do often describe myself as a micro-entrepreneur. I like the term - we don't all have to be multi-million $ conglomerates!
Great article, Joanna. It should be carved in stone.
I am an indie author, self-published, who took to heart the criticism about poor quality in a finished product. For that reason, when I published with CreateSpace, I purchased three proof copies (one at a time, of course) before I was satisfied with the result. I was rewarded with a comment from a reviewer who said, “The book was extremely well written and edited, the flow of the story flawless.” It doesn't get better than that.
I like being in control of my work, like the freedom of my own deadlines, like skipping the agent/editor wait that can involve months and still end in rejection. Thank you for writing this article.
Thanks Bernadine and your attention to detail is exactly what I was referring to. I also think authors who publish on Kindle should own one and test their book first. Bad formatting in ebooks turns people off as well.
I think a self-published author is not an "indie" author. If an author is self-publishing, I wish so much that he or she would clearly state this on the product information of their book (eg on Amazon). As a keen reader I am not interested in reading self-published material, I prefer what I call "independently published" authors, which are authors whose books are published independently of them, ie by someone else who has judged their work of sufficient interest to publish. There are millions of books in the world and only so much time to read them, so I very much value the filter provided by the publisher. If there are one or two gems that slip beneath the radar because a publisher has missed an opportunity, that is not a huge loss. If a self-published author sells a lot of copies, an independent publishing house is quite likely to pick them up, as demonstrated by Hocking and others. Hence, readers are not missing out.
Hi Maxine, your definition is diametrically opposed to what I was writing :) but hey, there's room for all interpretation. I don't think that most readers would even know they are reading a self-published book these days and I don't think people buy books based on the publisher http://www.thecreativepenn.com/2010/08/05/people-dont-buy-books-based-on-the-publisher/
I believe the filter is the Amazon ranking and the reviews left on the book. If they are good, isn't that a filter?
The trouble with Amazon reviews is that so many of them are written by the authors' friends. Some are not , of course, but a reader seeking guidance as to whether the book is worth the money is unlikely to know which is which.
My main gripe with 'self-publishing' is that work by vanity presses is lumped in with 'real' self-publishing as you define it above. I have not yet seen a book from any 'publishing firm' that charges money for its sevices that is as good as it should be. So often, the firm claims to have 'edited' the book and has charged the author hundreds of dollars for the service when it's obvious that the work has only had, at best, a quick copy edit, and if the author is not good at grammar, syntax, spelling and punctuation many errors will still remain. And structural issues are seldom even touched on. Even the firms with reasonably good reputations, such as Creat Space, are guilty of this.
I hope you will continue to encourage self-publishers to engage proper illustrators, editors, and layout people as independent contractors, rather than going for an all-in-one-place provider. Only that way can a writer be a real 'indie author'. There is just too much room for rorting in the all-in-one system.
Yes, there are a lot of poor quality indie books. There are also an awful lot of books published by traditional publishers that are fit for the rubbish pile.
I take the "punk rock" aesthetic to heart when I think of what indie means: It's my book, I can do what I want...for better or worse.
Those committed to the craft of writing will produce quality books, regardless of who publishes them.
Having been through the the NY publishing machine, I greatly prefer the freedom I have by doing it myself.
-- Bill Smith
Hi Bill, yes, you see the raft of famous celebrity memoir that come out at Xmas and wonder what the hell the publishing industry is doing. I see novels by Katie Price aka Jordan and just think 'aaaarghh!'
Totally agree. I saw a book on the racks by a midsize publisher whom most writers have probably heard of. I picked it up and looked at the back. Not only did the design look horrible, but there were typos and grammatical errors in the blurb. Then I read the first page. It was awful writing. Legacy publishing does not equate higher quality.
Thanks for a good post. I am one of those who went the traditional route and threw my hands in the air. Self publishing allows me to publish the stories in which I believe and that I believe are entertaining. If the public that chooses to read them downloads them, that is simply wonderful. If they don't, I will work harder to create a story that those that like my genre will enjoy as much as I enjoy it. I have never professed to create prose that is classic poetry, but simply entertaining stories. I am an individual, and the ability to publish my stories rocks!
That's great Nancy and I also aim to create entertaining stories too, I want to sell a lot of books, not win prizes!
Very well thought out and explained. I have been struggling a bit with terms and definitions in this digital, self-publishing, e-book as a downloadable PDF, e-book as a digital version of a full-length book era. . .I will be referring to this post from now on!
Yes, the word 'ebook' has become a bit of a minefield now :) I think the number of formats will only proliferate as well in 2012.
Hey Joanna
Excellent and informative post which has cleared up a lot of my own confusion. I was unsure if 'indie publishing' and 'self publishing' were the same, but it seems they are. I will class myself as an indie too - (my first book should be out next year :D) and be proud to do so.
It's also encouraging to see those who began indie still find their way into trad publishing on their own terms. I imagine this is rare right now, but I imagine this kind of thing will become more common, when once being self-published would have meant you'd never get a trad publisher's attention or respect thereafter. I am excited by all the changes and look forward to a future where publishing is just publishing, without prejudices.
Shah. X
Thanks Shah, I'm not sure we will ever be entirely without prejudice but I think the stigma of self-publishing will disappear as more authors do it so well that it's indistinguishable from traditional publishing.