ally the volume of sales, in this case, would be too low for traditional publishers. It is an excellent way to reinforce your "expertise" and make additional money after the seminar.

Authors of books that deal with subjects or material considered too controversial for traditional publishers. Traditional publishers are litigation-shy and have a big stable of titles to defend. They don't want to jeopardize their stable for a book that is too close to the edge.

Authors who have talent and a good product but haven't been able to match up with a traditional publisher interested in new talent. Most publishers are mega-corporations and, like such beasts elsewhere, adopt f

There are some reviewers, literary critics, and traditional publishers who believe that self-publishing (SP), in all its varieties, is for the unprofessional and untalented author. Self-published authors have not faced any critical review of their work, and the companies that do self-publishing are motivated by money rather than the quality of the work! me There is definitely some truth to this but it applies equally to some of the traditional publishing houses. These houses have, over the last 10 years or so, maintained an unhealthy fixation on "Best Sellers" and on the "bottom line"--none of them have said they are not interested in making money. Many in the publishing industry are concerned about this trend and about the trend that the bigger houses have become too removed from the general writing population.

Clearly there are differences between self-publishers and the major publishing houses. The major houses have editors who edit the books. The major houses pay for the production costs, start to finish, for their authors. The major houses have good distribution systems and will heavily advertise books they feel will break through and beco "Best Sellers."

It is naive to think that authors taken on by the major houses are not paying for their books to be published. These authors do pay to get their work published--and pay and pay and pay. They receive royalties (as low as 10%) on actual book sales. The author also loses a great amount of control re copyright, editorial, graphic, and marketing decisions. The accounting practices of some major houses have left some authors waiting for months to be paid or to have recalculations and holdbacks on their advances. It is not until you become an important and saleable author that you can negotiate to make the traditional publishing houses deals more equitable.

After sorting through all the debate, there are some valid criticisms that can be directed at self-publishing authors and firms. Those valid points are: Unprofessional editing, formatting, and printing.

Who Should Self-Publish?

Authors who want to receive a higher financial reward and maintain control over their material; i.e., not signing away copyright to a publisher. Traditional publishers, as mentioned above, are notorious for paying low royalty fees and for slow payment.

An author who has written a book that will appeal to a very small but important audience. Traditional publishers have no interest in esoteric and overly specific books--the economics of their distribution and pricing system make them a non-sector from the start.

People who have specific expertise and offer consultations and/or seminars to their clients. Usually the volume of sales, in this case, would be too low for traditional publishers. It is an excellent way to reinforce your "expertise" and make additional money after the seminar.

Authors of books that deal with subjects or material considered too controversial for traditional publishers. Traditional publishers are litigation-shy and have a big stable of titles to defend. They don't want to jeopardize their stable for a book that is too close to the edge.

Authors who have talent and a good product but haven't been able to match up with a traditional publisher interested in new talent. Most publishers are mega-corporations and, like such beasts elsewhere, adopt fo

ustry are concerned about this trend and about the trend that the bigger houses have become too removed from the general writing population.

Clearly there are differences between self-publishers and the major publishing houses. The major houses have editors who edit the books. The major houses pay for the production costs, start to finish, for their authors. The major houses have good distribution systems and will heavily advertise books they feel will break through and beco "Best Sellers."

It is naive to think that authors taken on by the major houses are not paying for their books to be published. These authors do pay to get their work published--and pay and pay and pay. They receive royalties (as low as 10%) on actual book sales. The author also loses a great amount of control re copyright, editorial, graphic, and marketing decisions. The accounting practices of some major houses have left some authors waiting for months to be paid or to have recalculations and holdbacks on their advances. It is not until you become an important and saleable author that you can negotiate to make the traditional publishing houses deals more equitable.

After sorting through all the debate, there are some valid criticisms that can be directed at self-publishing authors and firms. Those valid points are: Unprofessional editing, formatting, and printing.

Who Should Self-Publish?

Authors who want to receive a higher financial reward and maintain control over their material; i.e., not signing away copyright to a publisher. Traditional publishers, as mentioned above, are notorious for paying low royalty fees and for slow payment.

An author who has written a book that will appeal to a very small but important audience. Traditional publishers have no interest in esoteric and overly specific books--the economics of their distribution and pricing system make them a non-sector from the start.

