Picture Book Self-Publishing Resources Callout

Hey lovely readers! I work with a lot of clients as a freelance editor who are looking to publish their picture books independently. They often ask me for resources to help them with their endeavor, and so I’m compiling a list. For this particular list, I’m looking for services specific to picture books.

Where you come in: Have you personally worked with any self-publishing service provider to produce your independent picture book? Did you have a good experience?

I’m looking to hear about:

  • Typography and layout designers
  • Printers
  • Cover designers
  • Hybrid publishing houses
  • Marketing services

I am looking for personal experiences here. For this reason, I am obviously much less inclined to hear from PR people and representatives from various companies and publishers.

Please leave some testimonials and links in the comments for me to research, or email me at mary at kidlit dot com. Thanks so much for your help!

One Last Self-Publishing Post

A lot of great comments have been flying around on my two previous self-publishing posts (post 1, post 2). And a lot of great points have been brought up. There’s one last thing I really want to delve into on the subject of self-publishing before I let this one drop. Let me be perfectly clear: I do not think publishing is perfect.

It is one thing to be published, it is another thing, entirely, to be published well. What does being “published well” mean? That you get in bookstores, that readers hear about your book, that you get both old school (print ads, radio) and new school (web, social networking) advertising and media attention, that you start building a brand, that you generate sales numbers, that you, ideally, earn out your advance (if any) and earn royalties.

And I would say that not all books, by far, are published well. One of the biggest problems with traditional publishers is that far too many don’t give the books on their list the time or attention necessary to generate sales. It is not a secret that a push from the publisher in terms of publicity will correlate positively with a book’s relative success in the marketplace. In fact, this correlation could be as high as 70%, meaning, if a book receives above-average publicity from its publisher, there’s a 70% chance that it will get media attention, have good sales numbers, etc.

Publishers can definitely make a book a success. That begs the questions, though: Why don’t they do that for each book? Why publish a book if you can’t publish it well? This is definitely one shortcoming of the traditional model, and one big frustration for everyone involved. It’s not that publishers are purposefully withholding their marketing money or attention. It may look like that since, in recent years, marketing budgets have gotten smaller and smaller. There are fewer book tours and advertising placements, fewer book review opportunities and media appearances. The industry is changing. And houses publish many, many books. Not all of them have the same chances to reach a huge market. Publishing professionals always hope for the best, plan for the worst, and know that every product is a risk. (For more great thoughts on “What’s wrong with traditional publishing these days?” go over to Barry Lyga’s blog. He just did a really intelligent series on this topic.)

Traditional publishing is not a perfect system — far from it — but at least there are others on your team. In self-publishing situations, more than traditional publishing, you are all aspects of a house. You are the writer, the editors, the designer, the printer, the sales force, the publicist, the marketer, the distributor. Successful traditionally published authors do wear some or most of these hats these days, but they do have contacts and channels for their outreach and promotion work through their publishers and agents.

So whether you’re using the traditional publishing machine or self-publishing resources, it’s not the tools that matter, it’s how you use them. In many industries where people are creating a product to sell to other people (at the end of the day, that’s what a book is), entrepreneurship is becoming more and more important. Since traditional publishers are putting less behind some of the books they publish, and since self-publishing is absolutely self-driven, all authors need to become more proactive about the products they create.

I don’t believe that traditional publishing is over. But I do firmly believe that the old days of the recluse genius sitting in some attic, who only writes and doesn’t do a lick of outreach or publicity, are gone. There are too many enthusiastic, driven people out there who will gladly talk about their products all over town. I don’t think you can afford — whether traditionally published or self-published — to shy away from promotion. (A tough situation for some bookish types, since some artists tend to be shy. But there’s a blog for even those writers! It’s called Shrinking Violet Promotions. Seriously. Everyone needs to get in the game these days.)

The marketplace and technology are showing the holes in traditional publishing. This industry is not, by any means, immune to the same upheaval as happened in the music business when digital music and iTunes came in. Traditional publishing needs to embrace new technologies and models of publishing instead of deny that they’re competition. Traditional publishing needs to bend in the direction of the future. But authors need to heed this warning, too. Take classes on marketing. Start learning about publicity tools and how to use them. You can no longer rely entirely on your publishing-system-of-choice to get your book out there. Even if you are traditionally published, take a look at what self-published writers are doing. Adopt some of that entrepreneurial spirit. Find some of that dogged determination.

