tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8275104442398599121.post3422101423305784135..comments2023-08-21T02:23:54.992-05:00Comments on Timothy's Thoughts: The Blacklisted PublisherTimothy Fishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06554064732811895577noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8275104442398599121.post-62740249205965425542009-12-10T05:32:32.045-06:002009-12-10T05:32:32.045-06:00Deb,
While your point about POD is well taken (an...Deb,<br /><br />While your point about POD is well taken (and yes, in this case, I did mean Print On Demand rather than Publish On Demand), the vast majority of titles produced by Print On Demand companies like Lightning Source and On-Demand Publishing, a subsidiary of Amazon.com, are either self-published or published by a small press. This enables us to get a pretty good idea of what is going on in this segment of the industry.<br /><br />As for how the RWA would vote if this issue came to a vote of the association, I'll admit that I could be wrong. I don't have my finger on the pulse of the RWA. But my thought concerning that is that there is some degree of publisher loyalty among authors. If the RITA has any value at all, I would tend to think that authors who write for Harlequin would think twice about voting to exclude their own traditionally published books from consideration, simply because Harlequin has opened a vanity press imprint. But like I said, I could be wrong.Timothy Fishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06554064732811895577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8275104442398599121.post-54352410550755383262009-12-09T20:51:02.525-06:002009-12-09T20:51:02.525-06:00Let's get a couple points clarified. POD is no...Let's get a couple points clarified. POD is not a publishing/vanity model. It is a printing technology. Don't confuse POD printing with self- or vanity-publishing, 'cause they're not synonymous. <br /><br />Next, when RWA delists a publisher, they do it because it failed to meet, or stopped meeting, specific criteria the organization set up a long time ago. Like, when e-publishers first surfaced, there was a lot of agony about whether the books could be called "published" and the authors be acknowledged as having written a published book. The conclusion was, "We know! We'll make it advance dependent so the smaller presses and e-presses won't qualify!"<br /><br />A couple of small presses did qualify, early on, so they tightened the criteria and excluded them.<br /><br />Now, RWA has no choice but to delist Harlequin--and Nelson also--because they decided long ago that no press with a vanity arm can be called a legit venue for the career-minded romance writer.<br /><br />It WAS unanimous. They don't put these things, or much else of any weight, to the membership because they don't need to. And most of the members' notes I've seen on multiple blogs have come out strongly in favor of RWA's stance vis-a-vis both Harlequin and Nelson.<br /><br />Making money isn't the only criterion when a business makes a decision. It shouldn't be.Debhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13100565897627429788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8275104442398599121.post-31810025005655933752009-12-08T01:02:41.723-06:002009-12-08T01:02:41.723-06:00I agree that the video makes some very good points...I agree that the video makes some very good points. I don't know enough about this to really have a strong opinion, but I have been in the distribution business for a long time (not in publishing) and all I can say is business is business. To survive, a business has to keep up with trends and try new things when they see profits declining. The publishers are out to make money and that's what they are interested in. If the product is good literature that's a bonus, but if it sells that's better. These publishers are looking for every angle they can to make money and that's going to be their first concern-- needs of the authors are probably down the list a ways. Authors will have to adapt to the changes as well. Thanks for sharing that video.<br />LeeArlee Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11663942782929929334noreply@blogger.com