Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Rebel Inks says: we don't really want self publishers

My opinion has always been that published versus self-published is a way to describe a book, not an author.  there is nothing at all to stop authors from pursuing both options. Unless of course your publisher invests in your career so thoroughly and successfully that it is only fair to work exclusively with them in return.

Rebel Ink, on the other hand, thinks that "We prefer to work with authors that are interested in developing a professional relationship in lieu of self-publishing.  While self-publishing can be a worthwhile and enriching endeavor, it is our experience that authors do best with both feet firmly planted in one world or the other, not both."

For any author preparing to have that conversation with them I would recommend asking: so, what's in it for me?  Other than the same thing that every other small e-publisher is providing, that is.  Me, personally?  I think authors working in the small press arena are wise to diversify.

4 comments:

Amber said...

Translation: We lost our best authors to self publishing.

Good publishers keep authors by treating them right and helping them achieve good sales. Not by trying to dictate what they do outside the confines of the contract.

Emily Veinglory said...

It stands to reason that to keep authors from defecting to self-publishing, you need to offer them something better than self-publishing -- *or* be willing to harmonize with their self-publishing efforts rather than see them as competition.

Claude Lagang said...

YES. Emily was right "you need to offer them something better than self-publishing"

Angie said...

I always appreciate it when publishers let me know whom I should stay away from. Nice of them to help me with that.

Angie