Self-Publishing Debate

Publishers Weekly published an article on their Web site today quoting author Jason Pinter: “What annoys me is that the same names are always used: Godin, Konrath, Hocking, The Shack,” he said. “There’s a sense of people latching on to a couple of individuals who’ve found success and then those people get a lot of publicity. Then it’s, ‘They can do it; I can!’ There is a bit of a fallacy there; it’s not always the case.” I'd like to respond to that statement by saying that traditional publishing isn't all that differrent. Aren't the same names always used in traditional publishing as well? How often do we hear about the mid-level and first-time authors? Not very often, folks! And don't most aspiring authors see bestselling, traditionally published authors and think, They can do it; I can, too ...?

The article goes on to say that "marketing is key in a crowded marketplace". While solid marketing is certainly important, Publishers Weekly failed to mention anything about editing and book packaging, two of the most important aspects of self-publishing (and traditional publishing). You could self-publish a poorly edited/packaged book, devise a genius marketing plan, and all that would do is help your book to fail at a faster rate. You have to perfect your product and then focus on the marketing plan. A solid marketing plan coupled with a good product will succeed in self-publishing or traditional publishing. And let's face it, nowadays, traditional publishers look to most of their authors to do most of the marketing anyway!

PS: There are thousands of successful self-published authors. Maybe they haven't sold 50K or 500K units, but they're still making a profit!
 
Join the debate by commenting here.