Conventional, self publisher, author services, subsidy press, or vanity press?

We are once again challenged to define what makes a publisher a “legitimate” publisher by the recent dust-up – as yet unresolved – created by the Romance Writers Association’s disqualification of Tsaba Press authors for its award competitions. It did so because it decided the Press is a “subsidy” house.

This writer is satisfied beyond doubt that Tsaba is the archetype of a small independent commercial publisher that fulfills all of the requirements for such a classification. It is neither a vanity, self-publishing or author-services enterprise. It does not charge authors a fee to be published. It is accepted by the Library of Congress for cataloging in publication (which does not accept subsidy publishers), and it is distributed by STL, the largest Christian publishing distributor in the U.S.

So, what is the problem? It may rest in the democratization of the industry due to technologies that have made it easy for thousands of new publishers to come on line each year and hard to identify their business standing.

There was a time, say twenty five years ago, when the book industry recognized in the main three kinds of business models: conventional publishing, self-publishing and vanity publishing. These in turn could be grouped as top tier commercial publishers (the “big ten” with revenues of over $500 million in today’s dollars) , second tier (the next 750 with revenues of over $50 million), and some 10,000 independents, non-profits and vanity with revenues from $50,000 to $50 million.

Vanity publishing was a no-no, and still is, as far as the commercial book industry is concerned: a no-no because the business model exploits authors who seek a commercial market by implying commercial outcomes that they can’t deliver, and by requiring large investments in pre-press and first printings with no screening for literary merit or prospects of reaching any market.

Self-publishing was, and is seen by some to be in a gray area of legitimacy because of the lack of an arms-length risk investment by a third party entrepreneur and of an editorial quality-control gateway that will critique an author’s manuscript without fear or favor.

The up-side that tilts self-publishing on the side of legitimate commercial publishing is that the self-publisher often engages professional editorial and design outsources, risks an investment and takes on promotion and marketing with the intention of commercial success, or the expectation of absorbing losses, and with full knowledge that it depends on his own promise . Occasionally a self publisher will also build a diversely authored publishing list around his or her titles.

Both self-publishing and vanity publishing are variants of “subsidy” publishing, along with author investments and partnerships that otherwise conventional, third-party publishers will occasionally make to bring costly works with limited sales potential into the market. These “subsidy” models, however, do involve host publisher risk, as they require the full devotion of the publisher’s infrastructure, and they also reflect upon the quality of the publisher’s overall list.

Now, in the era of electronic and demand printing, the barrier to entry has lowered substantially – it is possible to bring a title into print electronically with virtually no infrastructure investment or inventory – sell first and print later.

As a result, a significant industry niche has emerged in the form of author services or author-driven publishers such as Author House, iUniverse, Lulu, Book Surge, Infinity, XLibris, to name but a few. Their business models offer authors a complete publishing service at low cost, using the sell first print later model. They do provide a legitimate marketing and internet distribution model which is not exploitive. They have provided logistical backbone to the thousands of aspiring author/publishers who enter the lists each year, using professional outsource consultants and services, and joining PMA, SPAN or the many regional independent publishing groups for support and education.

They contribute to the flood of some 200,000 or more new titles published each year. (As staggering as this figure may be, good books do emerge and often later get picked up by conventional publishers. They also win book awards from time to time.)

So, one imagines that the Romance Writers Association, as sponsors of the RITA and Golden Heart awards, for published and unpublished writers respectively, would be concerned over how to screen in advance whether candidates had passed professional muster in the industry.

The RWA criterion for entry is that “Books must be published by a publisher that is a non–Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher. An eligible entry must meet these criteria:” With so many new and therefore relatively unknown publishers entering the lists each year, an entry’s provenance may not be self evident relying simply on the entrant’s claim. So, in the case of Tsaba, RWA asked for backup demonstrating they Tsaba was, indeed, not a vanity of subsidy publisher.

Tsaba submitted a copy of its boilerplate contract which included the traditional provisions requiring authors to cover the costs of any artwork or additional manuscript copies, indexes, author changes to proofs, and revisions to a new edition if the author was unable or unwilling to provide the revision.

RWA classified Tsaba as a subsidy publisher on the basis of these provisions. A quick trip to the Authors Guild Model Trade Book Contract and Guide would have confirmed that provisions such as these are part of every standard publication agreement.

Tsaba’s grievance, beyond having its romance authors disqualified from competition, is that to be deemed a subsidy publisher by a reputable professional organization is demeaning to its business standing and its ability to recruit authors. As I have shown, given the way “vanity” or “subsidy” publishing is viewed by the industry, RWA clearly has good reason to impose its filter. Having exercised that right, RWA also has a responsibility to exercise it prudently and fairly. It does not appear, on the surface, that they have done so.

Various appeals have been made to RWA to reconsider its designation of Tsaba as a subsidy press, including one by this writer in behalf of ForeWord Magazine. It will be interesting to learn of their response when it is forthcoming.