Further to MJ’s point on the topic of risk, I wrote a two-part post a few months ago that might contribute the discussion. The first is an allegory for how publishers are like venture capitalists (it’s also a word game to play in your word processor), and the second talks about how in the future, more of the risk of publishing will shift to the author.

http://blog.smashwords.com/2009/04/why-book-publishing-is-like-venture.html

http://blog.smashwords.com/2009/04/future-of-book-publishing-risk-shifts.html

http://www.selfpublishingreview.com/2009/09/02/self-publishing-best-idea-ever/

Truth to power!

Independent publishing in the sciences is, I think, very different from mass-market fiction. As I noted in the post, we can keep our place if we’re good gatekeepers and marketers, but we’ll probably want to re-examine our abilities given the new options. HarperStudio changed their model after waking up to the modern world. We might want to think differently, too.

And you’re right, POD for color is still prohibitively expensive. Some university presses are using POD themselves to avoid warehousing and returns, mostly for humanities titles. There are a lot of options out there, and dabbling in them is probably a good idea.

Most important is your point about authors just skipping the book outright and going for the blog or online resource approach. We have a mental model of books as a “cut above,” an enduring, important resource, but the book’s utility in reference, education, and specialist information exchange could change quickly. Why not make a great iPhone application instead?

Writer Beware
http://accrispin.blogspot.com/
Just like the title says: Writer Beware.

Self-publishing review
http://theselfpublishingreview.blogspot.com/
The blog’s author, an editorial professional, reads and reviews self-pub books.

I’m not sure how relevant some of the lessons from the mainstream publishing houses are though. In my own experience, there’s generally a huge difference in the material we produce and the authors who write for us, and someone who is writing fiction/non-fiction as their primary occupation. For example, our authors are scientists, and any book they do is an extra, on top of their “real” job. Putting together a comprehensive reference book on a subject takes a huge amount of work beyond what you’d put into a novel; fact-checking, reference-checking, indexing, creating and editing figures, formatting tables, putting together appendices of material safety sheet data, etc., not to mention design, typography and things like that. Most of our authors are already far too busy to begin with, so putting together a book is beyond what they can possibly fit into their schedules. They expect us to do a lot of the heavy lifting. We can create a better, more coherent and more physically attractive book than they can on their own. What we offer goes beyond gatekeeping and marketing.

That question of quality is important here–that’s something we can provide that they can’t get through dabbling in their spare time and using POD technology. Most authors are writing books with us because it’s good for the field in which they work, and because it adds a level of prestige to their careers. They want the book to be beautiful, they want it to include a website of movies and teaching tools. They want lots and lots of high quality color images. As I understand it, color is prohibitively expensive for a lot of POD systems (Kent, do you know if this is still the case–If so, then it’s often a non-starter for science books that need color illustrations). Most authors aren’t writing books with us because they hope to get rich from them. They do get paid royalties, and are appreciative of the extra income, but given the size of the niche markets we serve, no one is turning into Stephen King. The profit motive is far below the desire to be the definitive voice on a subject.

As far as promotion, we do ask our authors to help promote their books, although no one does a book tour to promote a new lab manual. The online activities you mention are not something that costs an author out of pocket. We do everything possible to save our authors work, and to keep them happy, and given the number who return to publish subsequent editions or new books, I haven’t seen this disgruntled undercurrent you’re seeing.

Scientists do self-publish books, though they’re often for very small niche markets, things we couldn’t afford to take on. There’s also the small but very vocal minority who prefer to keep things open and freely accessible–that’s a more likely trend to watch for, the creation of free online resources, rather than self-published books sold for profit.

That said, once I had it, I could execute to it. I still rely on it, but the adjustments are more subtle now. I’ve dialed it in. I would never go out without it, but its role has changed. Admittedly, I’m writing a series, so major advice about character development, tone, style, and whatnot was necessary early. Now, it’s about remaining true to character, refining new characters, and those little things an author thinks will be apparent to a reader but aren’t.

Most traditional authors don’t earn out even $5K advances with their sales, and I’d hate to see the list of books currently with agents who are “running the clock” on their authors, realizing their books weren’t as marketable as they’d hoped but with time left on their agreement to represent them. Well, I take that back — I’d love to see that list.

my hope is that if this trend of de-centralizing publishing/gatekeeping continues, self-publishing authors won’t ‘cheap out’. i’ve read a couple of self-published books by authors who really can write — but whose work would have been so much better had they hired an editor. i’m not an editor, and in principle couldn’t care less about editors’ job security. it’s simply a necessary service — and priceless when performed well. that second set of professional eyes is hugely important for a text’s transition from the author’s brain to the reader’s.

Part of the reason I self-published was to experiment, to immerse myself in what seemed to be an emerging (and logical) trend. Now that I’ve been doing this for over 6 months, I’ve learned a few things.

For one, I think even established authors are taking another look at their options these days. Authors are publishing their royalty statements to show just what kind of deal they’re getting as “best-selling” authors (and, it ain’t so good); complaining about publisher lack of support; experimenting with independent and traditional approaches simultaneously (and finding a lot of positives in the independent approach); and making hard comparisons between the numbers and creative freedom.

Independent or self-publishing has been stigmatized as just “slush pile,” and much of it consisted of bad memoirs by grandpa, unreadable books about spiritual journeys, etc. But as high-quality authors have stepped forward, that stigma has faded, and in some cases has been eliminated. The best independent authors hire designers for their covers, editors for their content, and get feedback from multiple readers in their target audience before publishing. I’ve recently become part of a cooperative of very good independent authors called Backword Books. Take a look at those titles — plot- and character-driven, by excellent writers, with plenty to appeal to various audiences. This is what independent publishing is beginning to look like.

As I said in the post, this is happening faster than people expected. It’s hard for readers to keep up with the changing landscape. I hope this helped.