There are a great many thing to be learned from each side. Traditional publishing writers can learn the entrepreneurial zeal of self-published writers. Self-published writers can strive toward the same dedication to editorial and design quality that traditional publishers uphold.

Don’t rely solely on your publisher to publish you well. Never rest on your laurels and think your job as a writer, publicist, editor, marketer, book distributor, salesperson of a product, is done. Publishing is a career that’s passion-driven. Most people really don’t get into it for the riches or the acclaim. They get into it because they can’t do anything else. That should give you the right idea about work ethic. And whether you publish traditionally or you self-publish, I think that being published well should always be your goal and highest standard.

Self-Publishing Then and Now

I love my blog and I love my readers. But whenever I post on something with wider implications to the publishing landscape, I always get new readers who come and rabble-rouse in the comments. Don’t get me wrong. I love getting new readers. And new readers can agree with me or not. In fact, I love it when they bring intelligent dispute into the comments. But if I post on anything contentious, I can guarantee that I’ll get some new readers who just want to vent their spleens. This happened in the comments for yesterday’s post. I would usually let it go, but the pro-self-publishing argument some of them are saying is just ridiculous, so allow me a quick rebuttal.

These people are citing the literary geniuses of old who self-published their books in a completely different era, as if it had any bearing on what is going on right now. (As Thomas pointed out in comments. Thanks!)

I really hope that my readers, who I know are savvy about today’s publishing realities, can tell the difference between self-publishing, readership, distribution, and publicity then, when self-publishing was one of the only options available to writers (and called for a large money and time investment, as it still does), and those same elements of the book trade now.

It’s a totally irrelevant argument because the industry of publishing and technology in general have changed so much. Sure, Walt Whitman self-published. But I bet he didn’t code his poetry into an interactive iPhone app that he tried to hawk for $2.99 per download. In fact, if I delve into Walt Whitman’s history of self-publishing Leaves of Grass (on Wikipedia…I have a lot of stuff to do this morning), it says, “The first edition of Leaves of Grass was widely distributed and stirred up significant interest.”

So that’s where, already, the story of self-publishing in the old days is different from self-publishing in the 21st century. On two very crucial points: distribution, and significant interest. Back then, books were more difficult to come by than they are now. Most people could become a visible competitor on the playing field just by showing up. And the printed word was usually the only way for people to express themselves publicly. Now, anyone can start a blog (hi there!) and rant. Back then, you had to get up on an actual soapbox and shout or you had to self-publish a pamphlet, book, or article. Whole towns could start a lively discussion based on one pamphlet that got read, passed on, distributed widely. People would clutch books and pamphlets to their chests and duel about them in the town square, for crying out loud! If only today’s self-published, or traditionally published, for that matter (more on this on Monday), books could stir such passion!

It’s interesting that self-publishing used to be the norm and, now that traditional publishing is in flux, the curve is arcing back toward self-publishing again, but, other than that, all the sarcasm about literature’s greatest voices self-publishing is really just silly. These people are acting like I’m personally trying to silence Virginia Woolf. Puh-lease.

And, guess what? Who publishes the greats of yore now so that they they can enjoy a mass audience? You can bet it’s not Lulu.com. That’s right. Traditional publishers. I’m sure that James Joyce and Charles Dickens aren’t rolling over in their graves when they see their work on shelves around the world.

Also, to the guy who made the huge list of classic books that got rejected…that’s not an argument for self-publishing. That’s a fact of life. EVERY SINGLE BOOK AND AUTHOR THAT IS PUBLISHED TODAY HAS GOTTEN REJECTED AT LEAST ONCE. Stephenie Meyer. Jo Rowling. Stephen King. James Patterson. For every publisher who buys a project, there are at least five or six who pass on it (either because they reject it outright or they get outbid and miss their chance).

Which only goes to prove perhaps my biggest point about publishing in general, one I’ve made many times on this blog: publishing and writing and literature are subjective. Some people love self-publishing. Others don’t. To each his or her own.

But as I’ve alluded a few times in this post and in comments, I’m going to talk a little bit more about self-publishing on Monday, and then I will leave this be and get back to other posts.