People who have specific expertise and offer consultations and/or seminars to their clients. Usually the volume of sales, in this case, would be too low for traditional publishers. It is an excellent way to reinforce your "expertise" and make additional money after the seminar.

Authors of books that deal with subjects or material considered too controversial for traditional publishers. Traditional publishers are litigation-shy and have a big stable of titles to defend. They don't want to jeopardize their stable for a book that is too close to the edge.

Authors who have talent and a good product but haven't been able to match up with a traditional publisher interested in new talent. Most publishers are mega-corporations and, like such beasts elsewhere, adopt f

and pay. They receive royalties (as low as 10%) on actual book sales. The author also loses a great amount of control re copyright, editorial, graphic, and marketing decisions. The accounting practices of some major houses have left some authors waiting for months to be paid or to have recalculations and holdbacks on their advances. It is not until you become an important and saleable author that you can negotiate to make the traditional publishing houses deals more equitable.

After sorting through all the debate, there are some valid criticisms that can be directed at self-publishing authors and firms. Those valid points are: Unprofessional editing, formatting, and printing.

Who Should Self-Publish?

Authors who want to receive a higher financial reward and maintain control over their material; i.e., not signing away copyright to a publisher. Traditional publishers, as mentioned above, are notorious for paying low royalty fees and for slow payment.

An author who has written a book that will appeal to a very small but important audience. Traditional publishers have no interest in esoteric and overly specific books--the economics of their distribution and pricing system make them a non-sector from the start.

People who have specific expertise and offer consultations and/or seminars to their clients. Usually the volume of sales, in this case, would be too low for traditional publishers. It is an excellent way to reinforce your "expertise" and make additional money after the seminar.

Authors of books that deal with subjects or material considered too controversial for traditional publishers. Traditional publishers are litigation-shy and have a big stable of titles to defend. They don't want to jeopardize their stable for a book that is too close to the edge.

Authors who have talent and a good product but haven't been able to match up with a traditional publisher interested in new talent. Most publishers are mega-corporations and, like such beasts elsewhere, adopt f

ting.

Who Should Self-Publish?

Authors who want to receive a higher financial reward and maintain control over their material; i.e., not signing away copyright to a publisher. Traditional publishers, as mentioned above, are notorious for paying low royalty fees and for slow payment.

An author who has written a book that will appeal to a very small but important audience. Traditional publishers have no interest in esoteric and overly specific books--the economics of their distribution and pricing system make them a non-sector from the start.

People who have specific expertise and offer consultations and/or seminars to their clients. Usually the volume of sales, in this case, would be too low for traditional publishers. It is an excellent way to reinforce your "expertise" and make additional money after the seminar.

Authors of books that deal with subjects or material considered too controversial for traditional publishers. Traditional publishers are litigation-shy and have a big stable of titles to defend. They don't want to jeopardize their stable for a book that is too close to the edge.

Authors who have talent and a good product but haven't been able to match up with a traditional publisher interested in new talent. Most publishers are mega-corporations and, like such beasts elsewhere, adopt f

ally the volume of sales, in this case, would be too low for traditional publishers. It is an excellent way to reinforce your "expertise" and make additional money after the seminar.

Authors of books that deal with subjects or material considered too controversial for traditional publishers. Traditional publishers are litigation-shy and have a big stable of titles to defend. They don't want to jeopardize their stable for a book that is too close to the edge.

Authors who have talent and a good product but haven't been able to match up with a traditional publisher interested in new talent. Most publishers are mega-corporations and, like such beasts elsewhere, adopt formulas of success; i.e., "best-seller syndrome" and are very reluctant to try out an untested author.

Authors who want to avoid the bureaucratic and slow machinations of the large publishers.

Who Should Not Self-Publish?

Authors who firmly believe they have a book of wide appeal and great saleability. The backing of a large publishing house partnered with extensive distribution makes this a virtual no-brainer for the confident. The economics of self-publishing favors small production runs, reducing the availability and eventual profitability of a successful book.

Authors who are unable or unwilling to champion their own work. Believe it or not there are writers out there who would be afraid to ask their own friends, relatives, and colleagues to buy their books..

Authors with limited financial assets. The cost of self-publishing does not have to be high; it can be less than $500 if properly set up by the author. (The usual cost will be around $1500.) Some struggling authors would not have this cash:JK Rowling, who was on social assistance when she wrote the first Harry Potter book, is a good example.