Based on the various posts and articles on this hot debate, the general advice is:

First try to traditionally publish, they take care of everything and put the book though the wringer to make it a more salable product, distribute through channels you can't access and reach a great lot more readers than you ever could. Plus, there is a stronger validation and status symbol as a traditionally published author. In exchange of their expertise, however, they grant the author very low royalties' rates. It also may take a couple of years before you see the book in print, and longer before they deem fit to release any royalties to you.
If after up to a year you receive only negative, or non existent, replies, re-take a good critical look at your book, the problem may be there. If you are still convinced that the ms is fine as is and should have been picked for publication, then self-publish.
Once you have a backlist of 5 books or more and an established readership, the choice becomes harder and that 70% self-publishing royalty rate has never been so alluring. Some authors choose an exclusive side, but most use both resources and may use self-publishing for out of print books, un-commercial novellas, novel's companions, or books from the rejected pile.
Also, although some sources argue that there are bridges between the 2 camps, it is rarely true. If you self-publish you have used-up your First Publications Rights, so the book may only be taken up by a traditional publisher if sales are stellar.

As to your second question:

"As I understand it, 'breaking into the business' is expensive in terms of time. If I have a decent product should I put in the effort, or is self-publishing (e.g. with Amazon) enough?"

Some self-important authors clamor, rant, argue, campaign and generally foam-at-the-mouth with marketing pro-activity.

They are so convinced that their book is a marvel that they flog that poor horse until it is nothing but bones. Marketing is not a cure-all; if your project doesn't sell well, fold and repeat. As a writer your job is to write and marketing is a very far fourth or fifth priority. Steven King says it takes about 1 million edited words, or about 10 books to start to master writing.

So, instead of being a quixotic character fighting giants to be heard over the general silence their mediocrity engenders, burn that pile of dung and write us a fresh one.

Some non-fiction books can gain great exposure with an aggressive marketing campaign, but less so for novels. If you are a fiction writer, your job is to write. So, don't go losing time shoving your product down unto reticent throats.

Yet, some effort on your part is warranted for self-published works. A self-published author is a jack-of-all-trades entrepreneur.

It takes quite some timer to self-edit, to format the manuscript in different e-formats, to design the cover art….

As to Marketing, without going over board you need at least some. So, use social networks like Facebook, create an author web-page, blog from time to time…

I hope this was helpful.

EDIT 1, the cover...

Speaking of book covers, I can’t emphasize its importance enough. Many authors who put great time into writing, editing and marketing their books literally shoot themselves in the foot with a substandard amateurish book cover.

People do judge books by their covers. It is one of the great difference between self-published and traditional publishing. That is also why traditional Houses normally do not allow the author to have any creative control over the cover design. It is just too damn important, much more important than the book content as far as the publisher is concerned.

The cover is what sells, not the content!

or as David Aldridge rephrases: "The cover gets it off the shelf, the first part of the content makes the sale."

The content is there to generate a satisfied reader, a fan base, repeat business and recommendations. But the decision to buy is mostly based on looks, i.e. the first impression: the book cover, jacket hook, synopsis, and sometimes a couple of paragraphs. Even an established writer and famous publishing house only marginally help make the decision to buy.

So, either buy a professionally made cover art, or learn to use Photoshop or Illustrator like a pro.

N.B. obviously, since most kindle book covers are black and white, this doesn't apply as much in that case.

EDIT 2, from comments

Does anyone have any backing for the "Some trad. houses even tend to reject new manuscripts by previously self-published authors,(...)" part? It feels like a rumour more than a fact, to me

I edited it out since some feel that unsourced material is worthless. also some other books say the reverse.

my original post was

"Some traditional houses even tend to reject new manuscripts by previously self-published begining or early carrer authors, so you may have to send the manuscript through an alias to start with a clean slate with those traditional publishers."

I read it somewhere and it also makes sense given my understanding of human nature. Since i can't find the source and some posters disagree, i deleted that though i beleive it applies.

You rolled back the "over 90% of the profits" edit - do you have a source for THAT number? Because again, from personal experience, 90% isn't a good number

I beleive that Over 90% of sales is a good approximation that illustrates that the publishers take most of the money. Yet, given that several people disagree with that approximation and perfer a vague statement, i edited it out.

If you prefer vagueness over approximation, then the publishers take an arm and a leg, demand a pirate’s ransom, get the lion’s share and ride the gravy train while the author gets pin money, chicken feed, or a gnat's eyelash worth of royalties.

My personal experience is that there's no trouble going from self-pubbed to trade pubbed, so in the absence of any authority to the contrary, I feel like we should delete that line. Thoughts?

As for the traditional publishers versus self-published rivalry, or lack of thereof, I feel that it depends. Human beings are subjective and very judgy. It is like dating, and judging someone using internet dating over the real thing, some will think there is something wrong with that person, else why would he/she use online services.

If the present manuscript is judged only on its own merit, then yes it is a product and there is no issue as to its provenance. However, if it is the author who is evaluated by an agent, a publishing editor, or the likes, who is aiming to establish a long term relationship, or building up name recognition, then yes I believe it greatly matters. The Q may arise, if they chose self-publishing before, that there is something wrong with their writings, or something else.

Yes that attitude may be slowly changing, but we are biased and the image of that horrendous vanity-press book that an emaciated nervous wreck of a peddling author is trying to shame us into buying is still haunting our collective minds.

So, if the majority of opinions say that there is no problem going back and forth between the two, I am glad to offer a different perspective that could potentially be of use to some.

Also, I tried to be relatively objective in this A. I personally wouldn’t use traditional publishers, not only because of the meager royalties but because of time. None of us is getting younger and I am not going to wait 2-3 years after finishing a book to see it published, by then I would have written other books and moved on to other projects. That industry is a dinosaur scheduled for extinction.

---

(0)

Login to post a comment!