Thanks, I'll Wait on The Big Leagues
Is there no end to the number of people who want to screw authors?
I came across this article about a potential "farm team" system for publishing. The fact that it's on MSN/Newsweek feed, made me cringe. Because whether we know we're doing it or not, when we read about something that sounds like "hope" for those aspiring to be published from a reputable source, we tend to think it's a good thing...even when it feels awfully shady.
In a nutshell, Chronicle will now refer rejected manuscripts from its slush pile to self-publishing company, Blurb. The two toot their horns about this great new venture because now Blurb gets a cache of authors to pay for their services, who may otherwise, once rejected by Chronicle, move on to the next traditional publisher.
If you can ignore the fact that the author then goes on to pay for everything from editing to promo (possibly ending up having to sell an eighty-page book for $30) and may not even get an ISBN for their financial investment it's a "win-win" for everyone.
Everyone except the author!
Chronicle gets a kick back for the referrals who end up actually "signing" with Blurb. And of course Blurb is making money hand over fast for doing little more than ushering the author through the POD process.
Look, I get it. America was built on people making money off of hopes and dreams. But it's ridiculous to tout this venture as a "win-win," when the author so obviously is getting the screws put to them.
There are plenty of other POD and self-publishing companies that will not only offer more "services" than Blurb but will do so cheaper.
There's no doubt that at some point, the self-publishing paradigm and the traditional publishing method will find a way to merge into a hybrid. But I shudder to think this will be it.
What is Chronicle getting paid for exactly? For sending a list of names to Blurb? For reading the first 10-50 pages of a manuscript and deciding it's not right for them, but is right to collect a "residual" from as long as the author is willing to dish out the cash?
It's disheartening. As a society sworn to capitalistic indulgences, I get that Chronicle has found a new revenue stream. But it's infuriating that they've found one that doesn't seem to benefit the author at all.
The article is positioned as if they're giving a potential E. Lynn Harris a chance to be heard. But again, there are less expensive companies out there willing to do the same.
If this were a venture that were about giving voice to the unheard, they would have partnered with a company whose services were broader and priced closer to "market value."
If I read this wrong or am misinterpreting the venture, someone please...let me know.
Edited to add:
Sarah Williams at Chronicle Books reports that "the information in the Newsweek article was incorrect... Chronicle Books will not receive a referral fee for recommending Blurb.com to aspiring authors or artists.
"Chronicle will provide a landing page from our website to which our editors may refer authors or artists whose works they feel are a good match for Blurb.com. For their part, Blurb.com will offer us discoveries they might make in terms of online trends, notably how consumers are finding books online. There are many self-publishing options in the marketplace, though far fewer for illustrated book authors and artists. As an independent illustrated book publisher in San Francisco, Chronicle Books felt an affinity for the locally-based Blurb.com and the quality of the product it is offering the public."
I came across this article about a potential "farm team" system for publishing. The fact that it's on MSN/Newsweek feed, made me cringe. Because whether we know we're doing it or not, when we read about something that sounds like "hope" for those aspiring to be published from a reputable source, we tend to think it's a good thing...even when it feels awfully shady.
In a nutshell, Chronicle will now refer rejected manuscripts from its slush pile to self-publishing company, Blurb. The two toot their horns about this great new venture because now Blurb gets a cache of authors to pay for their services, who may otherwise, once rejected by Chronicle, move on to the next traditional publisher.
If you can ignore the fact that the author then goes on to pay for everything from editing to promo (possibly ending up having to sell an eighty-page book for $30) and may not even get an ISBN for their financial investment it's a "win-win" for everyone.
Everyone except the author!
Chronicle gets a kick back for the referrals who end up actually "signing" with Blurb. And of course Blurb is making money hand over fast for doing little more than ushering the author through the POD process.
Look, I get it. America was built on people making money off of hopes and dreams. But it's ridiculous to tout this venture as a "win-win," when the author so obviously is getting the screws put to them.
There are plenty of other POD and self-publishing companies that will not only offer more "services" than Blurb but will do so cheaper.
There's no doubt that at some point, the self-publishing paradigm and the traditional publishing method will find a way to merge into a hybrid. But I shudder to think this will be it.
What is Chronicle getting paid for exactly? For sending a list of names to Blurb? For reading the first 10-50 pages of a manuscript and deciding it's not right for them, but is right to collect a "residual" from as long as the author is willing to dish out the cash?
It's disheartening. As a society sworn to capitalistic indulgences, I get that Chronicle has found a new revenue stream. But it's infuriating that they've found one that doesn't seem to benefit the author at all.
The article is positioned as if they're giving a potential E. Lynn Harris a chance to be heard. But again, there are less expensive companies out there willing to do the same.
If this were a venture that were about giving voice to the unheard, they would have partnered with a company whose services were broader and priced closer to "market value."
If I read this wrong or am misinterpreting the venture, someone please...let me know.
Edited to add:
Sarah Williams at Chronicle Books reports that "the information in the Newsweek article was incorrect... Chronicle Books will not receive a referral fee for recommending Blurb.com to aspiring authors or artists.
"Chronicle will provide a landing page from our website to which our editors may refer authors or artists whose works they feel are a good match for Blurb.com. For their part, Blurb.com will offer us discoveries they might make in terms of online trends, notably how consumers are finding books online. There are many self-publishing options in the marketplace, though far fewer for illustrated book authors and artists. As an independent illustrated book publisher in San Francisco, Chronicle Books felt an affinity for the locally-based Blurb.com and the quality of the product it is offering the public."
posted by Paula at 1:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home